Apostolical Baptism, Part 3
Reasons why there is no Vniversall Church.
1. Because it must have an universall service and worship; That must belong to all, as the Jewish Altar and sacrifices; they must have universall Officers, as High-Priest, and Levite of old, and the Pope in these times to be the head thereof, and some universall Officer.
2. Because no man hath seen, nor can see such a church.
3. Were there any such universal visible church, then Christ should be the head of it; but Christ cannot be the head of it, because there should be many hypocrites therin; to whom Christ cannot be a head to convey influence of comfort.
Further, whereas Mr. BLAKE avouched a covenant-holinesse, in his Birth Priviledge; I answered, there was no other covenant with the Gentiles now, but that which was to be covenanted before the world, viz. That eternall life should be by believing in Christ.
Mr. BLAKE saith, though the covenant be but one, yet may there be severall wayes of dispensations of it; it may be given to the Jewes, shadowed under earthly promises, outward types and shadowes, — This very covenant was sealed in the Sacrament of the Jewes, held forth in these types, and vailed in the promises of Canaan, and no covenant essentially, differing from this page 66.
Rejoynd. The question is not about the dispensation of the covenant, which formerly was dispensed in types, and sacrifices, but new is dispensed in the history, but about the covenant. The whole scope of both your bookes for the most part, is to prove another covenant, that is an inrightment to outward priviledges, which though you conceal the distinction, yet any man may see your aym. If this covenant of grace were viewed in the Jewish types, and no other, then any covenant inrighting to outward priviledges must needs fall downe.
Mr. BLAKE. There must be a way of conveyance of this covenant to the Jews in their dayes, to the Gentles in these times, other wise there would be no covenant at all. God had no immediate intercourse with any people, to strike Covenant with them, his way of covenanting, is his Ordinances, these ordinances are therefore called the covenant, Rom. 9.4. As containing, and conveying the covenant; they are the outward part of the covenant, and right and title to this outward part of it, in the Church is hereditary, which your onenesse of covenant doth not overthrow.
Rejoynder. Is a box that conveys a jewell, the outward part of the Iewel? is a conduit pipe that conveys the water, the outward part of the water? yes, with as good reason as the Ordinances of God, through which God conveys his covenant in Christs blood to the soul, are the outward part of this covenant of Christs blood conveyed to the soule; your saying, because the Ordinances convey the covenant, they are the outward part of the covenant, is a proposition that destroys it self, as if you should say, Arons pot, Ex. 16.33. which kept the Manna for the generations of Israel, was the outward part of the Manna. 2. Suppose Gods Ordinances, as Baptism, Supper, preaching of the word, were the outward part of the covenant, how doth it follow, that right and title hereto is hereditary, seeing that not only particular persons, but even from whole Churches these Ordinances have been removed; as Ephesus, from which the candlestick is so far removed, that I have been informed from a learned man, that was lately in Ephesus, that there is not so much as one therein that beares witnesse of the name of Christ. If Ordinances be hereditary, how came all the Easterne Christians to lose them, and Mahumitanisme come in their stead, except we should groundlesly and beyond belief, suppose that all those Christians dyed without heirs. For your saying, the Ordinances are called his Covenant, for which you cite, Rom. 9.4. To whom pertaines the Covenants; the Apostle sayes, Covenants not Covenant, by covenants are meant the tables of the covenant, by a metonimy, unlesse we understand the two Covenants mentioned, Heb. 8.7.8. Heb. 9.1. Called a better and a worse, a first, and a second, or the renewings of that one Covenant of Grace, which was made to Abram, and renued to the severall Patriarks.
Next, P. 67. Mr. BLAKE taxes me for saying, this incision in the root Abram, of us Gentiles in the Iewes stead, by a visible constitution, is meerly imaginary; his reason is, because then the Apostles dispute upon this subject should be imaginary; for that he speakes of the body of the Jews, and the body of the Gentiles called by the ordinances.
Rejoynd. What can any such incision in the roote Abram by visible constitution bee, but imaginary? seeing only the naturall branches that had the signe of circumcision, were planted in him only by visible constitution; and in taken thereof, they had a visible signe to be knowne by, viz. The cutting off the foreskin of the flesh. But we Gentiles are planted in him in a spirituall manner, as he is a spirituall Father, like unto God. To use the Apostles expression, Rom. 4. As we are part of the spirituall seed; for all the relation betwixt Abram and Gentiles is wholly inward, and spirituall, being he, as a common father, believed the promises for all believers. For your saying, the Apostle speaks of the body of the Jews, and the Body of the Gentiles, called by the Ordinances; I suppose you meane, all the Gentiles that hear the sound of the Ordinances; that these are planted in the roote Abram, in the Jews stead, I deny it for this reason; because Abrams Fathership to us Gentiles, is in respect of faith only, not in respect of any outward priviledges, see Rom. 4.11.
Further, whereas I said, Abram stands as a roote two wayes, 1. Visibly, to the Jews that discend of him.
2. Invisibly, to the believers among the Jews and Gentiles, Rom. 4.17. It is by vertue of this latter incision, that not the Gentiles, but the believers among the Gentiles, are grafted in.
Mr. BLAKE to the former saith, Abram, Isaac, Iacob, Iesse, David, and all within the promise, by vertue of the Covenant made with them, are an holy root, and convey that Covenant holinesse, to all that are their branches. Abram is a first leading roote, P. 67.
Rejoynd. If this were true, then abundance the Turkes w…ose progenitours were christians, and in covenant with God, should have a Couenant holinesse.
2. Abram alone, Rom. 11.16. (if any other roote besides Christ can be understood) is the roote; if the roote be holy, so are the branches; Its a grand errour to thinke every believer to bee invested in the same priviledge that Abram was, and that Abram was only the first leading roote; because it was alotted to Abram and to no other believer, to be a root or spirituall father of many Nations, Rom. 4.17.
To the Second, Mr. BLAKE saith, P. 67. The distinction of Gentiles ana believing Gentiles, might have been spared.
Rejoynd. Not very well, seeing that the scope of your dispute, aym…s at a covenant holinesse of a believing Nation, by which the infan…s of that Nation may be baptized; neither is it in any one Nation, but I suppose you would bring in all then nations where the name of Christ is in any profession, whether true or false: for Pag. 67. You tell us, that the body of the Gentiles called by the Ordinances, are planted into Abram, whereas not Gentiles, but belivers among the Gentiles, or called out from them, are Abrams seed, Apoc. 5.9. Thou hast redeemed us to God, by thy blood, out of every kinred, and tongue, and people, and Nation.
For that place of, Rom. 11.16. Which you so much beat upon, it belongs only to the Jewes, and Abram in that relation, stands ingaged only as a roote, and first fruit, in that place unto the Jews, of whose conversition, in the end of the world, together with her sanctity, the Apostle prophesies.
Mr. BLAK…, P. 86. Abram is to be considered as a man, so he is a root to all discending from him, but no holy roote; so he was the roote of the Hagarens, Edomites, and all the line of Keturah.
Rejoynd. Abram was as much a holy root to these, as he was to any Jew whatsoever (saving the promised seed) for these by command from God, were to be circumcised as well as any of Isaacs issue. Ishmael was circumcised, and so no doubt were his posterity, by command from God, so was Esau circumcised; we cannot thinke holy Isaac would have any of his seed uncircumcised, the like judge we of Ahram towards the Sons by Keturah.
Mr. BLAKES 2. Abram is to be considered as a justified man, this Iustification is a personall priviledge, not communicable, nor discendable.
Rejoynd. No man ever affirmed it, for we know the just must live by his own faith, yet that doth not hinder, but that root, Rom. 11.16 Being Christ (as I proved by divers reasons yet unanswered) believers may be grafted, and yet Abrams Iustification not desend; but should we say believers are grafted into Abram, in respect of participation, of that Sonship, and spirituall priviledges and promises, which he as a common father received for all believers, what absurdity will follow therefrom? especially, seeing the Apostle seemeth to say so much, Rom. 11.20. Well, because of unbeliefe, they were broken off, and thou standest by faith, &c.
Mr. Blake P. 68. 3. Abram is to be distinguisht as a professor of faith or worshipper of God, so he is a root or first fruit in this relation; the Covenant made with Abram, Isaac, Iacob, intituled all their naturall seed, and all that professe the like faith, in that royall priviledge of Gods own peculiar people, all professors of the same truth; which Scripture stiles by the name of believers, to the end of the world, are within the Verge of this covenant, as receiving a priviledge communicable and discendable.
Rejoynd. Then First, it intitled persons to be Gods peculiar people, when God had declared their rejection, as Ishmael, and Esau, and all the Haggarens and Edomites, for these were Abrams naturall seed, and profest the same faith.
2. Where doth the Scripture prove your distinction, that Abram, Isaac, and Jacob, as professors of faith, and worshippers of God, intitles all their naturall seed in the priviledge of Gods peculiar people, if they do, then do they intitle the Jewes, that are now in a state of rejection, to be Gods peculiar people, who are enemies to the truth of God: These are Scripturelesse dictates.
3. Then it intitled all the ten Tribes to be Gods peculiar people, not onelyonly in the time of the Calve-worship, which lasted about 200. years; but after, when they were caried away by Salmanazar, and never returned.
4. If Abram, Isaac, and Jacob, as worshippers of God, could intitle all their naturall seed to be Gods peculiar people, then other godly men, worshippers of God, can do the like; seeing there's no difference betwixt Isaac, and Jacob, and other godly men; and so all the posteritie of Believers (many whereof are infamously wicked) should be Gods peculiar people.
For your Arguments to prove infallibly that Abram, Isaac, and Jacob, and not Christ Jesus, are the first fruits and lump, and their postetity and Believers to be the root and branches; how ever the thing should be, if it were granted that Abram were the first fruit and root, yet cannot we conclude, that Isaac, Jacob, and every godly man, are first fruits and lump; for the reasons aforesaid. But were it granted, that not onelyonly Abram, but Isaac, and J…cob, and the Jewish Patriarks, were these first fruits and lump, (for there is not the least title in the 16. verse of the Gentiles) yee should it onelyonly follow that their root and branches should be holy? That is, those Jewes that flowed from them, and yet not all them neither, but onelyonly those that should be called home at the fulnesse of the Gentiles comming in, Rom. 11.26. And so all Israel shall be saved: which is nothing to make Believers of the Gentiles or their posterity holy.
And whereas, vers. 17. the Apostle speakes of some of the branches being broken off, that is, of the unbelieving Jewes, and of the Gentiles that were wilde Olive trees, grafted in amongst those Jewes, that were not broken off, and that these Gentiles with the remnant of these godly Jewes, did partake of the root and fatnesse of the Olive tree. I suppose the Apostle speakes of an ingrafture, not in respect of Jewish Ordinances or constitutions, for so the Gentiles were not grafted or planted in with the Jews, but the believing Jews were grafted in with the Gentiles, into the new Ordinances of Christ in the Gospell, in which they partook of the fatnesse of the Olive tree. For the Olive tree to be the Jewish Church, and the fatnesse of it to be the priviledges thereof; is far from my belief. I rather think it was Christ, and the fatnesse the benefits that flow from Christ, and the rather, because vers. 20. Paul speaking of this ingrafture of this wilde Olive, saith; Thou standest by Faith.
For Mr. BLAKE'S Arguments to prove that the root is not CHRIST:
First, because this root and branch in the Text, can be severed; but Christ and his branches cannot be severed: Therefore root and branch is not here Christ. The contrary appears, Joh. 15.2. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he taketh away; there are branches that may be severed from Christ.
Secondly, the root, is that of which the whole body of the Jews were branches, but that whole nation were never branches of Christ.
Answ. They might be branches externally, and yet be broken off; Esa. 5.7. The Vineyard of the Lord of Hostes are the house of Israel, and the men of Iudah his pleasant plant.
Thirdly, that is the root and first fruits, which renders them beloved, though for present enemies to the Gospell; but ABRAM, Isaac, and Iacob, renders them thus beloved, Rom. 11.28.
Answ. David rendred many of his posterity beloved, yet was he neither root nor first fruits to them; as it is no necessary consequence to say, I am loved for such a mans sake to get credit, therefore he is a root or first fruits, to me, in communicating to me wealth: So its no consequence to say, the elect Jews are loved of God soul-savingly, occasioned by a kinde affection GOD bore to their godly progenitors; therefore I am loved for the same forefathers in outward priviledges, yea in outward priviledges of having any Infants baptized; when the Word speaks not a tittle hereof. Besides, this onelyonly is spoken of the Jews.
For my three Arguments, that by the first fruit and lump are meant Christ, let the Reader see whether Mr. Blake answer them.
I will onelyonly mention the second, because there is nothing materiall spoken to the first and third. Which is, the root and branches, the first fruit and lump, must be of the same kinde; but ABRAM and his posterity are not of the same kinde, his posterity being many of them wicked; but Christ and his body-mysticall are of the same kinde, having the same graces, &c.
Mr. Blake. So it is here, all are of the same faith and profession, all are hand-fasted to one and the same GOD in Religion; this holinesse the Text holds forth, is the same in ABRAM and his posterity.
Rejoynd. The contrary appears, in that the ten Tribes so long approved the Calve-worship, and were so far corrupted, that Hos. 4.15. the Lord commands, Though thou Israel play the harlot, yet let not Judah offend. Yea further, the Jews are bid not to go to Gilgal, nor to come up to Beth-haven, which were the places where the Calves stood.
Mr. Blake p. 71. complains, this Argument was not answered, viz.
The grand Birth-Priviledge of the Jews was to be an holy Nation, but this honour to be an holy Nation, is given to believing Christians, 1 Pet. 2.9. Therfore Christians in this Birth-Priviledge, are equall to the Nation of the Jews.
Answ. To answer further, I deny your proposition; their grand priviledge was, to have the Oracles of God among them, Rom. 3.2. What advantage hath the Jew? Much every way; but chiefly, that unto them were committed the Oracles of God. Besides, to be an holy nation, was no absolute priviledge, but onelyonly a conditionall; See Exod. 19.5, 6. If ye will obey my voyce, ye shall be unto me a kingdome of Priests, and an holy nation; sometimes they did obey Gods voice, and then they were an holy nation; sometimes they did not, and then they were a prophane Nation, to whom it was then said, Hosea 1.9. Ye are not my people, and I am not your God.
Secondly, to your assumption; viz. That the honour to be an holy Nation, is given to believing Christians.
Answ. True, to such Christians as are a royall Priesthood, who are called out of darknesse to his marvellous light, 1 Pet. 2.9. which had now obtained mercy of God, vers. 10. to whom Christ is precious, vers. 7. These in respect of the distinct Lawes, whereby they live under the government of their King, the Lord JESUS, seperate from the rest of the world, are said to be an holy Nation; doth it follow therefore that Christians have this as a Birth-priviledge? Or that they have this priviledge as the Jews had it, who sometimes had it, sometimes fell from it? No, the condition of this holy Nation, being the Elect of God, and united in CHRIST, is unchangeable. Far is it removed from Mr. Blakes scope, that would make us dream we are a Believing nation as the Jews were, though the far greater part are visibly prophane, and discended from persons, as visible wicked and prophane as themselves. When you see a Nation of Believing Christians, to whom CHRIST is precious, &c. called out of darknesse into Gods marvellous light, then you may have some ground to call us a holy Nation; but never so long as persons Christianity is a forced work, and their lives so vicious as they are. Therefore I exhort Mr. Blake to desist, from thinking, that because the mysticall body of CHRIST is an holy Nation, to draw the same priviledge to any Nation under heaven, unlesse he give us some rule, whereby we may know infallibly, when a Nation is a Believing Nation: These kind of doctrins tend to nothing, but to make wicked men dreame of a groundlesse peace.
Next, Mr. BLAKE Page 72, 73. Bids me speake without tergiversations, where I place infants in regard of Covenant relation, whether Jews by Birth as the text speakes, or else with sinners of the Gentiles.
Answ. Doth the Apostle speake a word of faederall holinesse in that place? the Apostle speakes in the person of himselfe, Peter and Barnabas, and all other Jews of what age or sex soever, if able to understand: we know that as well our selves, as the sinfull Gentiles stand need to be justified by Christ, and knowing the inability of any of our legall services, priviledges, or workes whatsoever, to make us righteous, we believe in Christ, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ.
And further, that neither Gentles nor Jews, should be compelled to observe the Law, because no person living could be justified otherwise then by faith in Christ, Rom. 3.919. He calls himselfe and the other Jews by nature, to difference them from proselites, who were only Jews in affection. Or an argument from the greater, if we that have had such priviledges stand need of Christs righteousnesse, much more others, sinners of the Gentles, who never had Gods law as we have had, Psal. 147.20, 21.
This is the scope of the place, as we may see, Gal. 2.15.16.
Now to answer your question, where we place infants, whether with Iews by birth, or else with sinners of the Gentiles.
Answ. 1. The Apostle speakes not one word there of Infants. 2. Concerning infants state, the Scripture speakes not in what condition they are, and where the word hath not a tongue to speake, we must not have an eare to heare. 3. We place Iewes by birth, and sinners of the Gentiles, and infants, in one and the same condition, for so the Apostle places them at large in that disputation, Rom. 1. Also cap. 2. and cap. 3. When Iews and Gen…iles were one lifted up against another, he concludes, Rom. 3.9. What then are we better then they? no in no wise, for we have before proved, both Iews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; and verse 19. Every mouth is stopped, and all the world becomes guilty before God, and verse 23. All have sinned, and come short of the Glory of God; and in this condition are infants of Iews and Gen…iles, as they come into the world, children of wrath, Ephes. 2.2. Howbeit God through his free grace, may, and it is well to be hoped, doth, save some or all of them, through the satisfaction of Christ, which may be effectuall without believing, to persons not in abled to believe
Mr. Blake. There are but two Kingdomes, Familyes, Cityes, Households, Gods and the devils; if Infants be not of Gods familie, Kingdome, Houshold, then are they of the devils.
Answ. The visible Church being meant, many are not of this Kingdome, who yet are not of the devills, a… Iobe, Lot; and many are of the Kingdome of the visible Church, who …re of Satans Kingdome, as Magus.
Mr. Blakes Reply. Weedes may be in the Garden, flowers in the Commons.
Rej. Your reply is unsatisfactory. But further to the Argument I answer, First, many there be that are not of Gods Family or Houshold of the visible Church, that are not of Satans Kingdome, God having elected them, will in time call them home, Ephe. 2.12. There have been in all ages a company of elect, uncalled ones; who hath been of neither of these Kingdomes: the Theif on the crosse, Rahab, Iam. 2.25. who believed in Iericho; the three wise men that came to worship Christ, were of neither these Kingdomes.
Answer. To Mr. Blakes additionall arguments, brought to confirme the Birth-priviledge, and covenant holinesse of believers and their issues, Page 74.
1. If Abraham be a father in respect of Covenant, both of the circumcised, and those of the uncircumcision; then it followes, that this outward Covenant holinesse hereditary, and a priviledge of birth, conveyed from ancestors, to posterity. But Abram is thus a father, in respect of Covenant to the circumcised, and those of the uncircumcision, Rom. 4.9 10. Ergo, We deny the consequence.
And first let us open the place, Rom. 4.9, 10. Paul having showed that all believers are justified, the same way that Abraham was justified, from vers 1. to verse 9. an objection might b… mad…, vers 9. Abrahams example wa… particular, and therefore we can draw no generall doctrine from it, to which the Apostle begins to answer, that Abram is not to be considered as a particular person, but as the father of all believers, whether circumcised or uncircumcised.
But it might be objected, Abram was a circumcised person, what is that to us Gentile…?
To this the Apostle answers, ver. 10. Faith was reckoned to Abram for righteousnesse, how was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision, not in circumcision but in uncircumcision, q. d. Peruse the history, and you shall finde, Abram had righteousnesse imputed to him, before ever he was circumcised, viz. Anno 86. Gen. 16.16. Compared with cap. 15.6. But he was circumcised Anno. 99. Gen. 17.24. and Rom. 4.11. Having received the signe of circumcision, the Apostle showes what the use of circumcision was to him; which was twofold. First, to be a seal of the righteousnesse of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised; the meaning is, whereas God had promised that righteousnesse should be imputed to all them that believe, though not circumcised, verse 11. And to them also that are circumcised, walking in the steps of Abrams faith, verse 12. the promise being made to Abram, as father of all this believing seed, verse 16. He received circumcision, as a signe of this paternity or father-hood-ship; that this righteousnesse should not only bee to himself, but to all his believing seed, whether Jews or Gentiles, and no other; verse 11 12, 13. So that if you aske why Abram received circumcision, a seale of the righteousnesse of faith, when as other Jews received it as an obligation to keep the law. Gal. 5.3. Or at most to obliege them to circumcision of heart, it was (observe this finall cause) that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised, that righteousnesse might be imputed unto them, and the father of circumcision to them, who are not of the circumcission only, but also walke in the steps of the faith of our father Abram, which he had, being yet uncircumcised.
So that Circumcision was a seale of the righteousnesse which Abram had, not in Persona Propria, but in Persona Relativa, as any one may see, if he seriously peruse, verse 11. and verse 16. and 17, It sealed unto him, not his owne personall righteousnesse, which he had long before, but the righteousnesse of all believers, whether Jews or Gentiles, which was promised to him as a publike father, Gen. 17.5. compared with Rom. 4.17.
This being premised, in answering to the Argument, we deny the consequence, viz. That though Abram be a father in respect of Covenant, both of the circumcised and uncircumcised, yet it followes not, that either there should be any outward Covenant holinesse, or that it should be heriditary, or any Birth-Priviledge, should be conveyed from Ancestours to posterity,Abram's a father … the unci… cumcise … as well … the circumcise … not as u… circu… cised pe… sons, but as uncircumcise… believe… because Abrahams Father-hood is only in respect of believing, Rom. 4, 11.12, 16, 17. Not in respect of any outward Covenant holinesse. Hence Rom. 4.13. The promise that he should be here of the World, was to Abram through the righteousnesse of faith, that Abrams Father-hood, of which the Apostles here speakes, is onelyonly in respect of believing, appeares further, verse 16. Therefore it is (viz. The promise of faith; that it might be by Grace, to the end, the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the Father of us all.
Secondly, Abraham is not a father in respect of Birth-Priviledges, conveyed from himselfe to others, by any lineall hereditation, and so from ancestors to Posterity; for his Father-hoodship was in respect of the internall covenant stablished in the promised seed, Rom. 4. And therefore to argue, that because ABRAM was a father in respect of this internall covenant, therefore an outward covenant holines is hereditary from him, and a Birth-Priviledg conveyed from Ancestors to posterity, is a meer paralogisme; as if we should reason, such an one hath wealth from his father, therefore he hath health from him; which is a thing of another nature. If the naturall branches that came from ABRAMS loyns, have no lineall hereditation in the covenant of grace, by vertue of that promise, Gen. 17.7. for, Rom. 9.7. neither because they are the seed of ABRAM, are they all children, then much lesse have the naturall posterity of other believers.
Whereas Mr. Blake. p. 74. to prove the consequence of the foregoing Argument, saith; Its necessary to the being of a Father, to communicate being to posterity: If ABRAM be a father, not onelyonly in respect of being in nature, but also of being in covenant, then as a father he doth communicate a covenant, being not inward, which is communicable; but outward, which onelyonly is hereditary, and discendable.
Reply. To us Gentiles ABRAM is onelyonly a father, in respect of being in covenant; hence Rom. 4.17. as it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations, like unto him (so it is in the Greek) whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead. Here the Apostle sets down the Godlike properties and qualities of ABRAHAMS father-hood. First, it was not partiall, but universall; as God was father of all Nations, so was ABRAHAM a father like him whom he believed. Secondly, it was spirituall, not bodily; as God was the father of all believers, not by commixture of essence, but by spirituall adoption, so was ABRAMS fatherhood onelyonly spicituall; ABRAM as a spirituall father to whom the promises were made, adopts after a sort all believers, into copartnership in the Covenant: But to imagine (besides these two properties of ABRAHAMS fatherhood, which are plainly set down by the Apostle.) A third property, which is externall and discendable, is groundlesse and most uncertain.
Mr. Blake his second Argument is; If there be an outward covenant, and holinesse of covenant relation (different from that which is inherent and qualitative) in the dayes of the Gospell, as there was in the time of the Law, then is there the same reason of an hereditary discent of covenant, now in the times of the Gospell, as in the times of the Law; but the former is true, Erg…, the latter.
Answ. First, to your assumption; There is but one covenant under the Gospell) the law whereof is writ in the hearts of the godly, Heb. 8.10, 11.
Secondly, whereas you would p. 75. prove there is an outward holinesse or covenant relation, because there is an outward calling; Then first, visibly wicked and prophane men should be holy, because they hve an outward calling. I would faine know what holinesse there can be, in a people that are outwardly called, and do not inwardly answer: nay are they not esteemed more prophane then others? Pro. 1.24. Because I have called and ye have refused, &c. And declared not to be Christs sheepe, Iohn 10.27. My Sheepe, heare my voyce: but if you say they have an outward calling, because they do in some measure make profession of Christ, and take his badge upon them, though they are vicious
Answ. This badge, by paedo bap…isme they never consented to in their Infancy, and therefore no way can be said to answer to a call, no not Quod extra, and for any personall presence at ordinances when they come to understanding, if that can outwardly sanctfie them, then the Heathens may be sanctified, who in many places will come, and sit them out very demurely, as well as Christians. For your distinction of Terminuta quo, and terminus ad quem, in calling; I pray what is the terme from which all men are called? is it not from the state of nature? for your terminus ad quem, is not fellowship with Christ, or a state of reconciliation? is there any middle estate, whereunto you are wont to call your hearers? which distinction of yours, if it be true in calling as it is most true; then in vaine do you imagine a calling unto outward priviledges: and that this should give being to an outward holinesse, or a covenant relation.
Thirdly, whereas Mr. Blake would prove his …ssumption, viz. That there is an outward Covenant, and holinesse of relation, now in the times of the Gospel, as there was in the times of the law, because the titles of believers and Saint be of equall latitude and extent, which those of the old Testament, people of God, holy, beloved, P. 76.
Answ. These titles are not of equall extent and latitude, for in the old Testament they were called, first the people of God, in respect of their seperation from Idolatrous worship, to the true God. But yet 2. though they were called a holy nation, yet was it only conditionally, Exo. 19.51.6. If ye will obey my voyce and indeede, and keepe my covenant, then shall ye bee unto me a holy Nation, q. d. No more of you then do really obey, shall be so accompted.
Thirdly, but under the new Testament, they are called holy, because they are deemed to bee inherently holy. Hence to the word Saints, is joyned some other epithite evidencing an internall sanctification, Rom. 1.7. To those that be at Rome, beloved of God, called to be Saints, 1. Cor. 1.2. Sanctified in Christ Iesus, called to be saints, Ephe. 1.1. Saints which are at Ephesus, and faithfull in Christ Iesus, Phil. 1.1. To all the Saints in Christ Iesus, Col. 1.2. To the Saints and faithfull brethren in Christ, which are at Coloss. Cor. 3.12. Put on therefore as the elect of God, holy, and beloved, &c. 1. Thes. 1.1. The Church of the Thessalonians which is in God the father, and the Lord Iesus Christ, Heb. 3.1. Holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling.
For your allegation from the corruptions that were in Corinth, and yet the Corinthians were called Saints, I answer; many of them were not thus overtaken, when he so intituled them: besides they being newly called out of heathenism, wherein they counted fornication a thing indifferent, and that the body was made for that, as the bellye was made for meates; they might be reall Saints, and yet commit great evills in darke times: and its very like they had amended all upon the Apostles warning; for in the second Epistle he chargeth little upon them (that I remember) that he had admonished them for in the former Epistle, save fornication; which they thought to be an indifferent thing, 1 Cor. 6.13. And which the Gentiles generally so thought, that the Apostles at Ierusalem made one decree against it, Acts, 15. Yet doth the Apostles reprove them for divers other things.
Fourthly, for Mr. BLAKE his fourth ground, to prove Covenant holinesse, P. 77. in that the Sons of God tooke the daughters of men, Gen. 6.2.
Answ. Why must this be an outward holinesse, rather then an inward? doth not true sanctification, rather denominate a son of God; or is this such a sin as cannot befall a sanctified person? Ioseph married the preist of On his daughter, Sampson married a Philistim, Adam was called a Son of God, yet had no such Covenant holinesse, Luke 3. vlt.
Mr. BLAKE his 3. Argument is this. That holinesse which the roote necessarily transmits to the branch, the ancestor to posterity, must necessarily be a Birth-Priviledge, and holinesse of discent heriditary.
But there is such an holinesse in the dayes of the Gospel, which the roote necessarily transmits to the branch, the ancestor to posterity, Ergo, P. 77.
Answ. Though I might wave this Argument, because Mr BLAKE seemeth not to urge it for me, but for others; yet I answer, there is no such holinesse which believers, as a roote transmit to their posterity… for, they transmit to their posterities inward uncleannesse and pollution, witnesse David, who though the son of a good man, was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did his mother conceive him, Psal. 51.5. and Iob saith, Cap. 14.4. Not one man living whether he be believer or unbeliever, can bring a clean thing out of an unclean: and Christ tells Nichodemus, that which is born of the flesh is flesh, Iohn 3.6. And Paul though in the jewish Covenant and circumcised the 8. day, yet Ephe. 2 3. Saith of himselfe, that he was a Child of wrath by nature, in calling himselfe a Child of wrath by nature, he hath respect to his conception and Generation: now is it not absurd to thinke, that parents should convey to their seed an universall defilement both in soule and body, in every faculty and member, and yet convey an outward holinesse, which shall be heriditary, and not inherent; to use Mr. Blakes words, P. 77. & yet in the same page he saith, the same holinesse which is in the parent is transmitted to the infant, the same in kind and no other. So that it must be the same in kind, and inherent in the parent, and yet not in the infant; what uncertaintyes are here for the conscience?
And whereas he produces, 1 Cor. 7.14. The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, &c. — Else were your children uncleane, now are they holy. And hence Mr. BLAKE concludes, holinesse cannot be meant a legitimation of issue, whereof others give the reason, viz. That their children had been legitimate, being borne in lawfull wedlock, though neither of the parents had beene a believer, marriage being lawfull to Pagans, as well as Christians.
Answ. True, so it is; but yet they scrupled the contrary, and therefore the Apostle doth but take away the scruple, and tells them that their marriage was lawfull, and their issue was lawfully begotten; yea, though one person were an unbeliever. If a person should scruple the plainest thing, as whether it were lawfull to eat flesh, and drinke wine? it were both godly and reasonable, that such tender consciences should be satisfied; so if a Pagan and a Christian being married, the Christian shall scruple whether the marriage be lawfull, and their issue lawfull, though the case be never so plaine to others, yet is it pious to satisfie such poore soules; and so did the Apostles here, and in all the chapter, answer scruples of conscience, whereof they wrote to him for satifaction, v. 1. See many answers, both to 1 Cor. 7.14 and, Rom. 11.16. Storme of Antichrist, Pag. 42, 43, 44, 45.
Mr. BLAKE P. 82. Comes to except against an answer given to this argument, viz. Those that have the substance and thing signified, must not be denyed the signe. But infants have the thing signified viz. Christ; Ergo, must not be denyed the signe.
Answ. I denyed the second proposition, upon this ground; that all infants, nay the greater part, have not the thing signified, but grow up and prove wicked, and for those that have the thing signified, let them make it appeare to any Church of Christ, and they cannot deny their baptisme; meane, time because the greater part go the broad way, and the Church is to judge only of visible things, give us leave to forbeare till we see how those that have right can make it appeare.
Mr. BLAKE to this replyes, this reason will bee of equall force against the baptisme of adult or grown persons, that it will bee against infants baptisme, because their right to the outward part of the covenant, by vertue of their profession, is that which undoubtedly doth intitle them: also, Page 83. He saith, you know we maintaine a visible right in infants, equall to that in grown persons.
Rejoynd, 1. Covenants do not alwayes carry seales with them, as in the covenant, betwixt David and Ionathan, 1 Sam. 20. Yet if seales were alwayes annext to covenants, yet were it boldnesse in us to annex the Seale of baptisme, where God hath not so appointed; and no lesse then will worship: besides, the Scripture never calls baptisme a seale; if it be a seale, where is the impression it makes under the new Testament, I know no other seale wherewith believers are sealed, save the seale of the Spirit, the covenant of the new Testament is a covenant of life and salvation, to all that believe, Mar. 16.16. The seale of the covenant must then be answerable to that holy covenant, su…able whereto I know no other seale, but the spirit of promise, Ephe. 1.13. 2 Cor. 1.22.
To this I answer, Secondly, it is not of equall force to disable grown persons from baptisme, that it is to disable infants, to say let the thing signified appear and they shall not be denied bapsme; for grown persons, believers, can make the thing, signified, viz. Christ in their soul, to appear both by profession of words, and profession of life, which charity teacheth every Church and Administrator to judge to be in truth; but infants cannot make any profession either way; and though some Hypocrits may make profession of that which is not in them, yet (God only being able to search the heart) charity teacheth us to receive them.
And for Mr. BLAKES maintaining a visible right in infants, equall to that in grown persons, it doth not appeare to me what it is, but the ordinary practcie is, that in most places the father being a parishioner, the infant is baptized, when the father of the same infant is many times excluded from the Lords supper: For the visible right founded in the profession of growen persons, appeares in the Eunuch, who upon his profession was baptized. 2 Also Acts 18.8. Acts 16. The Iaylour, and the Samaritans, Acts 8. How could it be knowne that these persons did believe (being the Apostles and Philip were with some of them but a few houres) but only by their profession 3. Christ most playnly, in Heb. 10.23. foreign. And having washed the body in pure water, let us hold fast the confession, or profes…on of the hope, without wavering.
Now what profession speaks he of? Undoubtedly, he speaks of that profession they made at their baptisme; because he speaks of their washing their body in pure water: and then bids them hold fast their profession of their hope, that is, that profession which they made at their baptisme.
This Confession was in use in Salvians time, l. 6. de Gubern. Dei. In spectaculis quaedam apostacia fidei est, & a symbolis ipsius, & coelestibus sacramentis lethalis pravaricatio. Quae est enim in baptisme salutari Christianorum prima confessio? quae scilicet nisi ut renunciare se diabolo, ac pompis ejus, atque spectacul…s & operibus protestentur? Ergo, spectacula & pompae juxta nostram professionem, sunt opera diaboli. Quomodo O Christian, spectacula post baptismum sequeris, quae opus diaboli esse confiteris? Renunciasti semel diabolo & spectaculis ejus, ac per hoc necesse est prudens, & sciens dum ad spectacula remeas, ad diabolum te redire cognoscas. Vtrique enim rei simul renunciasti, & unum utrumque esse dixisti, si ad unum reverteris, ad utrumque remeasti; ab renuncio enim inquis diabolo, pompis, spectaculis, & operibus ejus; & quid postea? Credo inquis in Deum patrem omnipotentem, & in Iesum Christum filium ejus. Ergo, primum renunciatur diabolo, ut credatur Deo — nos vero quid respondere pro nobis possumus? tenemus symbolum & evertimus, & confitemur munus salutis, pariter & negamus, &c.
This Confession was in use in SALVIANS time, lib 6. de Gubern. Dei. In Stage-playes there is a certain falling away from the faith, and a deadly trensgressing from the signes and heavenly Sacraments thereof. For which is the first confession in the wholsome baptisme of Christians? what to wit is it, unlesse that they protest that they renounce the devill and his pomps, and playes, and workes? Therefore, stage-playes and pompes according to our profession, are the workes of the devill. How, O Christian, wilt thou follow playes after baptisme, which thou confessest to be a work of the devill? Thou hast renounced once the devill and his playes, and hereby it is necessary that thou mayest know thy self witting, and knowing to return back to the devill, whiles thou makes haste to playes. For thou hast renounced both together, and hast said both to be one; if thou returnest back to one, thou returnest back to both. For thou saidst, I renounce the devill, pomps, playes, and his works, and what after? Thou sayest, I believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ his Son. Therefore first the devill is renounced, that God may be believed — But what can we answer for our selves? We understand the signe or badge and overthrow it, and we confesse the guift of salvation, and in like manner deny it.
Where we may see what they confest at their baptisme. First, they protest to renounce the devill, and his pompes, playes, and workes. Secondly, they profest they believed in God the father Almighty, and Jesus Christ his Son.
M. Blake spends many words, to disable my answers given to Mr. M. his Argument, and to his own, p. 82, 83, 84. but let the Reader compare them, and he will see the invalidity of them, if he peruse my former Book, viz. The storm. of Antich. p. 51. 52. Where there are many answers given to this Argument.
Next, Mr. Blake p. 86. 87. 88. comes to except against Answers to this Argument, laid down by himselfe and others, viz. Those that are in Covenant, must be sealed with the seal thereof:
But Infants are in Covenant.
Answ. To this as before I answer, the females of the Jews were in covenant, yet not sealed; whereas you say there was an incapacity of circumcision in the females; I answer there was no incapacity, but the want of a command, and they were naturally defiled in generation, as well as men. Were not Enoch and Noah in the covenant, yet not circumcised for want of a command? Besides, where are the Sacraments of the New Testament called seals? For your saying you have a command to seal all in covenant, p. 87. if you speak of the covenant of Grace, made betwixt the Trinity and the believing soul, grace being an invisible thing, it will be hard for you to know who they are; neither do I know that you have any such command to seal those that be in covenant; outward and visible signes, cannot be founded on the covenant of grace, which is invisible. Or if you speak of an outward covenant, of which circumcision was the counterpart on mans part, and the giving the Land of Canan the counterpart on Gods part, Psal. 105.7, 8: Act. 7.8. Then baptisme is no signe of any such, being peculiar to the Jew; or if you mean by outward covenant, the outward part of the covenant of grace; I answer, first, there is but one covenant under the new Testament, Heb. 8.8. The branches whereof are only proper to the Elect, Heb. 8.10, 11, 12. Secondly, all this covenant is wholly inward, and there is nothing outward, Heb. 8.10. I will put my Lawes into their minde, and write them in their hearts, &c. q. d. All this covenant is wholly inward, nothing outward: Hence the worke of new creation is called the Inner man, Ephes. 3.16. Rom. 7.12. the Hidden man, 1 Pet. 3.4.
If you say, we may visibly know who are in covenant of grace by their fruits; I answer, this we cannot know in infants, who have not brought forth any fruits.
If you say, we may visibly know who are in covenant, by some visible charter made to ABRAM and his seed, and so to believers and their seed.
Answ. 1. There is no such branch in it, that those that are outwardly in the covenant of grace shallbe baptized.
2. The Apostls when they baptized any, never had recourse to any such visible charter, but only asked them whether they believed, or repented; if you say it was because they came out of Heathenisme, I answer; it was required in them that were in the Jewish Covenant; for Paul though in the Jewish covenant, must first repent, before Ananias had power to baptize him.
3. Whatsoever branch of any charter made to Abraham that reacheth unto us Gentiles, teaches to us only as believers, and as we are in Christ, and no otherwise, Gal. 3.28. Rom. 4.12. So that if our children be not Christs, they are not Abrahams seed.
For your bidding me name the man that made circumcision the covenant, I could do it if it were expedient; but for his honour sake, charity teaches me to cover his oversight,
For your reply, P. 87. to this speech, viz. Abram had but 3. seeds, Christ,So your selfe acknowledg P. 116. The proselites were no otherwise Abrams sons but by walking is the steps o… his faith. the carnall Jew, the believer of Jew and Gentile, and many mistake in imagining a fourth seed, that is, the seed of believers, whereas you reply, and aske, P. 87. To which of these 3. seeds Will I refer the proselites of the Gentiles?
I answer, those that were believers among them, refer to the 3. kind; and those that were unbelievers among them, were no manner of way Abrams seed, though they did pertake with the Jews, in outward ordinances, for to pertake of outward ordinances, which servants purchased with mony, might instantly do, did not make any person to be Abrams feed, yet this was all the unbelieving proselite had.
And whereas P. 90. Mr. Blake would cleere himselfe of former aspersons cast on us in his former booke, by a distinction, viz. By calling us the Anabaptists of this presentage, and so distinguishing us from the Anabaptists of the former age.
Answ. We deny your title, Anabaptisme signfying baptisme againe; our consciences are fully satisfied with one baptisme, provided it be such a baptisme as we judge to be the baptisme of Christ, and if our consciences judge that sprinkling we had in out infancy to be none of Christs baptisme, I aske you whether can we in good conscience rest satisfied therewith? we are [if we must needs be] new named, Antipaedobaptists, or Catap…dobaptists, but no Anabaptists.
For your scofs and wrested collections, P. 91. I desire to take notice of them here, and in many other places of your booke, and to answer as Christ did; when they said, he had a devill, Iohn 8.48. Who only tooke notice thereof, and said he had not a devill, v. 49. so desire I to do. Lastly, whereas Mr. Blake would cleere himselfe from such reviling speeches, P. 92. In that I returned far more then ever I received, let any man peruse the booke, and finde one reviling speech therein, against any person whatsoever, and let me beare the blame, and shame thereof, if any such should passe from me, I am sure it was contrary to the intention of my heart; but I am sure there was none.
But that Mr. Blake might cleere himselfe in this kinde, P. 92. He saith. You have returned far more then ever you received: To make the Churches of the Saints garrison-keepers for Antichrist, with you is fair language; to single out two brethren in the fore-front, to serve such a master &c.
Answ. If the imbracement of one point of Antichrists doctrine, make the Churches garrisons of Antichrist, and the Ministers, Ministers of Antichrist, then do you no lesse brand the Churches of Christ in Queene Maryes time, as Garrisons of Antichrist, and the martyrs as Garrison keepers for Antichrist: seeing they retained those things, which your selfe I suppose now deem: popish, as Prelaticall Episcopacy of Diocesan Bishops, and Archbishops, you know five of the Bishops suffered martyrdome, yea they retained the Common prayer booke, and some of them contended for Ceremonies, yet you never called them Garrison keepers for Antichrist; many of Gods faithfull ones may be in Babilon, in some one point, and yet not of B…bilon; in the Garrison of Antichrist, yet no keeper of it. Yet for your own part; that seeme to be Zealous for that (which the Lord I doubt not will pull downe) take you heed that you be not a Garrison keeper for Antichrist, (though not in the whole body of Popery) yet in this point. I do not a little suspect baptisme of Infants, which is the same for subject… with us and the Church of Rome, to have been the cause we came no sooner, nor faster out of Babilon, for all that are baptized are supposed to be believers, or in Covenant with God, and so the Children of Papists come in as the children of supposed believers, (though too too many of them deny Christ in all his offices) and so two often come to be one in Church fellowship; as in the dayes of the Bishops, when many alter-bowers and persons defiled with deep points of Popery, did commnicate with godly Protestants at one and the same supper of the Lord.
For your saying, P. 92. That to make Arguments of my own, and to farther them upon my objector (that so he may stand in comparison with a certaine Athiest) is neithe reviling not persecution.
Answ. The passage Mr Blake excep…s against, is, Storm of Antichrist pag. 6. Part 2. Where if the unprejudiced Reader can see any word in that comparison beyond the bonds of charity, let me be reputed as one that justifies himselfe in an evill action.