Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

d

5. The Albigenfes, as Perrin fays, differ nothing at all from the Waldenfes, in their belief; but are only fo called of the country of Albi; where they dwelt, and had their firft beginning; and who received the belief of the Waldenfes by means of Peter Bruis, Henry and Arnold; who, as it clearly appears, were all Antipædobaptifts; and Dr Allix obferves, that the Albigenfes have been called Petrobrufians; owned to be a fect of the Waldenses, that denied Infant-baptism: and that the Albigenfes denied it, at least fome of them, yea the greatest part of them, is acknowledged by fome Pædobaptifts themselves. Challanion in his history of these people fays; "fome writers have affirmed, that the "Albigeois approved not of the baptifm of infants.-I cannot deny that the "Albigeois for the greatest part were of that opinion. The truth is, they did "not reject this facrament, or fay it was useless, (as fome, he before obferves, "afferted they did) but only counted it unneceffary to infants, because they are "not of age to believe, or capable of giving evidence of their faith." Which is another proof of the ancient Waldenfes being against Infant-baptifm, these being the fame with them. Upon the whole, if I have been too modeft, in saying that the ancient Waldenfes practifed Infant-baptifm, wants proof, I fhall now use a little more boldness and confidence, and affirm, that the ancient Vallenses, or as corruptly called Waldenfes, were oppofers of Infant-baptifm; and that no proof can be given of the practice of it among them till the fixteenth century; and that the author of the dialogue had no reason to say, that their being in the practice of adult baptifm, and denying Infant-baptifm, was a mere chimæra and a groundless figment.

My fourth chapter, you know, Sir, refpects the argument for Infant-baptifm, taken from the covenant made with Abraham, and from circumcifion. Here our author runs out into a large difcuffion of the covenant of grace, in his way; in which he spends about fourscore pages, which I take to be the heads of fome old fermons, he is fond of, and has taken this opportunity of publishing them to the world, without any propriety or pertinence. For, 1. not to dispute the point with him, whether there are two diftinct covenants of redemption and grace, or whether they are one and the fame, which is foreign to the argument; be it that they are two diftinct ones, the fpiritual feed promifed to Chrift, or the people given him in the one, are the fame that are taken into the other; they are of equal extent; there are no more in the one, than there are concerned in the other; and this writer himself allows, "that the falvation of the Spiritual feed of Chrift is promifed in both covenants." Now let it be proved, if it

Hiftory of the Albigenfes, 1. 1. c. 1. p. 1, 2. • Ut fupra, c. 14. p. 121.

Apud Stennett, p. 87, 82

can,

can, that there are any in the covenant of grace but the spiritual feed of Christ ; and that the natural feed of believers, and their infants as such, are the spiritual feed and if they are, then they were given to Chrift, who undertook to fave them, and whose salvation was promised to him, and to whom in time the communications of grace according to the covenant are made; then they must be all of them regenerated, renewed, and fanctified, juftified, pardoned, adopted, perfevere in grace, and be eternally faved; all which will not, cannot be faid of all the infants of believers; and consequently cannot be thought to be in the covenant of grace.

2. As to what he fays concerning the conditionality of the covenant, it is all answered in one word; let him name what he will, as the condition of this covenant, which God has not abfolutely promised, or Chrift has not engaged to perform, or to fee performed in his people, or by them. Are the conditions, faith and repentance? These are both included in the new heart, and Spirit, and beart of flesh, God has abfolutely promised in the covenant, Ezekiel xxxvi. 26. Is new, spiritual, and evangelical obedience, the condition? This is abfolutely promised as the former, ver. 27. Or is it actual confent? Thy people fhall be willing, Pfal. cx. 3. And after all, if it is a conditional covenant, how do infants get into it? Or is it a conditional covenant to the adult, and unconditional to them? If faith and repentance are the conditions of it, and these must be, as this author fays, "the finner's own voluntary chosen acts, before " he can have any actual faving interest in the privileges of the covenant ; it follows, that they cannot be in it, or have interest in the privileges of it, till they repent and believe, and do these as their own voluntary chosen acts; and if "man's confent and agreement bring him into covenant with God," as this writer fays; it should be confidered, whether infants are capable of this confent, or no; and if they are not, according to this man, they stand a poor chance for being in the covenant.

3.

Whereas the covenant of grace, as to the effence of it, has been always the fame, as is allowed, under the various forms and administrations of it, both under the Old and New Testament; fo the fubjects of it have been, and are the fame, the spiritual feed of Chrift, and none elfe; and not the carnal feed of men as fuch and if the conditions of it are the fame, faith and obedience, as our author obferves, then infants muft ftand excluded from it, fince they can neither believe nor obey.

4. That the covenant of grace was made with Abraham, or a revelation and application of it to him; that the gofpel was revealed to him, and he was justified in the fame way believers are now; and that he had spiritual promises made to him, and spiritual bleffings beftowed upon him; and that gospel-believers,

be

be they Jews or Gentiles, who are the spiritual feed of Abraham, are heirs of the fame covenant-bleffings and promises, are never denied this man is fighting with his own fhadow.

What is denied and should be proved, is, that the covenant of grace is made with Abraham's carnal feed, the Jews, and with the carnal feed of gospelbelievers among the Gentiles; and that spiritual promifes are made to them; and that they are heirs of fpiritual bleffings, as fuch: and let it be further observed, that the covenant in Genefis xvii. is not the covenant referred to in Galatians iii. 17. said to be confirmed of God in Chrift, and which could not be dif annulled by the law 430 years after; fince the date does not agree, it falls fhort twenty-four years; and therefore muft refer, not to the covenant of circumcifion, but to fome other covenant, and time of making it.

5. It is falfe, that children have been always taken with their parents into the covenant of grace, under every difpenfation. The children of Adam were not taken into the covenant of grace with him, which was made known to him immediately after the fall; for then all the world must be in the covenant of grace. The covenant made with Noab and his fons, was not the covenant of grace; fince it was made with the beafts of the field as well as with them; unless it will be faid, that they also are in the covenant of grace. Nor were all Abraham's natural feed taken into the covenant of grace with him. Ishmael was by name excluded, and the covenant established with Ifaac; and yet Ishmael was in the covenant of circumcifion; which by the way proves, that, that and the covenant of grace are two different things: nor were all Abraham's natural feed in the line of Ifaac taken into the covenant of grace, not Esau; nor all in the line of Jacob and Ifrael; for as the apostle says, they are not all Ifrael which are of Ifrael; neither because they are the feed of Abraham, are they all children; but in Ifaac shall thy feed be called; that is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted for the feed. The covenant at Horeb was indeed a national covenant, and took in all, children and grown perfons; and which was no other than a civil contract, and not a covenant of grace, between God and the people of Ifrael; he as King, and they as subjects; he promising to be their protector and defender, and they to be his faithful fubjects, and obey his laws; which covenant has been long ago abolished, when God wrote a Loammi upon them: nor is there any proof of infants under the New Teftament being taken into covenant with their parents. Not Matt. xix. 14. 1 Cor. vii. 14. which make no mention of any cove nant at all, as will be confidered hereafter; nor Heb. viii. 8. fince the house of Ifrael, that new covenant is faid to be made with, are the spiritual Ifrael, whe

e Rom. ix. 6-8.

ther

ther Jews or Gentiles, even the whole houshold of faith, and none but them; nor are their infants spoken of, nor can they be included; for have they all of them the laws of God written on their hearts? Do they all know the Lord? or have they all their fins forgiven them? which is the cafe with all those with whom this covenant is made, or to whom it is applied. Nor are there any predictions of this kind in the Old Teftament. Deut. xxx. 6. Pfalm xxii. 30. Isaiah ix. 21. fpeak only of a fucceffion of converted perfons, either in the gospel-church among the Gentiles, or in the fame among the Jews, when that people fhall be converted in the latter day.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

6. The distinction of an inward and outward covenant, is an Utopian business, mere jargon and nonfenfe; it has no foundation in fcripture, reason, nor common sense. And here I cannot but obferve what Mr Baxter, a zealous Pædobaptift, fays on this fubject'. "Mr Blake's common phrafe is, that they are "in the outward covenant, and what that is, I cannot tell; in what fenfe is that (God's covenant- act) called outward? It cannot be, as if God did as the dif fembling creature, Ore tenus, with the mouth only, covenant with them, and "not with the heart, as they deal with him. I know therefore no possible sense "but this, that it is called outward from the bleffings promifed, which are out"ward; here therefore, I should have thought it reasonable for Mr Blake to "have told us what these outward bleffings are, that this covenant promiseth; "and that he would have proved out of the fcriptures that God hath such a co"venant diftinct from the covenant of grace. I defire therefore that those words of fcripture may be produced, where any fuch covenant is contained." And let Mr Clark tell us what he means by the outward covenant, or the outward part of it, in which infants are; if any thing can be collected from him, as his meaning, it is, that it defigns the outward administration of the covenant by the word and ordinances: but if it means the outward miniftry of the word, newborn infants are not capable of that to any profit; if it defigns the administration of baptifm and the Lord's fupper, then they fhould be admitted to one as well as the other; and if baptifm only is intended by this outward covenant, or the outward part, here is the greatest confufion imaginable; then the fenfe is, they are under the outward adminiftration of the covenant, that is baptifm; and this gives them a right to be baptized, that is to be baptized again, or in other words to be made Anabaptifts of; and after all it is a poor covenant, or a poor part of it affigned for infants, in the bond of which, as this author fays, are many real hypocrites.

7. That covenant-intereft, and an evidence of it, give right to the seal of the covenant, which was circumcifion formerly, and baptifm now, is false; and this

f Baxter's Answer to Blake, Sect. 39.

this writer has not proved it, nor infants covenant-intereft, as we have feen already. He should have first proved that circumcifion was a feal of the covenant of grace formerly, and baptifm the feal of it now, before he talked of covenantintereft giving a right to either. Admitting that circumcifion was a feal of the covenant of grace formerly, (though it was not) yet intereft in that covenant and evidence of interest in it, did not give right to all in it to the feal of it, as it is called; fince there were many who had evidently an intereft in the covenant of grace, when circumcifion was firft appointed, and yet had no right to it; as Shem, Arphaxad, Lot, and others; and even many who were in the covenant made with Abraham, as this writer himself will allow, who had no right to this feal, even all his female offspring: to fay, they were virtually circumcifed in the males, is falfe and foolish; to have a thing virtually by another, is to have it by proxy, who represents another; but were the males the proxies and reprefentatives of the females? had they been fo, then indeed when they were circumcifed, the females were virtually circumcifed with them; and fo it was all one as if they had been circumcifed in their own perfons; which to have been, would have been unlawful and finful, not being by the appointment of God: as for its being unlawful for uncircumcifed perfons to eat of the pafsover, this must be understood of fuch who ought to be circumcifed, and does not affect the females, who ought not, and fo might eat, though they were really uncircumcifed; nor had the males themfelves any right to it till the eighth day; and fo it was not covenant-intereft, but a command from God, that gave them a a right; and fuch an order is neceffary to any perfon's right to baptifm.

Again, admitting for argument-fake, that baptifm is a feal of the covenant, does not this Gentleman alfo believe, that the Lord's-fupper is a feal of it likewife? and if covenant-intereft gives a right to the feals, why not to one feal as well as the other? and why are not infants admitted to the Lord's table, as well as to baptifm? Moreover, it is evidence of intereft, this writer fays, that gives a right to the feal; and what is that evidence? Surely if faith and repentance are the conditions of the covenant, as before afferted, they must be the evidence? and therefore, according to his own argument, it should first appear, that infants have faith and repentance as the evidence of their covenant-intereft, before they are admitted to the feal of it; and fuch only according to the injunction of Chrift, and the practice of his apoftles, were admitted to baptifm; as the paffages below fhew, which our author refers us to.

And now, Sir, after a long ramble, we are come to Abraham's covenant itself, and to the questions concerning it; as, of what kind it is; with whom made; VOL. II.

3 K

8 Matt. xxviii. 19. Mark xvi, 16. A&ts ii. 38, 39. and x. 47.

and

« AnteriorContinuar »