Mr Cottons Clearing Doubts Concerning Predestination, Interpretation 1 · Question 7
The Seventh Doubt.
Queſtion, 7.
THat if all bee tranſlated into Chriſts Dominion, then the Infants of Turks.
Firſt, how then ſaith the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 7. 14.
Secondly, on all children dying before the guilt of actuall ſin, hee will ſhew the riches of his grace, becauſe their damnation cannot ſtand, with ſuch an equity of his juſtice as here is mentioned and made ſhew of.
To this I anſwer, that when I ſay, that all the creatures are Anſwer. Col. 1. 3.tranſlated into the Dominion of Chriſt, I meane not into his Kingdome of a grace, but into the dominion of his power; viz. to be diſpoſed of by him, the wicked to the praiſe of his juſtice, and both them and other creatures to the ſervice and exerciſe of his elect. Hence I conceive it to bee that it is ſaid, that Chriſt hath bought the dominion of ſuch as deny him. Hence Rom. 14. 9. John 3. 35. Mar. 28. 18. Phil 1. 8, 9, 10, 11.by his dying and riſing againe he is ſaid to be the Lord both of the quick and dead. Hence God is ſaid to have given all things into his hand, with all power both in heaven and earth. Neither am Lable to conceive how the whole body of the Creature, I mean all the world beſide Reprobates, can be ſaid to waite for the redemption, and reſtoring into the glorious liberty of the ſons of God, unleſſe as they loſt their liberty—by the firſt Adam, ſo they had recovered the ſame again by the redemption of the ſecond Adam. If then all the creatures be tranſlated into the dominion of Chriſt, thinke it not abſurd that the Infants of Turks themſelves be tranſlated into the ſame dominion. The place that may be alledged to the contrary, doth prove the Infants of Infidels not to bee tranſlated into the Kingdom of grace, or fellowſhip of his Church, but what is that to this point touching children that die in their infancy before the guilt of their actuall ſin? I would not haſtily determine any thing. Praeſtat dubitare de occultis, quàm ligitare de incertis. It is better to doubt of ſecret things, then wrangle about things uncertaine. They ſtand or fall to him, who hath ſaid of the Infants of ſuch parents, as commend them to the bleſſing of Chriſt, Of ſuch is the kingdome of God. But to my underſtanding Mark 10. 14.it is moſt agreeable to the analogy of faith to range little children under the convenant of Parents, it being Gods uſuall manner of dealing, to viſit the ſins of the Fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate him, and to ſhew mercy unto thouſands of them that love him, and keep his commandements.
That all creatures are under the dominion of Chriſt no …am.Chriſtian doubteth, for as God, hee made all things, Col. 1. John 1. and as the ſon of God, he is the heire of all things, Heb. 1. When God bringeth in his firſt begotten ſonne into the world, he ſaith of him, Let all the Angels of God worſhip him, Heb. 1. 6. & Joh. 5. God hath committed all judgement unto his Son, and Joh. 17. 2. Thou haſt given him power over all fleſh. But that hee hath bought this dominion, well it may paſſe for an Oracle of fleſh and blood, but I have not hitherto found it to bee an Oracle of God. Whatſoever is bought, is bought with a price. And ſo whatſoever Chriſt hath bought, hee hath bought with a price, 1 Cor. 6. 20. & 7. 23. And this price wherewith Chriſt hath bought that which hee hath bought, is his blood, Rev. 5. 9. 1 Pet. 1. 18. But blood is no ſit price wherewith to buy Dominion. His blood is propitiatory and ſatisfactory, and ſo fit onelyonly to buy poore ſoules, and to ſave them from condemnation. And accordingly, the life that hee gave for many, was given by the way of ranſome, Matth. 20. 24. So that perſons thereby are ranſomed, rather then any generall dominion procured. And is it ſit to ſay, that Chriſt by his blood obtained dominion over the wicked to damn them for their ſins? Rather the power which hee obtained was to give eternall life to them, whom his Father had given him, Job. 17. 2. and that in deſpite of ſin.
Againe, is it fit to ſay that Chriſt by his blood bought dominion over brute and ſenſeleſſe creatures? Or, that by his blood hee obtained dominion over Angels and Devils? Whom Chriſt bought, hee bought unto God, Rev. 5. 9. And ſhall wee ſay that by his death hee bought unto God the dominion over Reprobates, whether Men or Angels, and over all other creatures?
Again, whom hee bought, hee bought from the earth, Rev. 14. 8. And from men, ver. 4. Can this bee verifyed of Angels of light, and of angels of darkneſſe, and of reprobate men, and of all Gods creatures?
Laſtly, whom hee bought by his blood, hee redeemed from their vain converſation, 1 Pet. 1. 18. So hee did not redeem either reprobate men, or reprobate angels: and as for the Elect Angels they ſtood not in need of any ſuch Redemption, much leſſe the brute creatures of God. Yet even of ſome that were no better then Reprobates, it is ſaid that hee redeemed them, 2 Pet. 2. 1. And hence Arminius inſerres that the moſt wicked are redeemed by Chriſt, and that in the ſame ſenſe that Gods Elect are redeemed by Chriſt. You ſay hee redeemed, even the Reprobates, but not in the ſame manner as hee redeemed the Elect, but onelyonly that hee bought the dominion of them. But this ſeems a forced interpretation: For whom hee hath bought, they are his in ſpeciall manner. But to hee Chriſts, is peculiar to Gods Elect, 2 Cor. 3. ult. And hence the Apoſtle inferreth, Glorifie God in your bodies, 1 Cor. 6. ult. You will ſay, In what ſenſe doth the Apoſtle ſay of wicked men, that the Lord redeemed them?
I anſwer, it may bee ſaid in the ſame ſenſe wherein it is ſaid of the gods of Damaſcus that they plagued Ahaz: not that indeed they plagued him, or had any power to plague him, for An Idol is nothing, ſaith Paul, that is, hath no power to doe good or evill, but it was Ahaz his opinion that they plagued him, and ſo hee ſacrificed unto them.
Again, their former profeſſion was ſuch, that they were the redeemed of the Lord as well as any other. So Piſcator interpretech that place in Peter, as ſpoken, not foreign, but foreign, not as it were ſo indeed, but in their opinion onelyonly, or in the common opinion of others. The creature likewiſe ſhall bee reſtored by him, Act. 3. For the Heavens muſt contain him, till the time come that God hath appointed, for the reſtoring of all things. But that redemption is not yet, neither hath hee purchaſed that redemption with his blood.
Wee deny not that all creatures are under the dominion of Chriſt, but that they ſhould bee tranſlated into his dominion by way of purchaſe by his blood, that ſeemes to mee a ſtrange conceit. Yet it ſufficeth us that you confeſſe, that Turks, together with their Infants, are not tranſlated into the kingdome of Grace. By Infants of Turks wee underſtand none other then ſuch as dye in their Infancy, and I wonder, you ſhould diſtinguiſh betwixt them; Why you ſhould reckon the condition of Infants deceaſing out of the Church, amongſt the number of the ſecret things of the Lord, I ſee no reaſon. Are they not born children of wrath? And if they continue ſo from the time of their conception unto their birth, why not as well from the time of their birth, to the time of their death dying in their Infancy? And can wee doubt what is the condition of thoſe who dye children of wrath? doth not God ſay of the Sodomites, that they ſuffer the vengeance of eternall fire, and were there (think you) no Infants at all amongſt them? As for thoſe who are commended to the bleſſing of Chriſt, I make no queſtion but that of ſuch is the Kingdom of God. For the Apoſtle teacheth us, that if but one parent bee a beleever, the children are holy, but if neither are, they are unclean.
But if they die in their uncleaneneſſe, unwaſhed, unſanctifyed, what ſhall become of them?
You doe well in mine opinion, to range little children under the covenant of their Parents: that I like well: but I like not ſo well the reaſon whereby you inforce it. For the ſins of the Father who is under one Covenant may bee viſited upon their children unto the third and fourth generation who are under another covenant. For the ſins committed in the dayes of Manaſſes, were in the captivity of Babylon, viſited upon the children in a fourth generation after, and that upon as gracious children as were thoſe that were repreſented by the basket of good figges, Jer. 24. And the Covenant between Jonathan and David, was only the preſervative for keeping gracious Mephiboſheth, from having viſited upon him the ſins of his Grandfather Saul, in ſlaying the Gibeonites. Neither yet have wee cauſe to complain as the heathen doth Delicta majorum immeritus lues Romane. For if I miſtake not, there is a great deale of difference between puniſhing the Son for the ſin of the Father, (which hath no place at all in Gods providence, excepting the caſe of puniſhing originall ſin, if ſo it hath place in that) and viſiting the ſin of the Father upon the Son. This being the puniſhment of the Father rather then of the Son; And God being able to ſanctifie any temporall affliction that falleth upon the ſon for the ſin of his Father, either while the Father liveth or after, and to make it fall amongſt the number of thoſe things which work together for his good.