Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 36
SECT. XXXVI. Christianity is not by Birth, or the Church, nor the Church at Civill Corporations, as Mr. M. his equivocation in the use of the term Covenant of grace.
I Return now to Mr. M. whom I meet in his Defence, pag 119. passing over my six Arguments, and thus answering me, I joyn with you that it is an error to say, that all infants of believers indefinitely are under the saving graces of the Covenant, for although I find abundance of promises in the Scripture, of Gods giving saving grace unto the posterity of his people, and that experience teacheth us, that God uses to continue his Church in their posterity, and that Gods election is more among their seed than others, yet neither to Jew nor Gentile was the Covenant so made at any time, that the spirituall part and grace of the covenant should be conferred upon them all.
Which if true, then all have not interest in the saving grace of the Covenant, but so many as are elect, and then the baptisme of them all cannot be deduced thence: And for the conditionall covenant, it is either to all, or believers onelyonly, and baptism by it must be of all men or onelyonly believers. And for a third covenant, which they call outward, Mr. Baxter against Mr. Blake, pag. 66, 67, and elsewhere before cited, hath proved it to be a signment, and consequently there is no such to be sealed by baptism which may justifie baptizing of believers infants, as their priviledge. Nor, if the covenant of saving grace be not made to all believers seed, can the certainty of their salvation, dying in infancy, be thence gathered, nor is the promise of salvation made to a believer and his seed universally, then is the Anabaptists sentence no more bloody than Mr. Ms, then do Mr Bailee and others, in pri,nt and pulpit clamorously abuse them, accusing them of cruelty to infants of believers, & robbing parents of comfort concerning them, when in truth we are as favourable in our sentence of infants as they, and do give as much comfort as we truly can. As for the visible membership which he ascribes to infants of believers in the Christian Church, it will appear to be but a fancy in the examining what Mr. B. brings for it.
I objected, that if the child of a Christian be a Christian, then Christians are born Christians, not made Christians; whereas it was wont to be a current saying, Christiani non nascuntur sed fiunt. And if the Covenant of grace be a birth-priviledge, how are they children of wrath by nature? To this Mr. M. answers, It is his birth-right to be so esteemed, to be reputed within the covenant of grace, or a member of the visible Church, and alledgeth, Gal. 2.15. Rom. 11.21. Naturall branches, that is visible Church-members.
To which I say, were I to write as a Geographer, I should reckon the people of England old and young for Christians, but as a Divine I should not so speak: forasmuch as the Scripture no where calls any other Christians than disciples and professors of Christianity, Acts 11, 26. & 26, 28. 1 Pet. 4.16. The term [Jew by nature, Gal. 2.15.] is not as much as visible Church-member by nature, but by natural birth of that nation: nor is the term [Naturall branch, Rom. 11.21.] as much as visible Church-members by nature, but onelyonly descendents as branches from Abraham the root, that is the father by naturall generation. To be a visible Church-member I never took to be all one with; to be in the covenant of grace, but to be in the covenant of grace to be the same with a Child of the promise, which is expressly contra-distinguished to a child of the flesh, Rom. 9.8. The distinction of the outward and inward covenant is shewed before to be vain, and to serve onelyonly for a shift. I said in my Examen Christianity is no mans birth-right, and this I proved in that no where in Scripture is a person called Christian, but he that is so made by preaching.
I said, it is a carnall imagination, that the Church of God is like to Civill Corporations, as if persons were admitted to it by birth, which my words shew to be meant of the Church of Christians invisible, as well as visible: Nor is it to the purpose to prove the contrary that Mr. M. tells me, The Jewish Church was in that like Civil Corporations. For I grant it was, the whole nation being the same Politick and Ecclesiastick body, but this Church-state was carnall as their ordinances▪ whereas the Christian Church hath another constitution by preaching the Gospel. Mr. M. his cavill at my words, [In this all is done by free election of grace] had been prevented, if the following words had been recited and according to Gods appointment: nor is God tied, or doth tie himself in the erecting and propagating his Church to any such carnall respects, as discent from men, Christianity is no mans birth right.] Mr. M. shews not that God hath made it so in his Christian Church by any ordinance, that the child should be baptized with the parent, and therefore the objection still stands good.
The speech of Mr. Rutherf…rd ▪ are Mr. Cotton. and not to be reconc…led without making contradictories true. My answer bea…s not against the reason of the holy Ghost Gen. 17.7. Nor is it true but that the holy-Ghost makes this his argument why he would have the male children circumcised, and thereby reckon'd to be in Covenant with him, because their parents are in Covenant with him, but it is refused by Mr. M's. own Concession pag. 182. That the command was the formal reason of their being Circumcised. Yet this was not it which I called a carnal imagination, but the speech that it is in the church of God as in civil Corporations.
Mr. M. pag. 123 takes upon him to defend his speech, that in the time of the Jewes, if God did reject the parents out of the Covenant, the children were cast out with them. Against which I excepted that parents might be Idolatries, Apostates from Iudaism, draw up the foreskin again, and yet the children were to be circumcised, which he denies not but saith, Is it not evident in the Iewes at this day, that they and their children are cast out together.
I grant this, but this doth not make good his own assertion or overthrow mine. Then he tels me, If I would shew the falsity of it I should have given some instance; not of parents, who remain Gods people in external profession, though their lives might possibly be very wicked, but of some who were cast off from being visible professors, and yet their Infants remain in the visible society of the church, or of some who were visibly thus taken in, and their infants left out.
Answ. If he meanes this of the christian church it is easie to give instances of Infants of those who have turned Papists▪ Mahometans, excommunicate persons, who are accounted baptiz…ble by vertue of their Ancestors faith, or for defect thereof because they are of a chosen nation …s Mr. Rutherfurd affirms in his Temperate plea ch. 12. concl. 1. arg. 7· But Mr. M. his speech was of the time of the Iewes, and of their times before Christ he must needs say the same …less he will acknowledg Idolaters such as Ahab, Ahaz, &c. to have remained still Gods people in external profession. He concluds the reply to the fift Section of my Examen thus, But instead of this you still go on in your wonted equivocation of the word Covenant of grace taking it only of the Covenant of saving grace, not including the external way of administration with it.
Answ. I do confess I do so take the word Covenant of grace, not knowing any other Covenant of grace under the Gospel▪ but that which is of saving grace and concieving I should speak false, and nonsense if I should include in the Covenant of grace the external way of administration. But to charge me with wanted equivocation whom he accuseth elswhere for destinguishing so much, and equivocating in the use of a terme only one way …s a ridiculous charge, it being all one as to accuse a man of nonsense because he speaks good sense, to say I do equivocate because I do not equivocate. For he that useth a word onelyonly in one sense doth not aquivocate, equivocation being when a word is used in more senses than one. Falla…ia aquivocationis est quando ex unius vocis multiplici fignificatione sophisticè concluditur. Dr. Prideaux Hypomn. Log: tract: 4. c. 7. Sect. 2. Arist: Sophist: Ele…ch. l. 1. c. 3. reckons foreign or equivocation foreign, when with the same names and vowels we signifie not the same thing. which evidently proves Mr▪ M. guilty of equivocating from his own words. For in the first conclusion of his Sermon he distinguisheth the covenant of grace for substance (which he makes the Covenant of saving grace) from the externall way of administration, and yet blames me for not including it. And if he by covenant of grace include the way of externall administra…ion, how could he say in his Sermon, pag. 26. in the recapitulation of his two first conclusions, If the covenant be the same, and the children belong to it. Sure he will not say the way, of externall administration is the same: Wherefore from his own words he is deprehended to equivocate in the term Covenant of grace, in the first conclusion meaning by it the covenant of saving graces, and distinguishing it from the externall administration, but in the second conclusion when he saith, children belong to it, he understands not the inward but the outward covenant, not the covenant of saving grace, bu… the way of externall administration. And yet he dare not say, the …nfant children of Gentile Christian believers belong to it, that is the same way of externall administration, for that is in the Jewish Legall Rites. Asemblys Confess. of Faith, chap. 7. Art. 5. Therefore he sophistically equivocates in the use of that term, which is his frequent manner, and yet he is not ashamed to accuse me of that, of which his own words acquit me, as if he had learned the Artifice in scolding to call another that first of which himself might be detected. Nor is Mr. M. clear from equivocating in what follows, in which I find mu…h confusednesse and ambiguity.