Examination of Marshalls Sermon About Infant Baptism, Part 3 (1 of 4)

Examination of Marshalls Sermon About Infant Baptism · Part 3 (1 of 4)

p. 35Infant-baptisme cannot be deduced from holy Scripture.

PART. III. Concerning the Arguments from Scripture for Infant-baptism.

§. 1. Of the connexion between the covenant and the seale.YOu say, My first argument to …his, The Infants of believing parents are foederati, therefore they must be signati. They are within the Covenant of Grace belonging to Christs body, Kingdome, Family, therefore are to partake of the seal of his covenant, or the distinguishing badge between them who are under the Covenant of grace, and them who are not. The ordinary answer to this argument, is by denying that Infants are under the Covenant of grace, only some few deny the consequence, that although they were within the Covenant, yet it follows not that they must be sealed, because say they, the women among the Jews were under the covenant, yet received not circumcision, which was the seal of the Covenant.

p. 36They that deny the consequence of your argument, do it justly, for the consequence must be proved by this universall: All that are foederati, must be signati, all that are in the covenant of Grace must be sealed, which is not true. If it were true, it must be so, either by reason of some necessary connexion between the termes, which is none; for it is but a common accident to a man that hath a promise or a covenant made to him, that he should have a speciall sign, it may adesse, vel abesse a subjecto, it may be present, or absent from the subject: God made a speciall promise to Joshuah, that he should bring Israel into the Land of Canaan; to Phineas a covenant of an everlasting Priesthood, without any speciall sign or seal distinct from the Covenant; or else it must be so by reason of Gods will declared concerning the covenant of Grace, but that is not true. The promise made to Adam, which you confesse was the same in substance with the covenant of Grace, had no speciall sign or seal annexed to it; Noah, Abel were within the covenant of Grace, yet no speciall sign appointed them, therefore it is not Gods will that all that are foederati in the Covenant, must be signati, Sealed; if they had been signati, though they were foederati, it had been will-worship, God not appointing it to them. But you will say, all that are foederati should be signati, since the solemn Covenant with Abraham. But neither is this certain, sith we finde no such thing concerning Melchizedeck, and Lot, that lived in Abrahams time, nor concerning Job, that it's conceived lived after his time. You will say, but it is true of all the foederati in Abrahams family: but neither is that true, for male children before the eighth day, and women, though federate, yet were not to be signed. So that you see it is so far from being universally true, that all that are foederati, must be signati; that this is all which is true, all the male children of Abrahams family if they were eight dayes old, must be signed with the sign of Circumcision, which never will be able to prove the consequence of your Enthym…me according to true Logick.

But you say this receives an easie answer, the women were circumcised in the males, else God could not have said, that the whole house of Israel were circumcised in the flesh, else could not the whole Nation of the Jews be called the Circumcision, in opp…sition to all the world besides, who were called the V…circumcision.

'Tis true, the answer you give is an easie answer, because easie to be answered, but it is not a sufficient answer, to tak… away the exception p. 37against that universall proposition which must prove the consequence of your Enthymeme: The answer is, That women were circumcised in the males. You expresse it thus, pag. 28. where you repeat the same thing. This sign was actually applyed only to the males, yet the females were virtually circumcised in them: So this is your meaning. The women were not circumcised at all, yet that the males were circumcised, it was all one as if they had been circumcised in their persons. Now then let us scan this answer: the conclusion to be proved was, that Infants were to be sealed actually, not virtually. For if a virtuall sealing, or baptizing were all that you would prove, we might grant it; we may say infants are virtually baptized in their parents, and yet it may be unlawfull to baptize them actually; as it would have been unlawfull to have circumcised women actually, notwithstanding their virtuall circumcision. For it had been a will-worship, there being no command to do it. And indeed, to speak exactly, women were not circumcised virtually in the males; for he is said virtually to have a thing by another, as by a Proxie, or Attorny, that might receive it by himselfe, yet quoad effectum juris, according to the effect of Law, anothers receiving is as if he had received it: but so the males did not receive circumcision for the females, for the females might not be circumcised in their own persons, it had been their sin, if they had recieved it, God not appointing it: As it had been a sin for a childe to be circumcised afore or after the eighth day, in them that altered or swerved from the appointment of God: Now then this being the conclusion to be proved, That infants of believing parents are to be actually signed or sealed, the proposition must be meant of the same signing or sealing, and the Syllogisme thus framed. All that are foederati, must be actually signati. All the infants of believers are foederati, Ergo, All the infants of believers must be actually signati: If you do not thus frame your Syllogisme, but put in the pr…position virtually signed, and in your conclusion actually signed, your Syllogisme hath four termes, and so is naught. If you do not put actually signed in the conclusion, you conclude not that which you should prove. Now this also occasions me to note another fault in your argument, to wit, your concluding that which was not the question, which was not of any sign indefinitely, but of baptisme. You cannot say it is all one, for there are other signes of the Covenant besides baptisme, as circumcision of old, so the Lords Supper now. If then I should grant the conclusion, That infants of believers are to be signati, yet you would p. 38say they are not to be pa…takers of the Lords Supper, because it is not appointed for them. So in like manner if it were granted you, that infants of believers are to be signed, yet it follows not that they are to be baptized unlesse you can prove it is appointed to them; and the truth is, if it were granted, that children were foederati, yet it were a high presumption in us to say, therefore they must be signati, without Gods declaration of his minde, and if it were granted they must be signati, it were in like manner a high presumption in us to say, therefore they must be baptized, without Gods declaration of his minde concerning that Ordinance. Though it may be good to a… gue thus, it is Gods minde, therefore it is to be done; yet it is a great pride of spirit for us to argue, This should be, therefore God hath appointed it. As for the reasons you bring to prove that women were virtually circumcised in the males, they prove it not, for when it is said The whole house of Israel were circumcised in the flesh, the sense is not, every person is either actually, or virtually circumcised, but all the house of Israel is put for a great part, or the greater, or the most eminent, as it is frequently elswhere, 1 Sam. 7.3. Act. 2.36. Act. 13.24. as the whole Church is said to come together, when the most of them come together. And in the like manner the people of the Jews may be called the Circumcision, from the greater or more famous part, though the women be neither actually nor virtually circumcised. As a field of wheat may be called from the greater or most eminent part; as a Church of believers, from the greater or most eminent part, though the rest be neither actually nor virtually believers. And for your other reason, pag. 28. It was Gods expresse order, Exod. 12.28. No uncircumcised person might eat of the Passeover, which we are sure women did, as well as men, therefore they were virtually circumcised; Neither is this cogent. For, the Proposition is thus to be limited, pro subjecta materia, according to the subject matter. No uncircumcised person might eat thereof, that ought to be circumcised: Now women were not appointed to be circumcised at all, therefore they need not either actually to be circumcised, or to have any circumcised for them, or in their stead, which you mean (I think) by virtuall circumcision. Now I have dwelt so long on your Consequence, because I still stick at this, That no reason of ours in positive worship, can acquit an action that is performed, from will-worship. Nothing but Gods will, manifest in his institution, gathered by some command or example now in force, can do it. Neverthelesse, because p. 39I conceive the Antecedent of your Enthymem… is not true, though your Argument be overthrown by shewing the inv…lidity of your Consequ…nce, I shal proceed to examine your 5 Conclusions, by which you endeavor to make good both your antecedē …, & whole argument.

§. 2. Of the first conclusion concerning the identity of the Covenant of grace f…r subst…nce to Jews and G…ntiles.YOur first conclusion is this, That the Covenant of grace for substance, hath always bin one & the same to Jews and Gentiles.

This conclusion I grant: but on sundry passages in the p…oofe of it, I think it necessary to make these animadversions. 1. You carry the narration of the Covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17. as if it did only contain the covenant of Grace in Christ, whereas it is apparent ou… of the Text, that the Covenant was a mixt Covenant, consisting of temporall benefits, to wit, the multiplying of his seed, v. 6. the poss…ssion of Canaan, v. 8. the birth of Isaac, v. 16. and the spirituall blessings, v. 5 7. Yea, Cameron th…sibus de triplici foedere Dei, thesi 78. saith, That circumcision did primarily separate Abrahams seed from other Nations, sealed the earthly promise, it signified sanctification secondarily. And indeed this is so plainly delivered in the Scripture, that the Psalmist cals the promise of Canaa…, the covenant made with Abraham, Ps. 105.8, 9, 10, 11. He hath remembred his Covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations, which Covenant he made with Abraham, and his Oath unto Isaac, and confirmed the same to Jacob for a Law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant; Saying, unto thee will I give the Land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance. If you should say that these promises were types of spiritu…ll and heavenly things, the reply is, that though it be true, yet the things promised were but carnall and earthly, as the Sacrifices were but carnall things, though shadowes of spirituall. 2. When you say thus: "The manner of administration of this Covenant, was at first by types and shadowes, and sacrifices, &c. It had been convenient to have named Circumcision, that it might not be conceived to belong to the substance of the Covenant. But of this there may be more occasion to speak at pag. 35. of your Sermon. 3. Whereas, pag. 14. you place among the third sort of Abrahams seed, "Proselytes, that were selfe-justitiaries, carnall and formall professors: it behoved you to shew, where in Scripture they are called Abrahams seed, which I think you cannot. Yea, the truth is, you herein joyn with Arminius, who in his Analysis of the 9. to the Romans, makes this as the ground of his wresting that Scripture, that there is a seed of Abraham mentioned, Romans 4.9, 10. and Galat. 3. & 4. cap. p. 40Qui per opera legis justitiam & salutem consequuntur, Who follow after righteousnesse and salvation by the works of the Law. To whom Baine on Eph. 1.5. p. 139. answers. Beside, though the sons of the flesh may signifie such, who carnally, not spiritually conceive of the Law; yet the seed of Abraham without any adjoyned, is never so taken. But it is yet stranger to me, that which Mr. Blake hath, pag. 9. where he saith, That there yet remaines in the bosome of the Church, a distinction of the seed of Abraham, borne after the flesh, and after the spirit. And that now by vertue of being born after the flesh, some have a Church-interest. And applies that of Gal. 4 29. Even so it is now, to children born of believing parents after the flesh▪ as having there by title to Church-interest. Which passages are very grosse, though he makes this the medium of his fourth Argument. For, first, whereas the Apostle, by being born after the flesh, means not infants born of believing parents, but those that are under the covenant of Mount Sinai, that is, who sought righteousnesse by the law, and not by faith: Mr. Blake means, by being born after the flesh, birth by naturall generation of infants born of Christian parents. 2. Whereas he saith, that such are in the bosome of the Church; the Apostle saith, they persecute the Church, and are cast out. 3. Whereas …e makes such Abrahams seed, he therein joyns with Arminius, against the tru…h, and against the Apostle: for though the Apostle makes Ismael to be the son of Abraham, and speaks of him as born after the flesh, whom he typically makes to represent legall justitiaries; yet doth he not call Abrahams seed simply such justitiaries. 4. Whereas the covenant of grace is made the reason of baptizing infants, by alle…ging this place for baptizing of infants; To be born of Hagar, that is, to be in the covenant of works, should give a child interest into the Church of Christ. For my part, I can see no other consequence than this, of that cloudy argument. The rest of your explication of the first Conclusion, I let passe without any further animadversions, as being unwilling sectare minutias, to insist on small things, or to stand upon matters of expression, where I think you mean right, and your words are likely to be so taken.

§. 3. Of the meaning of the second Conclusion.YOur second Conclusion is this. Ever-since God gathered a distinct number out of the world, to be his Kingdom, City, household, in opposition to the rest of the world, which is the kingdom, city, and houshold of Sathan; He would have the Infants of all who are p. 41taken into Covenant with him, to be accounted his, to belong to him, to his Church and family, and not to the Devils.

This Conclusion you expresse so ambiguously, that it is a Cothurnus, a buskin that may be put on either legge, right or left, which should not have been in the main Proposition, upon which the whole frame of your Argument hangs. You say, The Infants of all who are taken into covenant with God, are to be accounted his; but you tell us not in what sense this is to be understood. For whereas persons may be said to be accounted his, either before God, or in facie Ecclesiae visibilis, in the face of the visible Church; 1. Before God, either in respect of his election from eternity, or his promise of grace in Christ, congruous to it; Or of their present estate of inbeing in Christ, or the future estate they shall have. 2. In facie Ecclesiae visibilis, persons may be said to be accounted God's, either as born among his people, and so potentially members of the Church, as being in a way to be in time actuall members of the Church of Christ, or who already enquire after God, and professe Christ, though they do not well understand the doctrine of Christian Religion, such as the Catechumeni of old were: or they are to be accounted his, in respect of actuall participation of Baptisme, and the Lords supper. 3. The accounting of them to be God's, may be either an act of science, or faith, or opinion; and that grounded on a rule of charity, of prudence, or probable hope for the future. You do not declare distinctly in which of these senses or respects,The answer of the Assembly of Divines to the reasons of the 7 dissenting br…thren, p. 48 praecog. 1. The whole Chur…h of Christ is but one, made up of the collection and aggregation of all who are called out of the world by the preaching of the Word, to professe the faith of Christ▪ the Infants of all who are taken into covenant with God, are to be accounted his; so that I am almost at a stand, what to deny, or grant. It cannot be denied, but God would have the infants of believers in some sort to be accounted his, to belong to him, his Church and family, and not to the Devils, (which expression I fear you use in this and other places, ad faciendum populum, to please the peopl….) It is true, in facie Ecclesiae visibilis, the infants of believers are to be accounted Gods, to belong to his family and church, and not to the Devils, as being in a neer possibility of being members of the church of God, by an act of opinion grounded on probable hopes for the future: But to make them actually members of the visible Church, is to overthrow the definitions of the visible Church, that Protestant writers give, particularly the Church of England, Art. 19. who make the visible Church a number of Chr…stians by profession: to make a member of the visible Church, …o whom the note of a member of the visible Church doth not agree, to make them visible p. 42members that are only passive, and do nothing, by which they may be denominated visible Christians. Yea, it will follow, that there may be a visible Church, which consists only of Infants of believers; for a number of visible members, makes a visible Church. It is also true, that we are not to account Infants of believers to belong to God, before God, in respect of election from eternity, or promise of grace in Christ, or present estate of in being in Christ, or future estate by any act of science or of faith, without a particular revelation: for there is no generall declaration of God, that the Infants of present believers indefinitely all, or some, either are elected to life, or are in the covenant of grace in Christ, either in respect of present in being, or future estate.

Mr. Cotton, [The Covenant of Gods free-grace, p. 15.] Fifthly, it is ordered in regard of the persons to whom it is given, Gal. 3.16. It was given to Christ, and in Christ to every godly man, Gen. 17.7. and in every godly man to his seed; God will have some of the seed of every godly man to stand before him for ever.

Against this passage I except, That when he saith, that the covenant of grace is given in every godly man to his seed; he expr…sseth himself in an unusuall phrase, so obscurely, that his meaning is not easily conceived. For when he saith, it is given in every godly man; If he mean it as he said in the words next before, in Christ to every godly man, that every godly man should be to his seed, as Christ to eve…y godly man; this were to make every godly man a mediator to his seed, as Christ is to eve…y godly man, w^ch would be blasphemy. If he mean that every godly man is a root of the Covenant, as Abraham, it is most false, sith this is proper to Abraham …lone, to be the father of the faithfull, Rom. 4.11. And the root that beares the branches, whether naturall, or ingrafted, Rom. 11.16, &c. And when he saith, it is given to his seed, he speaks indefinitely, which may be understood universally to all his seed, which is most manifestly false; or else particularly, as the words following seem to import: But neither is this true, as shall be presently shewed. Nor doth he tell us whether the covenant of grace be given to the godly mans seed, absolu…ely as his seed; which if he affi…m, then he must affirm the covenant of grace is given to all the seed of ev…ry godly man: for, Quatenus ipsum includes de omni, That which is said of any thing, as such, agrees to all that are such. Or whether it be given conditionally. Now it is true, that some promises do s…pp…se a condi…ion, as justification presupposeth believing: p. 43and if this be the meaning, the Covenant of grace is given to every godly man, and in every godly man to his seed, if they do believe, then it is no more then the Covenant of grace is given to every godly man, and then it is but trifling to adde, and in every godly man to his seed, sith nothing more is expressed, but what was said before, nor any thing convayed from the godly man to his seed; some promises have no condition, as the promise of writing Gods Laws in our hearts, for if any condition be put, we shall fall into Pelagianisme, that grace is given according to our merits. 2. That which he saith, he saith without any proofe at all, yea, contrary to the expresse words of the Apostle, Rom. 4.11, l2, 13. Rom. 9.6, 7▪ 8. Gal. 3.7, 14, 29. who limiteth this promise, Gen. 17.7. to the seed of Abraham, and the seed of Abraham he explains to be the elect, and believers only, whether of Jews or Gentiles, and those of the Jews that are in that Covenant, not to be in that Covenant, because Abrahams naturall seed (though God have more regard in his election and covenant of grace to Abrahams naturall seed, then to any other godly mans naturall seed that hath been since) but as his seed by calling. And for that which he saith, God will have some of the seed of every godly man to stand before him for ever, meaning this, as I conceive, of election and covenant of grace, or some state consequent upon these, it is but a bold dictate without proofe, imposing on Gods counsell and covenant, especially sith God hath declared so expresly after the Covenant, Gen. 17.7. That he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy. Exod. 33.19. whence the Apostle infers, Rom. 9.18. an unlimited freedome notw…thstanding his Covenant to Abraham, to shew mercy on whom he will, any other being passed by: and therefore that promise w…s made good to Abraham in the calling of the Gentiles, Rom. 9.24. Rom. 4 16, 17. yea, John Baptist saith, That God could raise up children to Abraham out of stones, Mat. 3.9. And for the thing it selfe, it is not true, That God will have some of the seed of every godly man to stand before him for ever. For millions of godly persons die childlesse, as Abel, &c. millions that have children, yet their posterity are rooted up. Were there not other godly persons from Seth to Noah, besides th…se mentioned in the Genealogy Gen. 5. yet it is certain that none of their seed stood before God at the time of the Flood but Noah, and some of his. Is it not more likely that none of Elies. children, or Samuels stood before God in Mr. Cottons sense? Besides, if that which Mr. Cotton saith were true, how is it that the Candlestick p. 44is removed quite from some people, and the naturall branches broken off, and the branches besides nature, even of the wilde Olive, graffed into the true Olive? Then, suppose a godly man have but one childe, that childe must infalliby stand before God. It is said indeed Jer. 35.19. and Mr. Cotton seems to allude to it, Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me for ever. But this standing before God is not meant of election to eternall life, and the covenant of grace, but of preservation in the destruction of Jerusalem, and being after the Captivity of Babylon Scribes, as Junius annot. in Jerem. 35.19. gathers from 1 Chron. 2.55. and for ever is in many places meant of a temporall duration for some ages. This digression will not be thought unnec…ssary by those that know how apt many are to swallow down such mens dictates without examination. But I proceed.

Nor are we to account Infants of believers by an act of opinion according to a rule of prudence, by which the Sacraments are to be administred, to belong to God in facie Eccl…siae visibilis, in respect of outward profession, as the Catechumeni, or participation of baptisme and the Lords Supper, as compleat Christians. And as for being accounted by an act of opinion according to a rule of charity to belong to God, it hath no place in this matter. For judging of mens present estate by a rule of charity, is when men judge of others the best, that their words and works may be interpreted to signifie, according to that of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 13.7. Charity believes all things: But infants do not shew any thing by words or works that may signifie their thoughts, and therefore in respect of them, whether they be good or bad, we can have no judgement, but must only suspend our act of judging them. But if by judgement of chariry be meant, as some expresse it, conceiving a thing to be so, because we know nothing to the contrary, then are we to conceive all infants to belong to God, yea almost all men in the world by the judgement of charity, because for ought we know to the contrary, all may be elected. Wherefore I must either here stop, or else gather your meaning by your expressions in other parts of your Sermon, and the expressions of those with whom I conceive you concurre in opinion; and therefore if I should not exactly light on your meaning, you are to thank your selfe, but not to blame me. This is then that which I conceive you meane. That in the promise which God made to Abraham, That he would be his God, and the God of his seed, p. 45as this promise comprehends Evangelicall blessings, the infants of believers are comprehended, and therefore they are foederati, taken into Covenant with their Parents. And yet I am at a stand, whether, when you say they are taken into Covenant with their Parents, and that the promise, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, belongs to them in respect of Evangelicall blessings, you mean it in respect of saving graces, or the priviledge of outward Ordinances, though the latter is no more true then the former, yet it is lesse dangerous, and sometimes your expressions incline me to think you mean no more, especially that which you say pag. 13. Secondly, All true believers are Abrahams seed, Gal. 3.29. These only are made partakers of the spirituall part of the Covenant, neverthelesse, because the most of your expressions carry it thus, that you conceive that God hath promised according to the Covenant with Abraham, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, to be the God of the naturall seed of believers, in respect of the saving benefits of the Covenant of grace in Christ, and your proofes tend that way. I shall oppose that assertion. But that I may not be thought to wrong you, or cum larvis luctari, to fight with a vizour, the reasons why I conceive you mean, or at least your readers are likely to take your meaning so, are these, you say pa. 8. My first argument is, They are within the Covenant of grace belonging to Christs body, kingdome, family, therefore are to partake of the seal of his Covenant, or the distinguishing badge between them who are under the Covenant of grace, and them who are not. Pag. 9. You expresse your second conclusion thus. God will have the Infants of such as enter into Covenant with him, to be accounted his, as well as their Parents: You set downe the substance of the Covenant of Grace. pag. 10. to consist in those benefits, and then you often say, The children are in the Covenant of grace with their believing Parents: and pag. 31. You reject the asserting to the Infants of believers priviledges peculiar to some, and assert the priviledges belonging to the Covenant of grace, which all that are in Covenant may claime, which you say, God made to Abraham, and all his seed. Besides, your Texts you produce tend to prove that, as Acts 2.39. &c. and you say, pag. 15. They shall be made free of Gods City, according to Abrahams Copy, I will bee thy God, and the God of thy seed, which in respect of us Gentiles, can have no other meaning, then in respect of justification, sanctification, and salvation, & p. 16. speaking of Zacheus, you p. 46say, Let him professe the faith of Christ, and the Covenant of salvation comes to his house, for now he is made a son of Abraham, that is, Abrahams promise now reacheth him. And pag. 26. The proving of the two first conclusions gains the whole cause, if the Covenant b… the same, and children belong to it, then they are to be owned as Cov…nanters. pag. 37. The whole Covenant of grace, containing all the promises, whereof this is one, viz. That God will be the God of believers, and of their seed; that the seed of believers are taken into Covenant with their parents. This is a part of the Gospel preached unto Abraham, and the Apostles were to baptize them, that is, to administer baptisme as a seal of the Covenant, to all those who received the Covenant. And Master Vines in his Sermon, pag. 19. cals them confederates with their believing parents, and Mr. Blake pag. 16. God promis…s to be a God in Covenant to his and their seed, which people in Covenant have also a promise from him of the Spirit. Nor do I doubt but that your meaning is agreeable to the Directory, which directs the Minister at Baptisme to teach That the promise is made to believers, and their seed, which promi…e, what it is, appears by the words following make this baptisme to the infant a seal of adoption, remission of sins, regeneration, and eternall life, and of all other promises of tht Covenant of grace. And the truth is, although in some passages, (especially Mr. Blake) you speak more warily, as if you would avow onl… a Covenant for outward priviledges, as when Mr. Blake saith pag. 14. This birth-right intitles only to outward priviledges, yet in applying thos… Texts, G…n. 17.7. Act. 2.39. Mat. 19.14. and others, you are inforced to expresse your selves, as if you meant the Covenant whereby salvation is promised by Christ, as knowing that those Texts you produce, do otherwise speak nothing to the purpose, bring pl…inly meant of saving gr…c…s; and the Covenant now of the Gospel is not of outward priviledges, as the mixt Covenant made with Abraham wa…, and therefore if there be not a promise of saving graces to Infants, they are not now under an Evangelicall Covenant of free grace, and that baptism seals only the promise of saving grace, remission of sins, &c. and therefore if there be not a promise of saving grace to infants in vain are they baptized, the seal is put to a blank, as some use to speak: And if that there be no covenant of saving grace, to no end is so much weight laid on this for the comfort of parents, and such an Odium cast on Anti-paedobaptists for denying it, and therefore I see not but your assertion, if you do not revoke your plea for paedobaptisme, p. 47must be conceived thus: That God hath made a Covenant or promise of saving grace in Christ, not only to believers, but also to their seed, whom you baptize for this reason. The Author of the little book intituled Infants baptizing proved lawfull by Scripture, pag. 3, 4, 5. Int…rpr…ts the Covenant, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, thus, I will be the God of every believer, and the God of every believers seed in respect of outward Church-priviledges, to be members of the visible Church, partakers of baptisme, &c. to the naturall seed, in respect of inward and meerly spirituall, to none but true Saints, in whom the new creature is formed. But I say againe [Abraham] or [thee] in that Covenant is put only for Abraham, and not for ev…ry believer. For sith the Apostle plainly interprets believers to be Abrahams seed, Rom. 4.13, 16. Gal. 3.29. to say Abraham is put for any believer, makes the speech to have an inept tautology, I will be the God of Abraham, that is, of every believer, according to that Authors sense; and I will be the God of thy seed, that is, of every believer, according to the Apostles sense. And that in that Covenant should be a promise to us believing Gentiles, That to our seed should be conferred visible Church-priviledges, to be members of the visible Church, partakers of baptisme, &c. is but a dream, the Scripture no where explaining it so, and being so understood, were not true, there being many of the seed of believers, that neither de facto, in event, nor de jure, of right, have those visible Church privil…dges, to be members of the visible Church, partakers of bap…isme, &c. and if there were such a promise, God could not take away the Candlestick from the posterity of believers, which he threatens, Rev. 2.5. George Philips, vind. of Infant bapt. p. 37. Cals the Covenant, an offer to become their God, and all along supposeth infants under the Covenant, because grace was offered in circumcision; and they sealed, because it was off…red. But the Covenant is not an offer, but a promise; nor is a man under the Covenant of grace, or in the Covenant of grace, because an offer is made, for then refusers might be said to be under the Covenant, but because God hath promised, or performed to them. And if infants are to be bap…ized (which is his ground) because the Covenant is offered to them in baptisme, then in effect, it is to argue, they are to be baptiz…d, because they are to be baptized, which i… nugatory. I h…ve discussed this matter more fully, that I may shew you how doubtfull your speeches are, and give you the reason, why I set down this as your conclusion to be denyed by me. That the p. 48Covenant of saving grace in Christ, expressed Gen. 17.7. In th…se words [I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed] is made to believers and their naturall seed. Now I will shew you the reason why I take this to be an error, and that very dangerous.

§. 4. That the Covenant of grace is not made to believers and their seed.MY first reason is taken from the Apostle, Rom. 9 6. &c. in which place this very Text that is now the apple of our contention, was brought into question; Beza thus expresseth the question. Qui fieri possit ut rejectus sit Israel, quin simul …onstituendum videatur irritum esse pactum Dei cum Abrahamo, & ejus semine sancitum. I deny not, but there was also some other promise included in that objection, to wit, some promise made to Israel, or the house of Israel, probably that Jer. 31.33 36.37. for so the words ver. 6. They are not all Israel which are of Israel, do intimate.

But without question the promise made to Abraham, Gen. 17.7. was one which was included in that objection. Beza, Twisse, Ames, and others, answering Arminius, call it the Covenant of God with Abraham, which was that Gen. 17.7. and the very phrase of Abrahams seed,Twisse vind. Grat. cont. Armin. lib. 1. pa. 1. digr. 7. Hujus autem promissionis (Gen. 17.7, 8.) fides confestim apparet in discrimen ad…uci ex rejectione Judaeorum & exclusione eorundem ex foed…re Dei, cum fint ex Abrahamo s…cundum carnem prosminati; sic inquit apparet primas rerum facies intuentibus. Walae cont. Corvin. cap. 15. pag. 377. Apostolus ostendit, ideo verbum foederis & divinarum promissionum Israelitis factarum, non excidere aut irritum fieri, licet magna Judaeorum pars esset incredula, quia promissiones illae foed…ris factae sunt a Deo, non iis proprie qui ex semine Abrahami secundum carnem erant orituri, sed iis qui secundum election…m gratuitam Abrahami familiae ex vi di…ina promissionis erant inserendi.Gen 17:7Gen 17:8 In Isaac shall thy seed be called, ver. 7. The children of the promise are counted for the seed, ver. 8. Sarah shall have a son, ver. 9. do evidently shew, that the promise objected to prove, that if the Jews were rejected from being Gods people, then God failed in making good his word, was, that promise to Abraham, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed. Whereto I may adde, that the Answerers of Arminius, and the cited Remonstrants, to wit, Baine and Ames do say, It was the word of promise, not of the Law, as Arminius conceived, for the word of promise saith Ames, Animadv. in Remonstran. script. Synod. de praedest. cap. 8. Sect. 4. Is distinguished and opposed to the words of the Law, Gal. 3.17, 18. Now the word of the promise there, is to Abraham and his seed, ver. 16. and this is there called by him verbum foederis, the word of the Covenant. Now let us consider how the Apostle answers it. He denies that Gods word made to Abraham did fall, though the Jews were rejected: because that promise, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, as it p. 49cōprehended saving grace, was never meant by God of all Abrahams posterity, or of any barely, as they were descended from Abraham by natural generation, but of the Elect, whether descended by natural generation from Abraham, or not. And this is apparent both from the words, v. 7. Neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children, but in Isaac shall thy seed be called, &c. v. 8. It is expounded thus:The new Annotations on the Bible, Annot. on Rom. 9.8. The children of the flesh, &c] Not all they who are carnally born of Abraham by the course of nature are the children of God to whom the promise of grace was made; but the child…en of promise, that is▪ those who were born by vertue of the promise, those who by Gods speciall grace were adopted (as Isaac by a speciall and singular promise was begot by Abraham) they only are accounted for tha… seed mentioned in the Covenant, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed.Rom 9:8 That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the child…en of God, but the children of the promise are counted for the seed; Whence it is apparent, that the same are not alwayes the seed by calling, which are the seed of Abraham by naturall generation, and that the children of the flesh are not the same with the children of promise, and that the Apostle conceived this the right way of answering those that objected, the falling of Gods word upon the rej…ction of the Jews, by restraining the promise, of being God to Abrahams seed, only to the Elect, whether of Abrahams naturall posterity, or not, with so little respect to any birth-right priviledge, that he not only rejected Ismael, and took Isaac, but also loved Jacob, and hated Esau, by prophesie declaring his minde, the elder shall serve the younger, and in this the Apostle acquits God from unrighteousnesse, in that He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardens, notwithstanding his promise made to Abraham and Israel, or any birth-right priviledge they could claime. That I may not be thought to go alone in this, I will recite some others concurring with me in this, Dr. Twisse vind. Grat. l. 1. part. 3. digr. 2. Argumentū Apostoli ad probandū foedus dei initū cum Abrahamo, non omnes Abrahae posteros fimbria sua comprehendere sic simpliciter instituendū esse censemus: Esavus & Jacobus erant ex posteris Abrahae, at horū ut…ū que non cōplexus est Deus foedere suo, cum Abrahamo inito: ergo non omnes posteros Abrahami. Probatur autem Deum non complexū fuisse utrū que foedere gratiae, quiae non complexus est Esavū majorē, sed Jacobū minorē. Bain on Eph. 1.5. p. 138. He answereth the assumption of the latter Syllogism, by distinguishing of Israel & children, denying that al Israelites are that Israel to which Gods word belongeth, or that all Abrahams seed are those children whō God adopted to himselfe, v. 7. but such only who were like Isaac, first begotten by a word of promise, and partakers of the heavenly calling. p. 50The reason is to be conceived in this manner, the rejecting of such who are not the true Israel, nor belong not to the number of Gods adopted children cannot shake Gods word spoken to Israel and Abrahams seed; but many of the Israelites, and Abrahams seed, a…e such to whom the word of God belonged not, ergo, the word of God is firm, though they be rejected. Pag. 139. A childe of the fl…sh being such a one who descendeth from Abraham according to the flesh. For it is most plaine, that these did make them thinke th…mselves within the comp…sse of the word, Estius annot. ad Gen. 17.7. Colligit hinc Calvinus …o ipso quo quis est semen Abrahae ad cum pertinere pr…missionem Abrahae factam: sed responsio manifesta pr…missionem illam de benedictione spirituali intellectam, non ad carnale semen Abrahaemi pertinere, sed ad spirituale, quemadmodum eam ipse Apostolus interpretat… est, Rom. 4 & 9. Si enim carnale semen intelligas jam ad neminem ex gentibus illa promissio pertinebit sed ad solos ex Abraham & Isaac secundum carnem genitos. Paraeus Comment. in Mat. 3.9 Docet quoque promissiones Dei non alligatas esse carnali origini: sed pertinere tantum ad posteros fideles & spirituales. Non enim sunt filii Abrahae qui secundum carnem sunt ex Abraham, sed qui secundum spiritum.Gen 17:7Rom 4Matt 3:9because th…y were Israelites, and the seed of Abraham, in regard of bodily generation propagated from him; and Arminius doth decline that, in objecting and answering which, this discourse consisteth. Beside that, though the sons of the flesh may signifie such who carnally, not spiritually conceive of the Law, yet the seed of Abraham without any adjoyned, is never so taken. The assumption which is to be proved is this, That many of Abrahams seed are such to whom the word belongeth not. The word which belonged not to Ishmael and Esau, but to Isaac and Jacob only, and such as were like to them; that word belonged not to many of those who are the seed of Abraham and Israelites: But the word shewing Gods love, choice, adoption, blessing of Israel and Abrahams seed, belonged not to Esau, Ishmael, and such as they were, but to Isaac and Jacob.

Amesius Animadv. in Remonstr. citat. scripta Synod. de Prae…estin. cap. 8. §. 6. thus expresseth the Apostles scope. Multi sunt ex semine Abrahami, ad quos verbum promissionis non spectat, ut Ismael, & Ismaelitae, si autem multi sunt ex semine Abrahami, ad quos verbum promissionis non spectat, tum rejectio multorum Judaeorum, qui sunt ex semine Abrahami non irritum facit verbum promissionis. Out of all which I gather, if the naturall posterity of Abraham, were not within the Covenant of grace, by vertue of that promise Gen. 17.7. then much lesse are our naturall posterity: but the former is true, Rom. 9.6, 7, 8 9, 10, 11, 12. therefore the latter is true: and the contrary, delivered in that which I conceive your …ssertion, false. A second reason is this, The Apostles Exposition of the promise shews us p. 51best what is the meaning of it, but the Apostle when he expounds the promise of God to Abraham, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, as it was a promise of saving grace, to wit, justification, and life, expounds it as belonging to Abraham, not as a naturall Father,Ainsworth ann. on G…n. 12.7. Thy seed] That is, to all the children of promise (the elect) who only are cou…ted Abrahams seed, Rom. 9.7, 8. and in Christ are heirs by promise, as well the Gentiles as the Jews. Gal. 3.26.28.29. Ames. Coron. art. 5. cap. 2. Seminis etiam inculcatio solos electos & efficaciter vocatos notari docet Apostolo sic hunc titulum interpr…tante, Rom. 9.8. Gal. 3.16. & 4.28.Rom 9:7Rom 9:8Gal 3:26Gal 3:28Gal 3:29Gal 3:16Gal 4:28 but as Father of the faithfull, whether of the Jews, or the Gentiles, and his seed, not his naturall, but his spiri…uall seed, Christ, and believers, Rom. 4.11, 12, 13, 14 15 16, 17. Gal. 3.7.16.29. Whence George Downham of Justification lib. 6. cap. 6. §. 4. speakes thus. The other promises concerning his seed are two: The former concerning the multiplication of his seed, that he should be a father of a multitude of Nations, namely, in Christ, and that he would be a God to him and his seed, he doth not say to seeds, as of many, but as of one, to thy seed, which is Christ, Gal. 3.16. that is, Christ mysticall, 1 Cor. 12.12. Containing the multitude of the faithfull in all Nations, both Jews and Gentiles. This promise therefore implyeth the former, that in Christ, the promised seed, Abraham himselfe, and his seed that is, the faithfull of all Nations should be blessed: And in confirmation of this promise, he was called Abraham, because he was to be a Father of many Nations, that is, of the faithfull of all Nations, for none but they are accounted Abrahams seed, Rom. 9.7.8. Gal. 3.7.29. Thus he opens the Apostles meaning, and thus frequently do Protestant Divines in their writings. Now if only believers are in that promise, as it was a promise of saving grace, then it is not made to the naturall posterity, as such, of any believer, much lesse of us Gentiles.

My third reason is this. The Covenant of grace is the Gospel, and so you call it, pag. 37. when you say, This is a part of the Gospel preached unto Abraham. Now the Gospel preached to Abraham, the Apostle thus expresseth, Gal. 3.8, 9. And the Scripture foreseeing, that God would justifie the heathen through faith, preached before the Gospel unto Abraham, saying, in thee shall all Nations be blessed: so then, they which be of faith, are blessed with faithfull Abraham, and ver. 11. But that no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God, it is evident, for the just shall live by Faith, it is Hab. 2.4. By his faith. And generally, when Divines distinguish of the Covenant of grace, and of workes, they say the condition of the Covenant of grace is faith. They then that say the Covenant of grace belongs not only to believers, but also to their naturall children, whether believing or not, these adde to the Gospel, and the Apostle saith of such, Gal. 1.8, 9. Let him be accursed.

p. 52Fourthly, I thus argue: If God have made a Covenant of grace in Christ, not only to believers, but also to their seed, or naturall children, then it is either conditionally, or absolutely; if conditionally, the condition is either of works, and then grace should be of works, con…rary to the Apostle, Rom. 11.8. or of Faith, and then the sense is, God hath promised grace to b…lievers, and to their seed, if believers, that is, to believers, and believers, which is nugatory. If this Covenant of grace to believers seed be absolute, then either God keeps it, or not: if he do not keep it, then he breaks his word, which is blasphemy; if he do keep it, then it follows, that all the posterity of believers are saved, contrary to Rom. 9.13. or if some are not saved, though they be in the Covenant of grace, there may bee Apostasie of persons in the Covenant of grace, by which the Arguments brought by Mr. Prynne, in his Perpetuity, and others for perseverance in grace are evacuated, and Bertius his Hymenaeus desertor justified. The truth is, generally to be in the Covenant of grace, and to be elect, and to persevere in grace, are meant of the same persons, according to the Apostles doctrine, Rom. 9.7, 8. &c. and the common doctrine of the Contra-Remonstrants. And on the contrary, Bertius in his book de Apostasia sanctorum, pag. 79. among other absurdities which he reckons as consequent on their opinion that deny Apostasie of Saints, puts this as the seventh. Baptismum non obsignare certo in omnibus liberis fidelium gratiam Dei (quum inter illos quidam sint etiam antecedente decreto Dei ab aeterno absolute reprobati) ac proinde dubitandum esse fidelibus de veritate foederis divini, Ego sum Deus tuus, & seminis tui post te. And when this was urged by the Author of the Synod of Do…t, and Arles reduced to the practise, Part. 3. Sect. 6. in these words. For to every person whom they baptize, they apply the promises of the Covenant of grace, clean contrary to their own doctrine, which saith, that they nothing belong to the Reprobates of the world, Dr. Twisse answers, that however in the judgement of charity they take all Infants brought to be baptized, to be elect, yet the promises of the Covenant of grace do indeed belong only to the El…ct, which he proves at large, by shewing that there are promises of the Covenant of grace, as of regeneration, circumcising the heart, writing the Law in their hearts, Jer. 31.33. which must needs be absolute. For no condition can be assigned of performing these promises, but that it will follow, That grace is given, to wit, the grace of faith, according to mens workes, which is plaine Pelagianisme. p. 53Whence he concludes. Now then who are they on whom God should bestow faith and regeneration, but Gods Elect? And accordingly Baptisme as it is a Seale, and assurance of performing this promise of Justification and salvation unto them that believe, so it is a seale and assurance of the promise of circumcising the heart, and regeneration only to Gods Elect. And after pag. 192. VVe are ready to maintaine, that all who are under the covenant of grace, are such as over whom sin shall not have the dominion, Rom. 6.14.

Besides, he that shall heare you preach, that the children of believers are in the Covenant of grace, and that they that are in the Covenant of grace cannot fall away, may be apt to conceive himselfe within the Covenant of grace without repentance and faith, and that he shall be saved without obedience, and so lay a ground-work for Antinomianisme, and consequently Libertinisme. And may not on the other side believing Parents, when they see their children vicious, and ungodly, doubt whether they themselves be true believers, because they see not their ch…ldren in the Covenant of grace; and so while you think to comfort parents about their children, you may create great discomfort concerning themselves.

Lastly, if this were true, that the Covenant of grace is a birth-right priviledge, then the children of believers are children of grace by nature, for that which is a birth-right priviledge, is a priviledge by nature: and if, as Mr. Blak… saith, pag. 6. of his book, Christianity is hereditary, that as the childe of a Noble man is Noble, the childe of a freeman is free, the childe of a Turke is a Turke, of a Jew a Iew, the childe of a Christian is a Christian; then Christians are born Christians, not made Christians, and how are they then children of wrath by nature? which whether they may not advantage Pelagians, and denyers of Originall sin, it concernes those that use such speeches, to consider.

But the Author of the writing entituled Infants baptizing proved lawfull by Scripture, mentions other promises besides that Gen. 17.7. to wit, Deu. 28.4. Deut. 30.2.6. Isa. 44.3. Isa. 59.21. Exod. 20.6. Psal. 112.2. and such like. To all which the answer is plaine, if men would conceive it. 1. That according to the Apostles own determination, Ro. 9▪ 7, 8. these promises as they contain such things as accompany salvation, must be restrained to the Elect, whose children soever they be by naturall generation, and this is agreeable to our Saviours applying the promise Isa. 54.13. to them that are given of his Father, Iohn 6.45. p. 54And thus are we to understand Deut. 30.6. Isa. 44.3. 2. That the text, Isa. 59.21. is plainly applied to the time of the calling of the Jews, Rom. 11.27. and therefore cannot be applied rightly to the posterity of any believers at any time indefinitely. 3. Th…t the promises, Deut. 28.4. Psal. 112.2. are expresly meant of outward blessings, and therefore cannot prove a covenant of grace in Christ. 4. That Exod. 20.6. doth plainly include a condition of obedience, and it is expresly mentioned Psal. 103.17, 18. as included in other promises of like kind, which condition God doth not undertake for any children of a believer, but the elect, nor is Christ surety for any but the elect; and therefore till it can be proved that the Election of grace belongs to the children of believers, it cannot be proved that the Covenant of grace belongs to them by vertue of these promises.

§. 5. It is not in Gods church, like other kingdomes.I Now return to your Sermon. You tell us thus: As it is in other kingdomes, corporations and families; the children of all subjects born in a kingdom, are born that Princes subjects: where the father is a free-man, the childe is not born a slave: where any are bought to be servants, their children born in their masters house, are born his servants. Thus it is by the Lawes of almost all nations, and thus hath the Lord ordained it shall be in his kingdome and family: the children follow the Covenant-condition of their parents; if he take a father into his covenant, he takes the children in with him; if he reject the parents out of the covenant, the children are east out with them.

This passage I might have passed over, as containing nothing but dictates; Yet I think it necessary to observe, 1. That you do very carnally imagine the Church of God to be like Civill corporations, as if persons were admitted to it by birth, whereas in this all is done by free election of grace, 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 descent from men. Christianity is no mans birth-right; The Apostle knew not that God had so by promise, or other ingagement bound himself, but he was free, as he said to Moses after the promise made to Abraham, to have mercy on whom he would, Rom. 9.15. Yea, to conceive that it is in Gods Church, as in other Kingdomes, and after the laws of Nations, is a seminary of dangerous superstitions and errors. Dr. Rainolds, in his Conference with Hart, hath shewed, that hence arose the frame of p. 55government by P…triarchs, Metropolitans, &c. And is not this the very reason of Invocation of Saints, that I mention not more of the like kind? 2. When you say, if he take a father into his covenant, he takes the children in with him; If he reject the parents out of covenant, the children are cast out with them. If you mean this taking in, and casting out, in respect of election and reprobation, it is not true, neither if you mean it of the Covenant of grace, for that is congruous to election, and reprobation. Nor is it true in respect of outward Ordinances; the father may be baptized, heare the Word,Cotton, Way of the Churches of Christ in N.E. c. 4. §. 6. Infants cannot claim right unto baptisme, but in the right of one of their parents, or both. Where neither of the parents can claim right to the …ords supper, there th…ir Infants cann…t claim right to Baptisme. A… therefore we do not receive an he…hen to the fellowship of the supper, nor their seed to Baptism, so neither dare we receive an excommunicate person (who is to us an heathen) to the Lords supper, or his children to Baptisme, But after, … 7 §. 2. Or where either of the parents have made such profession; Or it may be consi…ered al…o, whether the children may not be baptized. where either the grand-father or grand-mother have made su…h prof…ssion, and are still living to undertake for the Christian education of the child. For it may be co…ceived where there is a stipulation of the Covenant on Gods part, an… a restipulation on ma…s part, there may be an obligation of the Covenant on both parts. Gen. 17.7. Or if these saile, what hindereth but that if the par…nts will de…gne their infant to be educated in the house of any go…ly member of the Church, the child may be lawfully baptized in the right of its household governour, according to the proportion of the Law, Gen 17.12, 13.Gen 17:7Gen 17:12Gen 17:13 and not the child; and on the contrary, the father may be deprived, and the child may enjoy them. Nor is it true in respect of Ecclesiasticall censures; the father may be excommunicated, and the sonne in the Church, and on the contrary. And about that which you say, there is no certainty in the Paedobaptists determination. Rutherford [The due right of Presbyterie, p. 259.] saith, The children of Papists, and excommunicate Protestants, which are borne within our visible Church, are baptized, if their forefathers have been sound in the faith. But others will deny it. But it is true as well of Paedobaptists, as of Anabaptists, that like waves of the Sea they beat one agninst another.

You tell us, That it was without question in the time of the Iews, Gen. 17.9. And when any of any other Nation, though a Canaanite, or Hittite, acknowledged Abrahams God to be their God, they and their children came into covenant together.

That when Parents were circumcised, the Children were to be circumcised, is without questio…, Gods command is manifest; Whether this make any thing for baptizing Infants, is to be considered in its place. But that which you say, It was in the time of the Iews, if God did reject the parents out of the covenant, the children were cast out with them; is not true. Parents might be Idolaters, Apostates from Judaisme, draw up the fore-skin again, and yet the children were to be circumcised. But in all this there is no Argument.

p. 56§. 6. Of the Texts, which are, Act. 2. 38, 39. Luk 19.9.Acts 2:38Acts 2:39Luke 19:9THe first Text you dwell upon, is that, Act. 2.38, 39. and thus you speak. And so it continues still, though the Anabaptists boldly deny it, Acts 2.38.39. When Peter exhorted his hearers, who were pricked in their hearts, to repent, and to be baptized for the remission of sins, he useth an argument to perswade them, taken from the benefit which should come to their posterity; For, the promise (saith he) is to you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call: if once they obey the call of God, as Abraham did, the promise was made to them and their children. VVhether they who obey this call, were the present Jews to whom he spake, or were afar off: whether by afar off, you will mean the Gentiles, who as yet worshipped afar off, or the Jews, or any who were yet unborn, and so were afar off in time, or whether they dwelt in the remotest parts of the world, and so were afar off in place; The argument holds good to the end of the world, Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost, for the promise is made to you and your children, they shall be made free of Gods city according to Abrahams copy. I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed.

It is a very irksome thing to Readers, and especially to Answerers, when they that handle a controversie, give a text for their assertion, and make a paraphrase of it, but shew not how they conclude from it, by which meanes the enemy is more hardly found then vanquished. I wish, if ever you write any more in this kind, you would distinctly expound, and then frame your arguments out of the text you produce: for the present I shall devorare taedium, swallow downe the tediousnes of this defect as well as I can. You do not distinctly tell us what that promise was, onelyonly I gather it is, that which you after expresse, calling it "Abrahams copy, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, But then you do not distinctly tell us, under which part you comprehend the promise to them, whether under the first part, I will be thy God, or under the second, I will be the God of thy seed. It may seem you thus parallel'd them: I will be thy God, with, the promise is unto you; and, the God of thy seed, with that, the promise is to your children. But I must see better proofe then yet I have seen, afore I assent to this construction, I wilbe thy God, that is, of every believer: though the Author or infants b…p…izing proved lawfull by scriptures, page 4. s…ith, It is plaine and manifest by the Gramaticall construction of this promise ▪ I professe that I neither know rule in Grammar, Logicke, or p. 57Divinity for that interpretation, and yet I thinke all the strength of your proofe lies in this imagined parallelisme. Nor doe you tell us of what thing this promise was, which you parallel with Abrahams copy, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed; whether it was a promise of saving graces, or outward priviledges; OnelyOnly that which you bring in of Zaccheus to interpret it, let him professe the faith of Christ, and the covenant of salvation comes to his house, seemes to import that you conceive the meaning thus; if you once obey the call of God as Abraham did, the promise of salvation is to you and your children: and sith you answer the second objection, which you call a shift, by rejecting the limiting of [to you and your children] with those words [as many as the Lord shall call] the sense must be this: The promise of salvation is to you and your children, whether the Lord our God call them or not. But this proposition I know you will not stand to, though as you handle the matter, this is made the Apostles assertion. But it may be you mean otherwise, thus: If you once obey the call of God, as Abraham did, the promise of outward church-priviledges, that is, to be members of the visible Church, partakers of Baptism, &c. is to you and your children. Now what an uncouth reason is by this made in the Apostles speech, that if they did repent, and were baptized, the promise should be made good to them and to their children, (I use your own words, expressing what you conceive the strength of the argument lies in) that you & they shalbe members of the visible church, partakers of baptism, &c. So that the Apostle is made to say thus: If you will repent and be baptized, the promise is to you and your children, that you & they shalbe baptized. What I conceive is the meaning, I will shew afterwards: in the mean time, because (though on the by) you alleage that Text, which Mr. Tho. Goodwin also at Bow in Cheapside urged and insisted on for this purpose, I shall by the way examine what you say. You say, Let Zaccheus the Publican once receive Christ himself, be he a Gentile, as some think he was, be he a great sinner, esteemed as an heathen, as we all know he was; let him professe the faith of Christ, and the covenant of salvation comes to his, for now he is made a son of Abraham, i.e. Abrahams promise now reacheth him. Upon which I note, 1. Though it be of little moment, whether he were a Gentile or no, yet I conceive it more likely he was a Jew, partly because his name is more like the hebrew, than the greek or latine; and partly because if he had been a Gentile, Christ had plainly discovered the calling of the Gentiles, which he did not till afterward: & it would have caused in likelihood greater offence in them to hear a Gentile p. 58called a son of Abraham, who already murmured that he was gone to be a guest to a man that was a sinner. 2. You thus expound [a son of Abraham.] that is, Abrahams promise now reacheth him. But Bez… more truly, Filium esse Abrahae nihil aliud declarat quam gratis electum esse, Rom. 9.8. Et vestigiis fidei Abrahae insistere, Rom. 4.12, Et opera Abrahae facere, Joh, 8.39. Ex quibus demum recte colligitur certa futurae salutis expectatio, Rom. 8.29. 3. You only expresse [this house] by [his] as if you would have it conceived that salvation came only to his children by his believing, whereas Mr. Tho. Goodwin (if my memory deceive me not) comprehended the whole family under the term house, discoursing thereupon that a houshold-Church was prima Ecclesia, the first Church, which I marvailed to hear from him, as conceiving it to overthrow the way of Government they call the Church-way, which is mainly grounded on this, that the first Church (as Parker held) is a single congregation out of many families, and is primasedes potestatis Ecclesiasticae, the first seat of Ecclesi…sticall power. But I know no reason why, when it is said, Salvation is come to this house, it should be stretched any further then Zaccheus his person, in that salvation was come to him, salvation was come to his house, and the whole Narration favours this Exposition, and Beza saith that Theophylact, and some others understand by house Zaccheus himselfe. I omit the conceit of Erasmus, and Camerarius, as if foreign thee, did refer to foreign hous…, for I thinke with Beza, it is absurd to say, This house is a son of Abraham. 4. Although it be true, that foreign is often a Causall particle, yet it is true, that it is sometimes a restrictive particle, as Acts 2.45. and Acts 4.35. and therefore may be rendred by quatenus as, or in quantum in as much, or secundum quod, according to what, as well as by eo quod quoniam, or quandoquidem, because, or forasmuch. 5. In your paraphrase, you put instead of salvation, The Covenant of salvation, which is not right, what ever Author you may follow herein. Now let it be considered what an erroneous inference is made, by expounding it of all the posterity or family, and making the particle Causall, as if his believing alone did bring salvation to his house or posterity; from whence this may be gathered, a mans whole house or posterity may be saved barely by his believing, and you will see a necessity to make foreign a restrictive particle, and to expound this house of Zacheus, his family only, in reference to his person. And so what you take in by the way for the credit of your conclusion, from Luke 19.9. is answered p. 59by shewing the faultinesse of your paraphrase.

But you returne to the Text, Acts 2.38 39. You say, neither can the evidence of the place be eluded, by saying the promise here meant i… …f the extrao…dinary gifts of the holy Ghost, to speak with tongues, &c. for we all kn…w, that all who then beleeved and were baptized, did not receive those extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost; and beside, this argument remained still in force, to be used to the end of the world, who ever beleeves and is baptized, shall receive remission of sins, and the gift of the holy Ghost, which was not true, if by the holy Ghost was meant onelyonly those extraordinary gifts.

Though I doe not so expound the words, [the promise is to you and your children] of the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost, yet the words next before, and that which is before, verse 33.17, 18. of the same chapter might very well induce men to conceive that this is the promise of which Peter meant, verse 39. nor doe I conceive your reasons sufficient to overthrow it: For what though all who then, beleeved and were baptized, did not receive those extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost, yet Peter might assure them that it should be so for the future, to them, their children, and all that are afarre off, as many as the Lord should call: though I doe not say, the thing was true in this sense; I onelyonly say it might be so true, notwithstanding your argument. And whereas you say this argument remaines still in force to be used to the end of the world, Who ever beleeves and is baptized, shall receive remission of sinnes, and the gift of the holy Ghost. Neither doth this follow from the exposition of the words, verse 39. by the words, verse 38. of receiving the gift of the holy G…ost: For there is nothing in the text to prove that this argument still remaines in force as you speake, sith it might be onelyonly a particular benefit to them on their repenting, and baptisme, for ought you can inferre from the text.

You go on. Nor secondly, can it be avoided by that shift of others who interpret it thus, to you and your children, as many of them as the Lord shall call, that is (say they) whether your selves or your children, or any other whom the Lord shall call, if they repent and be baptized, they shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost. If you put in stead of, [they shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost,] these words [the promise is to you and them,] it is no shift, but the genuine and necessarie explication of the text. For let the promise be what ever you can make it, you must put in that limitation if you will have it t…ue. p. 60If the promise be of saving graces, if of Christ sent, if of the outward ordinances of baptisme, &c. If of the holy Ghost in …xtraordinarie gifts; it is none of these wayes true without that limitation. For neither God promised saving graces, nor outward ordinances, nor extraordinarie gifts, nor sent Christ to them, their children, or all that are afar off without calling them and every of them. But you tell us, it is plaine, the strength of the argument lies in this, That if they did repent, and were baptized, the promise should be made good to th…m and to their children: and what comfortable argument can this be taken from respect to their children, if the Apostle must be interpreted as these men would have him, viz. you and your children h…ve hitherto been an holy seed, but now, if you beleeve in Ch…ist your selves, your children shall be in no better condition then the rest of the Pagan world, strangers from the Covenant of God; but if afterward any of them, or any of the heathen, shall for their parts beleeve and be baptized, their particular persons shall be taken into covenant, but their children still left out; had this thinke you been a comfortable argument to perswade them to come in, in relation to the good of their children after them.

You suppose here, that the Apostle used this argument onelyonly in relation to the good of their children, whereas the maine matter was concerning themselves to erect them, who being told that they had crucified Iesus who was both Lord and Christ, verse 36. and had said, Matth. 27.25. His blood be upon us and our children, were pricked in their hearts, and said to Peter and the rest of the Apostles, Men and brethren what shall we doe? and was it not a comfortable argument for men in that case to be told, that notwithstanding all this, the promise of Christ, and remission of sinnes by him, was yet to them and their children, on whom they had wished Christs blood to be, and to all the Jewes that dwelt afarre off in the di…persion, as many as the Lord should call: and a great incitement to repent and be baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus for the remission of sinnes? However you conceive now, sure if your soule had been in their soules stead, you would have conceived it a very comfortable speech in this sens… that I now give. As for that witlesse descant you put on your adversaries, I know not whether it be their meaning or not, sure I am no such thing follows on the applying the restriction in the end of the verse, to them, their children, and all that are afarre off. And that which you would burden your adversaries tenent with, as if they p. 61put beleivers infants out of the covenant, into the condition of Pagans children, it is a coccysme answered before, and therefore I may well let it passe in this place.

You adde, The plaine strength of the argument is, God hath now remembred his Covenant to Abraham in sending that blessed seed, in whom he promised to be the God of him and his seed: doe not you by your unbeliefe deprive your selves and your posteritie of so excellent a gift.

In this passage I thinke you hit the marke, it is the very interpretation I gave in the reasons of my doubts before mentioned, in answering the argu…ent from this text: onelyonly the alle…dging the promise, Gen. 17.7 … that expression, do not you by your unbeliefe deprive your posteritie of so excellent a gift; have a little relish of your interpretation of the promise concerning the naturall seed of beleevers: But letting that passe, in the maine you expound it rightly. The promise is to you and your children; that is,Annot. on the Bible, edit. 1645. on Acts 2.36. The promise is unto you] Christ is promised both to Iewes and Gentiles: but the Iewes had the first place.Acts 2:36 God hath now remembred his Covenant to Ab…aham in sending that blessed seed, in whom hee prom…sed to be the God of Abraham and his seed, and the sense is plaine. T…e promise which is made to Abraham is now fulfilled in sending Christ to you and your children, and to all that are afarre off, as many as the Lord our God shall call, that they might bee turned from their iniquity, …nd baptized in his name for the remission of their sinnes; And this agrees with the Apostles exhortation to the same purpose; Acts 3.25.26. Ye are the children of the Prophets and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, and in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed, unto you first God having raised up his Sonne Jesus, sent him to blesse you in turning away every one of you from his iniquities. And Acts 13.32, 33. And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their ch…ldren, in th…t he hath raised up Jesus againe.

You adde. And except in relation to the covenant, there was no occasion to name th…ir children; it had been sufficient to have said, a promise is made to as many as the Lord shall call. Though I deny not their children are mentioned in relation to the covenant in the sense I have given, or rather in allusion to the forme of expressions in the covenant, and predictions of the Prophets: yet there was other occasion, to wit, their imprecation, Matth. 27.25. and especially because Christ was, as it is Acts 3.26. first sent to the Jews and their p. 62children, and to be offered first to them, as it is Acts 13.46. But it was not to intimate that which you would gather, that the promise is such to them, if they did beleeve that their children, even their infants upon their fathers faith, whether the children were called or not, were taken into the covenant, either of saving graces, or visible church-membership; which you should have proved, but never will prove out of this Scripture. But taking your Hypothesis, that these to whom Peter speakes were within the covenant made to Abraham, and cirumcised rightly, and yet the Apostle requires these to repent, afore they are to be baptized; the Antipaedobaptists have hence a good argument against baptizing infants, because Peter required of such as were in the covenant, repentance afore Baptism. I passe on to the next proof you bring for your Conclusion.

§. 7. Of the text. Rom. 11.16.Rom 11:16YOu say, as plain it is out of the 11. Rom. 16 &c. where the apostles scope is to shew, that we Gentiles have now the same graffing into the true olive which the Jews formerly had; and our present graffing in, is answerable to their present casting out, & their taking in in the latter end of the world, shall be the same graffing in (though more gloriously) as ours is now. Now all know that whē they were taken in, they and their children were taken in; when they were broken off, they and their children were broken off; when they shall be taken in, in the latter end of the world, they and their children shall be taken in; and that because the root is holy, that is, Gods covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, extends yet unto them, when their unbelief shall be taken away. The root being like Nebuchadnezars tree, the tree hewen down, and the root bound with a hand of iron, until seven times were passed over it, and then the bands should be broken, & the root should spring, and the tree should grow again: So their present nation like this tree is cut down, and this holy root the covenant made with their forefathers is suspended, bound with an iron bar of unbelief, blindnesse being come upon them untill the fulnes of the Gentiles were come in, and then all Israel shall be saved. And mark, that in all this discourse, the holines of the branches there spoken of, is not meant of a personall inherent holines, but a derivative holines; a holines derived to them frō their ancestors, the first fruit is holy, the lump holy, the root holy, the branches holy, that is, the fathers holy, accepted in covenant with God; the children beloved for their fathers sake, and when the vail of unbelief shall be taken away, the children and their posterity shal be taken in again, because beloved for their fathers sakes. Now then if our graffing in be answerable to theirs, in all, or any of these three particulars, we and our children are graffed in together.

p. 63Your argument needs a swimmer of Delos to bring it out of the deep. I will dive as deep as I can to fetch it up; the thing, it seems, you would prove, is, that we and our children are gr…ffed in together; but the words are Metaphoricall, and therefore obscure, they may be true in a sense, and yet not for your purpose. The insition you speak of may be either into the visible, or invsible church; the graffing in, may be either by faith, or by profession of faith, or by some outward ordinance. Children may be either grown men or infants, the graffing in may be either certain, or probable; certain, either by reason of election, covenant of grace made by them, or naturall birth, being children of believers; probable, as being likely, either because fr…quently, or for the the most part it happens so, though not necessary & so not certain. The thing that is to be proved is, that all the infants of every believer are in the covenant of free grace in Christ & by vertue thereof to be baptized into the communion of the v…sible church: now it may be granted that infants of believers are frequently, or for the most part under the election & covenant of grac… (wh…ch whether it be so or not, no meere man can t…l) and so in the visible chu…ch & yet it not follow that every infant of a believer, in asmuch as he is t…e child of a beli…ver, is under the covenant of grace, & therefore by baptisme is to be admitted into the visible church; now let it be never so prob…ble, that God continues his election in the posterity of b…lievers & accordingly hath promised to be th…ir God in his covenant of grace, yet if this be the rule of baptizing children of beleivers, no other infants are to b… baptized, but such as are thus: the practise must agree with the rul…; & so not all infants of believers are to be baptized, but the elect in the covenant of grace. If it be said; but we are to judge all to be elected, & in the covenant of grace, till the contrary appeares. I answer, that we are not to judge all to be …l…cted, or in the covenant of grace; because we have Gods declaration of his mind to the contrary, Rom. 9.6, 7, 8. and all experience proves the contrary to be tru…; nor is the administration of an outward ordināce instituted by God, according to such a rule as is not possible to be known, but according to that which is manifest to the ministers of it; & therefore sith God conceals his purpose of election, and the covenant of gr…ce, which is congruous to it in respect of the persons elected; it is certain God would not have this the rule according to which outward ordinances are to be administred, because such persons are in the election and covenant of grace & not others. You say, our graffing in is answerable to the Jews, and their infants were graffed in by circūcision, therefore ours are to be graffed in by baptism. p. 64But in good sadnesse, doe you thinke the Apostle here meanes by graffing in, baptizing, or circumcision, or insition by an outward ordinance: if that were the me…ning, then breaking off must be meant of uncircumcising or unb…ptizing. The whole context sp…aks of election of some, and rejection of others; of the breaking off by u…beliefe, and the standing by faith, and your selfe seeme to understand the phrase so, when you say, pag. 43. to cut miserable man off from the wilde olive, and graffe him into the true olive. T…e ingraffing, to me, is meant of the invisible church by election and faith; which invisible church was first amongst the Jews, and therefore called the olive, out of Abraham the root, who is therefore said to beare them. And because Abraham had a double capacitie, one of a naturall father, and another of the father of the faithfull, in respect of the former c…pacitie, some are called branches according to nature, others, wilde olives by nature, yet graffed in by faith; and when it is said that some of the naturall branches were broken off, the meaning is not that some of the branches in the invisible church may be broken off: but as when our Saviour Christ saith, using the same similitude, Joh. 15.2. Every branch in me not bearing fruit, he taketh away; The meaning is not, that any branch truely in him c…uld be fruitlesse, or taken away; but he calleth that a branch in him which was only so in appearance. So the Apostle speaking of branches broken off, meanes it not of such as were truely so, but in appearance: For similitudes doe not runne with four feet; but vary in some things. Now if this be the meaning of your words, that the insition of the Gentiles is the same with the Jewes, and the insition is meant of ingraffing by faith into the inv…sible church; it onelyonly proves this, that now bele…v…rs of Gentiles are by faith in the church of the elect, as the Jewes: but neither the beleeving Jewes Infants were in the covenant of grace, bec…use their children; nor are our children. But let us consider the three particulars you speake of, that we may examine whether there be any shew of an argument for your purpose in this text. You say, as plaine it is out of the eleventh of Rom. 16, &c. where the Apostles scope is, to shew, that we Gentiles have now the same graffing into the true olive which the Jews formerly had, and our present graffing in is answerable to their present casting out; and their taking in, in the latter end of the world, shal be the same graffing in (though more gloriously) as ours is now.

The Apostles scope in the whole chapter is plaine to answer that question, v. 1. Hath God cast away his people? which he doth, 1. by p. 65shewing for the present in himselfe, and others, perhaps unknowne, That God had then a remnant according to the election of grace. 2. For the future from ver. 11. to the end, that he intends a calling of all Israel when the fulnesse of the Gentiles shall come in, and ver. 16. is one argument to prove it. It is not the scope of the Apostle, as you say, To shew that the Gentiles have now the same graffing into the true Olive, which the Jews formerly had; but to prove that the Jews, notwithstanding their pres…nt defraction, shall be graffed into their owne Olive. But for the thing it selfe. You say, That the Gentiles hav… now the same graffing into the true Olive which the Jews formerly had. But you must remember your own distinction, pag. 10. of the substance of the Covenant, and the administration of it: It is certain, that in respect of the substance of the Covenant, we have the same graffing into the Olive, the Church of the faithfull, of which Abraham is the root, that the Jews had. We by faith are partakers of the root and fatnesse of the Olive tree. ver. 17. or in plainer termes, as the Apostle …l…gantly, Ephes. 3.6. that the Gentiles should be foreign, Fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ through the Gospel. In respect of which all believing Gentiles are Abrahams seed, the Israel of God, one in Christ Jesus. But if you mean it of the outward administration of this ingraffing by Circumcision, Baptisme, &c. nothing is more false. For indeed the outward administration is utte…ly taken away, as separating the Jews from the Gentiles, of very purpose, that the enmity betwixt Jews and Gentiles may be removed, and they made one in Christ by his death, Eph. 2.14, 15, 16. and if you mean this, when you say, we have the same graffing in with the Jews (which your whole arguing tends to, and your expression in those words [for these outward …ispensations] import you mean it) you evacuate the blood of Ch…ist in this particular. You say, Our present graffing in, is answerable to their present casting out. It is true, our present graffing in is an…w…rable to their (or rather for their) casting out; that is, God would supply in his Olive tree the Church, the casting away of the Jews, by the calling of the Gentiles, so much the Apostle saith, v. 17. Thou being a wilde Olive, foreign, that is, in ramorum defr…ctorum locum, into the place of the branches broken off, as rightly Beza; if you mean it in this sense, I grant it. You adde, And their taking in (though more gloriously) as ours is now. It is true, their taking in will be by faith, as ours is now; concerning other p. 66particulars; as I doubt not but it will be more gloriously, as you say, so for the manner, I must confesse I am at a stand. I look upon it as a mystery, as the Apostle cals it, Rom. 11.25. You go on. Now all know that when they were taken in, they and their children were taken in; when they were broken off▪ they and their children were broken off; when they shall be tak…n in in the latter end of the world, they and their children shall be taken in. I grant it, they were taken in, and broken off togeth…r, in respect of Gods election and reprobation, and when they shall be taken in, in the latter end of the world, they and their children shall be taken in. Yea, I thinke, that as at the calling of the Gentiles there was a fuller taking in of the children of the Gentiles, then ever was of the children of the Jewes afore Ch…ists comming, according to th…t Heb. 8.11. So at the calling of the J…ws, there shall be a more full taking in of the children of the J…ws, then is now of the Gentiles, according to that, Rom. 11.26. and so all Israel shall be saved. But all this proves not, that God would have either all Infants of believers counted his as elect persons, or in the Covenant of grace in Christ, or in the face of the visible Church admitted to baptisme: which was to be proved by you.