Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 84
SECT. LXXXIV. The enlargement of our priviledges, proves not Infant Baptism as Mr. M. in his 5th. conclusion, would have it.
MR. Ms. 5th. Conclusion was, The priviledges of Believers under this last and best administration of the Covenant of grace are many wayes inlarged, made more honourable and comfortable then ever they were in the time of the Jews administration. For examining of which I set down something about priviledges, which Mr. M. grants, and saith, what's all this to the purpose? I reply, I told him it was to uncover the ambiguity of his speeches, in which all the strength of his conclusion lay.
To what I said, that if he meant his conclusion of priviledges of the substance of the Covenant of grace, it is to be denied: Mr. M. confessed they were the sameboth to Jews and Gentiles; but in respect of the administration I granted it, hee answers, 1. if this were granted it hurts not him, it's sufficient if the administration be now more comfortable to Believers and their children. To which I reply, that this grant enervates the argument to which this conclusion tends. For if the priviledges of the Covenant of grace belonging to the substance of it be not enlarged, but the same in substance to Jews and Gentiles, then no priviledges of the Covenant of grace are enlarged; for all the priviledges of the Covenant of grace belong to the substance of it, and to true believers or elect onelyonly, the visible membership and initial seal contended for, were no priviledges of the Covenant of grace, nor such as all believers could claim for their children, they were personal priviledges to the Church of the Jews, and belonging to that administration (as Mr. Ms. phrase is) or as I would speak to that peculiar national Church state which God vouchsafed that people, out of special ends and respect to that people, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, and consequently by denying those priviledges we deny no priviledges of the Covenant of grace to believers for their children, nor ascribe less grace to them then the Jews had. And if the administration be now more comfortable to believers and their children, it being in that Circumcision and the yoke of the Law are taken away, it follows, it is more comfortable to us, that no such thing as Circumcision was is put on our children. Mr. M. and Paedobaptists do grosly mistake, as if Circumcision did belong to Jewes and their Children because of their interest in the Covenant of grace, which neither is nor ever will be proved.
2ly. Saith Mr. M. If there be no more honourableness in those priviledges, which belong to the substance of the Covenant, how comes it to pass, that in your answers to those several texts which I and others bring to prove the enlargement of priviledges under this last administration, you interpret them of those priviledges which belong to the substance of the Covenant, or the spiritual part of it?
Answ. In those answers I do not so interpret those texts of those priviledges which belong to the substance of the Covenant, or the spiritual part of it as more honourable then the priviledges belonging to the substance of the Covenant of grace, or spiritual part of it now then to believers afore Christ, but say that the promises of the new Covenant, which is the Covenant of grace, are better then the promises of the Covenant at Mount Sinai, which was the Covenant of works.
Thirdly, saith Mr M. Seeing that under this last administration these priviledges are communicated not onelyonly with more clearness, but in greater abundance, I wonder you should say they are no more honourable and comfortable now then they were then, is not abundance of grace more honourable and comfortable then a little grace?
Answ. It is, but yet not priviledges belonging to the substance of the Covenant of grace. For this clearness and abundance comes not from the substance of the Covenant of grace, but to use his phrase, from the administration, in respect of which I granted they are many wayes enlarged and made more honourable.
But then saith Mr. M. This will serve our turn well enough; for this was a priviledge belonging to their administration, that their infants were under it as well as themselves; yeild that for ours and the controversie is ended.
Answ. The yeilding that the priviledges of believers under the N. T. are enlarged, more honourable, and more comfortable, in respect of the administration, will not serve Mr. Ms. turn, except it be yeilded of this particular, that the infants of Christian believers are visible Christian Churchmembers, and to be entred by Baptism, as well as the Hebrew infants of and into the Church of Israel by Circumcision, which would indeed end the controversie if yeilded, but was not so by me, who granted priviledges of believers now more enlarged in respect of the administration, because the preaching of the Gospel, which is that whereby the Covenant of grace is administred, is enlarged to Gentiles as well as Jewes, and more honourable, because preached by Christ himself, and more comfortable because in plain words without shadows.
Mr. M. adds. To have nothing in lieu of the administrations then as they were shadowes of the substance, which is Christ, is very right: But to say, it is our priviledge to have nothing in lieu of them as they were external Ordinances to apply Christ, is to say, it is our priviledge to have no Ordinances to apply Christ to us, and thereby to make us compleat in him, which were a most absurd thing to affirm.
Answ. Those external Ordinances applied Christ to them no otherwise then as shadows of the substance, which is Christ, nor doth Mr. M. in his Sermon, p. 10, 11. express their administrations of the Covenant of grace otherwise then as figures, signs, types, and sacraments of spiritual things: so that if we have nothing in lieu of them as they were shadows, but Christ, we have nothing in lieu of them as external Ordinances to apply Christ to us; nor did they make us compleat in Christ, nor is it absurd to affirm that no external Ordinances now do.
But saith Mr. M. Circumcision was indeed a part of that administration, and obliged them to the rest of that manner of administration, as Baptism doth now to ours; but did it not also belong to the substance? Answ. No. Was it not a seal of the righteousness of faith, of Circumcision of heart, &c. Answ. Abrahams was, not every ones Circumcision. Doth not the seal belong to the thing sealed? the conveyance and seal annexed to it are no part of the purchased inheritance, but do they not belong to it? Answ. They do, but not as of the substance of the thing sealed, or the inheritance purchased, or the Covenant whereby it is promised: but as the sign whereby the futurity of it is confirmed. Now surely he should use non sense, who should …erm the sign or seal the substance of the Covenant or thing promised, being neither essential nor integral parts of them, but onelyonly adjuncts, without which they may be or not be entirely.
To my saying, That 'tis so far from being a priviledge to our children to have them baptized, to have Baptism succeed in the stead of Circumcision, that it is a benefit to want it, God not appointing it; I answer (saith Mr. M.) then belike our priviledges of the Covenant of grace are so far from being enlarged by enjoying the Sacrament of Baptism, that it had been a priviledge to have wanted Baptism if God had not appointed it; and by as good a reason at least you might have said, that Circumcision was so far from being a privilegde to the Jews and their children, that it had been a benefit for them to have wanted it, if God had not commanded it: Sure that is a strange kind of priviledge, of which I may truly say, that it had been a greater be- to them who have it, to have wanted it, if the Donor had not commanded it.
Answ. Mr. M. by clipping my words hath misrepresented my speech; he hath left out, that Circumcision was a priviledge belonging not to the substance of the Covenant, but to the administration which then was; a priviledge to the Jews in comparison of the heathens, but a burthen in comparison of us, which was in that it signified Christ to come, the obligation of the law, for which reasons I judged it a great priviledge to us and our children, that they have neither it, nor any other thing in the place and u…e of it, but Christ manifested in the flesh, because if we had any thing in the use of it, Christ must be expected to come in the flesh, and Jesus denied to be the Christ, and we debtors to keep the whole law. And then I determined absolutely, that the want of infant Baptism is no loss to us and our children; not a loss in respect of duty, God having not appointed it; nor of priviledge, God making no promise of grace to be confirmed by it to the infants of believers; which last words being left out by Mr. M. the reason of my words is omitted, and my speech misrepresented; but thus set down Mr. Ms. exceptions appear but cavils. For he supposeth our priviledges of the Covenant of grace are enlarged by enjoying the Sacrament of Baptism; but I know not any priviledges of the Covenant of grace, but effectual calling, justification, adoption, sanctification, glorification; and if there be any other termed saving graces, or which accompany salvation, and to say these are enlarged by enjoying the Sacrament of Baptism, especially when administred to infants, is as much as to say it confers grace ex opere operato. And I grant for us to have wanted Baptism had been a priviledge, God not appointing it, nor promising any thing upon the use of it, nor declaring his acceptance of it, which is the case of infant Baptism. Sure I know none but would think it a burthen to be baptized, or be covered with water, though but for a moment, were it not God commanded it, and accepted of it as a service to him. And the like is true of Circumcision, the want of which, being so painfull, was a benefit, but for the command and promise of God signified by it. Such actions as are no way priviledges, but sins, without Gods precept and promise, it is better to want them then have them, or act them; such is infant Baptism; and if it be in the place and use of Circumcision, it is a heavy burthen, no benefit now, but a yoke of bondage.
I said Mr. M. was to prove either that Circumcision did belong to the substance of the Covenant of grace, and he answers, That Circumcision, though a part of their administration, did yet belong to the substance; not as a part of it, but as a means of applying it: Which speech how frivolous it is, is shewed before, sect. 25. p. 165, 166. and in this section. Or that the want of Circumcision, or some Ordinance in the place and use of it, is a loss of priviledge of the Covenant of grace to us and our children.
To this he saith, And I have also proved, that though it be a priviledge to have nothing succeed Circumcision, as it bound to that manner of administration, yet it is a priviledge to have somewhat succeed it as a seal of the Covenant, in as much as a Covenant with a seal is a greater benefit then a Covenant without a seal.
Answ. 1. If it be a priviledge to have nothing succeed Circumcision as it bound to that manner of administration, then it is a priviledge to have nothing succeed it in its use, which confirms my before speech carped at by M. M. 2. How vain the talk of Paedobaptists is about Sacraments being seals of the Covenant of grace, is shewed before sect. 31. 3. A Covenant with a seal is a greater benefit then a Covenant without a seal when there is more assurance and better estate thereby procured, but if as good assurance and estate be by a Covenant without a seal, it is no greater benefit to have a seal, then to have a Covenant without it. 4. There is a seal of the Covenant of grace, which succeeds Circumcision as the substance the shadow, and that is Christs Cirumcision, Col. 2.11. and his bloudshedding, Mat. 26.28. Heb. 9.15. &c. besides the seal of Gods spirit.
But saith Mr. M. the thing I was to prove was that our priviledges are enlarged, not extenuated; which appears, partly, in that we have freedome in what was burdensome to them in their manner of administration: which he meant of Circumcision by his alledging Act. 15.10. and thereby it is manifest that it is false which he said before, that Circumcision did belong to the substance of the Covenant as a means of applying it. For that speech doth imply, that the Covenant of grace could not be applied without Circumcision, for that which is of the substance of a thing, what way it is of the substance of it, is necessary to the being of that of which it is of the substance, otherwise it were a common accident, not of the substance of it: But without Circumcision the Covenant of grace might be applied, yea, according to Mr. M. it is and may be better applied, for otherwise our priviledges were not enlarged in being freed from it.
Partly, saith Mr. M. because our Covenant is established upon better promises, Heb. 8.6. To this I answered, the Covenant which had not so good promises was the Covenant at Mount Sinai, v. 9. which was not the Covenant of grace (for then it should have the best promises, there being no better promises then are in the Covenant of grace, nor could it be broken as that was, nor occasion finding f…ult as that did;) but it must needs be the Covenant of works as the Scripture doth plainly deliver, Rom. 10.5. Gal. 3.10, 12, & 4.24. Heb. 12.18. &c. and for this I alledged some of Mr. Ms. own words in his Sermon, p. 10. That the Law was added not as a part of Abrahams Covenant, that in that giving the Law there was something of the Covenant of works made with Adam in Paradise.
To this Mr. M. returns an answer, bemoaning me as running into a needless and erroneous digression; that he said indeed in his sermon, that the moral Law was added 430 years after the Covenant was made with Abraham, not as a part of that Covenant, but as a Schoolmaster to whip them to Christ; that they finding the impossibility of keeping the Law, might more earnestly long after Christ, exhibited in those shadows of rites and sacrifices, &c. But to say that this Covenant mentioned Heb. 8. was the Covenant of works, is a most erroneous doctrine; look into the Text, and you shall find that the Covenant which is there mentioned (which God finds fault with, and calls the first Covenant, in opposition to this better Covenant) had Ordinances of Divine worship, had a Sanctuary a Tabernacle, Priests and High Priests, Sacrifices, and other rites belonging to the administration of it. Sir, was this the Covenant of works? I hope you will not own it in your next.
Answ. It is, and I do still own it in the 43d. section of this part of my Review, and do requite Mr. Ms. pitty of me with the like bemoaning his ignorance, and, if I mistake not, the Assemblies errour about this in their Confession of faith, ch. 7. art. 5. I have looked into the Texts, and I find Mr. M. mistaken in the meaning of Gal. 3.24. perhaps following the unnecessary supplement in our last English translation, where is added [to bring us] which the Text hath not, but onelyonly the law was our boy-leader unto Christ, that is until Christ, as v. 23, 25. shew, and the meaning is plain, that the Apostle compares the Law to a teacher, or guide, or overseeer of a child in his minority to which the Israelites were confined, not in respect of its severity as Mr. M. makes it, to whip them to Christ, but as a teacher directing them though imperfectly by figures and types untill Christ, and faith in him were revealed. In like manner he mistakes when he saith, God finds fault with the first Covenant, the words being For complaining of them, Heb. 8 8. nor complaining or finding fault with it: and when it is translated v. 7. if the first Covenant had been faultless, it is not intimated as if it were faulty, but they were faulty, as vers. 8. shews, and the Covenant is termed non foreign not from the fault of it, but of them, which occasioned complaints of them, and therefore it were better translated without complaint or plaintless, then faultless. As for what Mr. M. alledgeth from Heb. 9.1. it no more proves that the Covenant at Mount Sinai was the Covenant of Gospel grace, and not of works, then because the tree of life was a symbole, type, or shadow of Christ, or our blessed estate in him, therefore the Covenant made with Adam in Paradise before his fall, was not a Covenant of works, but of Gospel grace; or Noahs Ark typified Baptism, therefore the Covenant with Noah, Gen. 9. was a Covenant of Evangelical grace. The Covenant of grace and of works are denominated from the promise and condition, not from Gods intent in some things commanded. When our Lord Christ, Mar. 10.19. told the young man of entring into life, he propounded the Covenant of works, yet he had another end therein, to wit, to try and discover him. Though the commands about the Sacrifices, High Priest, &c. were to typyfie Christ, yet the Law as it was propounded Covenant wise is manifestly declared to be the Covenant of works, Rom. 10.5. Gal. 3.10, 12. yea, Mr. Ms. own words prove it. For 1. where he cites the addition of the Law, Gal. 3.17. the Law is not restrained to the moral Law, but contains all the commands of the Sacrifices, &c. as well as the moral Law, which were added because of transgressions, not onelyonly to restrain them, but also for the expiating of some offences against the Law, so as to obtain a partial temporary forgiveness by them, as is manifest from Levit. 4. &c. Now the whole Law as delivered 430 years after the Covenant with Abraham, is contradistinct to the Covenant confirmed before in Christ, or the promises; therefore as it was a Covenant, Exod. 19.5, 8 it was a Covenant of works. 2. If it were not a part of the Covenant with Abraham, it was not the Covenant of grace, for such was Abrahams Covenant; but according to Mr. M. the Law was no part of that Covenant, Ergo. 3. That which was a Schoolmaster to whip, was not the Covenant of grace, for the Covenant of grace doth not terrifie or whip, but such is the Law according to Mr. M. Ergo. 4. That which was impossible to bee kept, was not the Covenant of grace, for that is never broken, but such was the Law or Covenant at Mount Sinai according to Mr. M. Ergo. 5. If in the giving the Law there was something of the Covenant of works made with Adam in paradise, then it was a Covenant of works, this he must grant, unless he will have a mixt Covenant, partly of grace and partly of works, which he opposeth in his answer to me about Abrahams Covenant; But in the giving that Law according to Mr. M there was something of the Covenant of workes made with Adam in Paradise, Ergo. 6. That which God finds fault with is not the Covenant of grace, but acc…rding to Mr. M. God finds fault with it, Ergo. 7. That which is termed the first Covenant in opposition to this Covenant is not the Covenant of grace; But such according to Mr. M. is that at Mount Sinai, Ergo. 8. The Covenant of grace is the better Covenant, But such was not that at Mount Sinai, according to Mr. M. Ergo. And truely I finde so many Protestant Divines terming the Covenant at Mount Sinai the Covenant of works, Perkins on Gal. 4.24. Pemble of Justification sect. 4. c. …. Cotton in his way of Congregational Churches cleered p. 46, 47. however in some respect hee will have it to have been a Covenant of grace, yet to the carnal seed …aith, it was a Covenant of workes, and proves it out of Paul; And adds, And so have the chiefest German Divines as well as Piscator and Polanus, t…ken the Covenant on mount Sinai to bee a Covenant of works. See Piscator Ezek. 16. observat. ult. in v. 60. and 62. and Polanus ibidem. and Synt. Th. l. 6 c. 33. Pisc. observ. e v. 6. Heb. 8. Dicson paraph. Gal 4.21, 22, 23, 24. Hebr 8.6, 9. Becman. Th Exercit. 5. p. 67 De saedere operum aut legis legimus, Exod 19.5. Deut. 5.2. 1 Reg. 8.21. Jer. 31.32. Heb 8.8, 9, 10. To whom I add my Antagonists Mr. Geree vindic. vindic. p. 9. Mr. Baill…e in his Anabaptism, pag. 141. and might do many more if it were necessary. This is enough to shew my doctrine to have been unjustly termed most erroneous by Mr. M. beeing Pauls, Mr. Ms. and others named, and therefore rightly owned by me.
To my words Exam. p. 10;. The next Scripture you thus express, The glory of theirs had no glory in respect of ours, 2 Cor. 3.10. But this passage is plainly meant of the Covenant at Mount Sinai, which is called the letter, v. 6 The ministration of death written and ingraven in stones so glorious, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance, which glory was to be done away, v. 7. The ministration of condemnation, v 9. which I suppose you do not understand of the Covenant of grace, and therefore it is impertinently alledged, Mr. M answers thus Sir, I wonder at your confidence in it: the Reader will easily discern that the whole scope of that Chapter clearly holds forth the preheminence of the Ministery of the Gospel above the Ministery of Moses his vailed Ceremonies: belike then with you, Moses Ceremonies were the Covenant of works.
Answ. I wonder that a man of such note should wonder at that of which the reason is given, and should take upon him to defend his own Sermon, and yet pass by my reason against his allegation without rehearsal or answer to it. In form it stands thus. That which was the letter which killeth, written in Tables of stone opposite to the New Testament, and the spirit which giveth life, the ministration of death, of condemnation by Moses, was the Law or Covenant of works, for it is onelyonly the Covenant of works, not that of grace how darkly soever delivered, of which these things can be said. But such was the Law or Covenant at Mount Sinai, Ergo. 'Tis true, it was the Apostles scope to hold forth the preheminence of the Ministry of the Gospel, but not barely above the Ministry of Moses vailed Ceremonies, for the Apostle prefers it before the Ministry of the Letter written and ingraven in stone, v. 3, 7. which was the moral Law, but above the Ministry of the whole Law, which comprehending all the commands Mosaical promulged Covenant-wise, and not singly Moses ceremonies, are by me termed the Covenant of works, and of this I am still confident.
Mr. M. skips over his impertinent allegation of Gal. 4.1, &c. and grants 1 Pet. 2.9. the spiritual part to belong onelyonly to the invisible Church, of which he denies not the whole v. to be meant, but onelyonly tels me, the whole nation of the Jews who had the honour to be termed holy, the children of God, Deut. 14.1. to have the adoption, Rom. 9.4. were not inwardly holy, or effectually called; which I readily grant, nor need I prove that Rom. 9.4. Deut. 14.1. were not priviledges which the visible Church of the Jewes enjoyed, having not denied it, but do expresly grant of Rom. 9.4. that it speaks of peculiar priviledges of the Jews, and prove thence the Jewes had some priviledges above us, and that the want of some priviledges they had may bee recompensed by some priviledges wee have, and thence gathered that is a feeble reason, from the Jewish priviledge of infant Circumcision, to prove infant Baptism; yet nothing that Mr. M brings, shews 1 Pet. 2.9. to bee meant of any other then the elect, nor that believers priviledges of the Covenant of grace are enlarged.
What he saith, that the comfortable manner of administration, and baptism are enlarged beyond Circumcision, to females, and all nations, is granted; but this groves not priviledges of the Covenant of grace to be enlarged to each believer now, although there are more believers now And for Gal 3.28. the words [there is neither male nor female] are not added to shew Baptism to be administred to whom Circumcision was not, for then [neither bond nor free] should be added for the same reason, which had not been right, for bondmen were circumcised formerly, as well as then baptized; But to shew a general equality of all believers in Christ, and therefore that passage is meant onelyonly of true believers.
Having shewed the impertinency of Mr. Ms. allegations for his 5th. conclusion, I answered the argument drawn thence for infant Baptism thus. 1. It is no good argument, God gave such a priviledge to the Jewes, Ergo we must have such a priviledge too, without Gods institution, but arrogant presumption to claim it. 2. That God gave many peculiar priviledges to the Jewes which we have not, as that Abraham was the father of the Faithfull, Mary the Mother of CHRIST; no family out of which CHRIST came but Abrahams, no nation that God hath promised after many hundred years rejection to re-ingraff besides the Jewes.
This Mr. M. endeavoured to prevent in his Sermon, by saying, These were personal priviledges belonging to some particular persons, not the whole Church of the Jewes, nor from the Covenant, but that to have infants belong to his Church, and to have the initial seal are, and if that we have it not for ours, the grace of God is straitned as to our posterity, which he counts absurd,
Hereto many things are replied by me. 1. That this was never a priviledge to believers, that their children should be in the Covenant of grace, God never made such a promise to every true believer, that he would be God to every believer and his natural seed, nor commanded that wee should repute the infants of believers to bee in the Covenant of grace. This hath been largely handled in my review of Mr. Ms. second conclusion. 2. That the pretended priviledge of a Believers infant childrens visible Churchmembership and title to the initial seal was not from the Covenant of Gospel grace, but from the peculiar dealing of God towards the nation of the Hebrews, out of peculiar reasons concerning that Churchstate which that people were to have untill Christ came, which is largely discussed in answer to Mr. Baxters second main argument Section 50, &c. of this part of the Review. 3. That even then when it was a priviledge to the Hebrew people, yet title to the initial seal was not common to all Believers children, not to those under eight dayes old, nor to females, nor to Proselites of the gate, as v. g. to Cornelius and his children. 4. That a priviledge there is to the Jewes, even to the Nation, and that arising from Gods Covenant of Gospel grace, that their posterity shall after some hundred years rejection bee re-ingraffed, and yet this not to any Gentile Believer, Prince, Preacher, or Martyr concerning their posterity, and therefore it is no absurdity to say, that in some respect the priviledges of the Covenant of grace, even of the substance of it, were more large to some of the Hebrew believers, then to the Gentiles in respect of posterity. 5. That the personal priviledges of Abraham, Mary, &c. were more truely pertinent to the Covenant of grace, though not common to all Jews, then infants visible Chvrchmembership and title to the initial seal. 6. That priviledges are meer arbitrary things, and that no reason why they are given to some and not to others, is needfull to be assigned besides the donors will. 7. That there is no more reason to say God grace is less now, because infants are not visible Churchmembers and baptized; then it is to say it is less because Christ is not descended from them, they are not Fathers of the faithfull. 8 That there were many priviledges which the Jews had which we have not, as those Rom. 3.1. & 9.4. to have a Temple, High-Priest on earth, &c. 9. That the want of these is abundantly recompensed by Christs comming without any particular thing of the same kinde in the stead of them, and therefore the want of Churchmembership and initial seal, may in like manner bee said to bee recompensed by his comming. 10. That the priviledge the children of Levi had, that their posterity should inherit the Priesthood, be maintained by the offerings of the people, be exempt from many burthens, is not now to Ministers children, nor any thing instead of it, and yet there is as much reason from the Covenant of Levi why Ministers children should have this priviledge, or somewhat instead of it as from the Covenant of Abraham, that our children should have Baptism in stead of Circumcision. 11. That young children were to eat the Passeover, and yet children of three or four years old are not admitted to the Lords Supper; and consequently after the rate of Mr. Ms. reasoning, the grace of God is straitned to us in respect of our posterity. 12. That the grace of God is not denied by not baptizing infants, for that would infer that it did give grace. 13. That by denying infants visible Churchmembership and Baptism, wee do not put them out of the Covenant of grace, or Church of God. 14. That Baptism is a duty rather then a priviviledge 15. That the use of it is rather for us to seal to God by it, that is, to testifie the repentance and faith of the baptized, then for God to us, as assuring by it the promise of Gospel grace. 16. That by baptizing an infant the parent is not assured that the child is in the Covonant of grace. 17. That through the want of infants visible Churchmembership, such as the Jews children had, wee have no loss of priviledge, but rather benefit, it being a state of imperfection. 18. That the want of the initial seal which the Jewes had is a benefit it having a burthen annexed to it. 19. That children have no less of the grace of God by their want of Christian visible Churmembership and Baptism then the Jewes infants had. 20. That parents have as much cause of comfort concerning their children without these as they have by them.
Mr M. p. 191. speaks thus; I think indeed it would take with no sober Christian thus to argue: The Jewes had it, therefore we must have it. But Sir to argue thus, God gave such a priviledge to the whole Church of the Jewes, that their infants should be reputed to belong to his Church, and have the initial seal. Therefore if hee have not granted to Christians that their infants shall also bee reputed to belong to his Church, and partake of the initial seal; then his grace to Believers under the N. T. is straitned as to their posterity. This argument appears so clear to me, that I must confess my self one of those dull ones, who know not how to deny the consequence.
Answ. Mr. M. hath ill recited my frame of the argument, which he rejects, by leaving out the chief words [without an institution]. Yet his new frame mends not the matter, but indeed is in effect all one with that which he saith would take with no sober Christian For [the Jewes] and [the whole Church of the Jewes] are the same, and [had it] and [must have it] expressed but the same which Mr. M. saith in more words: Nor doth he put in any thing of Gods will or institution to have it so, and therefore there is no more reason why his new frame should take with any sober Christian, then the former. Yet I shall view it as it is And 1. I deny the antecedent, God did not give the priviledge to the whole Church of the Jews, that their infants should have the initial seal, meaning it of all. 2. I deny the consequence, if by [grace] he mean Gospel grace; though infants of Christians be not reputed to belong to the visible Church, nor are baptized, yet the grace of the Gospel, that is, remission of sin, sanctification, adoption, glorification (which is that the Scripture makes Gospel grace) is not straitned to Christians as to their posterity. And the reasons of this denial are so plain to me, that I see no clearness in it, but should take my self dull if I should not discern its weakness. For the infant visible churchmembership being by reason of the peculiar national churchstate of the Jews, and circumcision of infants by reason of that which was proper to the Hebrew people, or policy, into which proselytes were admitted, not from the Covenant of grace common to all believers in all ages, it is easie to perceive that notwithstanding the altering of these (which God hath done,) the grace of God is as much now to our children as to theirs.
And here I think meet to answer Mr. Geree's argument as he frames it, vindic. Paedobapt. pag. 38. I do grant the sequel of the major, If children of Christian parents be excluded the Covenant, then are the priviledges of the N. T. more restrained: But that we exclude them from the Covenant of grace is false, we onelyonly deny the fictitious Covenant of Paedobaptists, that God hath promised to be the God of believers and their seed: nor is it any harsh divinity, or derogatory from the incarnation of Christ, to say, the Jews converted, whose infants had the birth priviledge of membership in the Jewish Church by natural generation, have not the priviledge of membership in the Christian, which is by spiritual regeneration. Nor doth the term [natural branches, Rom. 11.21, 24.] ever agree to Gentiles ingrafted, but that they are still branches of the wild Olive by nature, nor any of them in the true Olive without faith or election.
Nor doth Mr. Geree shew how he that denies baptism to infants denies the grace and mercy of God to us, if the grace of God be not tied to the Sacraments. Nor doth he shew that the priviledges of believers young children of 4.5, or 6 years old are not as much straitned if they who were admitted to the Passeover are not admitted to the Lords Supper. For though the reception into the Covenant and Church were sufficiently done in Baptism; yet they should not have the priviledge of growth and nutrition, which the Jews young children had by the Passeover, if Paedobaptists doctrine of the Passeover, and Lords Supper be right. But I return to …r M.
Mr. M. tels me, That though I say my instances of Abrahams, the Virgin Mary's and Jews priviledges not being now to us, do press his conclusion; yet that I speak no word to vindicate them from his answer, and therefore he gathers that by this time … see that now some personal priviledges▪ which a few of the Jews had, may be denied us, yet it makes nothing against his argument; but if the common priviledges which every one of them had were denied us, our priviledges were straitned.
Answ. Mr. M. doth not rightly say I spake not a word to vindicate my instances from his answer. For besides all or most of those twenty things either in my Exercit. sect. 3. or in my Examen, par. 3. sect. 3, 4, 10, 11, 12. and elsewhere, which do enervate his answer, I did directly reply, that neither was his priviledge of the initial seal to infants any other then personal, not a branch of the Covenant of grace common to all in Covenant, for which by vertue of the Covenant they might rely upon God; and for this I alledged the faithfull before Abraham, Melchizedek and Lot in his time, Job and Cornelius after his time; and therefore if the want of priviledges personal, as he terms them, doth not shew a straitning of Gods grace to us now, neither doth the want of infant visible Churchmembership and Baptism now shew it.
That of Melchizedek, Lot, and Job, Mr. M. saith, hath been often answered; but he hath no where shewed, that they were not in the Covenant of grace, or that by vertue of the Covenant they and their infants had right to the initial seal. And as for Cornelius, I never intended to prove, that he was a member of the Church of the Jews, nor that the priviledges and churchmembership of these proselytes of the gate were as honourable as those of the proselytes of the covenant, but that though he were in the Covenant of grace, yet he had not the priviledge of churchmembership in the Church of the Jews, nor circumcision; and therefore these priviledges, whatever they were, were not branches of the Covenant of grace common to all in Covenant for which by vertue of the Covenant they might rely on God, as Mr. M. asserted.
To what I said, to be Father of the faithfull, Mother of Christ, the priviledges Rom. 9.4. & 3.2. do as much belong to the Covenant of grace as Circumcision, Mr. M. answers nothing. Upon the words by me used, that the phrases Rom. 11.2…, 24. do seem to me to import, that the Jews had this priviledge to have their children reckoned in the outward administration, as branches of the Olive by their birth, which the Gentiles have not, (which speech I have altered in the first part of this Review, p. 64, 93.) Mr. M. asks, But if we Gentiles have it not, then are not we, I pray you, straightned in that particular? Answ. Yea. And I demand further, when we are graffed in and so naturalized with them, do we not partake of all the fatness or priviledges of the Olive with them? what Scripture ever denied it? Answ. That we by ingraffing are made natural branches, is denied▪ it is granted, we are partakers of all the fatness and priviledges of the Olive, to wit, spiritual graces, but not of the priviledges which the natural branches had by birth.
Mr. M. adds. I demand yet further, did the many ten thousands of Jews who were baptized in the Apostles days, by their comming under this best administration of the Covenant, and thereby kept their former growing in the Olive with advantage; did they thereby deprive their children of that which you say was their natural priviledge? if you think so, produce your evidence to prove it; if they were not, then it seems the Jews who believed in Christ, and kept their station, had a greater priviledge for their children then the Gentiles, who grow to together with them, have for their children.
Answ. The natural priviledge which I say the Jews had, was, that their children were in the visible Church Jewish, and their males to be circumcised; this by their Baptism they were deprived of, it being then no priviledge, after Christ exhibited in the flesh and preached, to be in the visible Church Jewish opposite to the Christian, and to be circumcised. Nor is it true, that the converted baptized Jews were in the Olive afore they believed in Christ, or kept their station in the visible Church Jewish, but were cast out, or that they should have had greater priviledges of the Covenant for their children, if they had continued in the visible Church Jewish, and been to be circumcised, then the Gentiles, whose children were not visible Christian visible churchmembers, nor to be baptized, as is abundantly proved by me from Scripture and otherwise in the foreparts of this Review.
To Mr. Ms. speech, as if we expunged infants out of the Covenant, it was answered, that it was a calumny, whereto he replies, But do not you avouch, that the infants of the Jews had this peculiar priviledge and birthright to be under the administration of the Covenant, which ours have not? Answ. I still avouch it in the sense the phrase seems to be taken for being Jewish visible churchmembers, and to be circumcised; but what he adds, which you know is the onelyonly thing controverted betwixt us, is manifestly false, it being never so much as questioned by me. He adds, May not I boldly say, that once the infants of all covenanters had this priviledge? Answ. No. May I not also exact of you to shew when and where this was taken away? Answ. It hath been often shewed, infant-male circumcision in the Synod, Act. 15.24, 28. infants churchmembership Matth. 28.19. were taken away, of which there is enough said before, sect. 50, &c. where infant visible churchmembership is proved to be altered, and yet infants not expunged out of the Covenant of the Gospel, as Mr. M. suggests. On the contrary, Mr. Ms. conceit as if the denying them visible churchmembership and baptism were putting them out of the Covenant of grace, I intimated to come too near the Popish opinion, of the necessity of infants baptism to their salvation, which I thought worth answering, sith it is all one in my conceit to say, that by denying baptism to them we put them out of the Covenant, and to say we damn them, it being certain none are saved but those who are in the Covenant of grace.
To that which he saith of our doctrine bringing discomfort to parents, in that we leave their infants in the state of infidels, account them actually to belong to the visible Kingdome of the Devil deny them the benefit of the promise I will be the God of thee and thy seed, acknowledge no more promise for them, then for the children of Turks I answer, these are meer calumnies sufficiently discovered to be so, Exam. par. 2. sect. 10. Apolog. sect. 14.