outward Ordinances and institutions and from thenceforth i. e. from the several periods of their presence with them establish them in a more compleat posture then before and each Church severally in its own proper order Moses then was the Mediator of the Old Testament established upon Earthly promises and so gave precepts accordingly but Christ the Mediator of the new which is called a better Testament established upon better promises Heb. 8. 6. and so gives his precepts not by the mouth of Moses but as he pleases Besides all this though the Covenant of Circumcision made with that fleshly holy seed began before Moses yet whether that denomination of a holy seed a holy Nation and people did begin so high as Abraham or before such time as Moses and Aaron had according to Gods command to them ceremonially sanctified by the bloud of sprinkling and dedicated both the Book of the Covenant and all the people and all the vessells of the Ministery and all other things pertaining to that Tabernacle for both that holy people and all their ceremonially holy things whereby you need not be ignorant unless you will that the holiness of that seed and their sanctuary was the same and began and were to end both together were first consecrated didicated purified sanctified all at one time under Moses Heb. 9. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. c. whether I say the holiness of the seed began so high as Abraham is a thing so out af doubt to me that I dare say that as the holy land was not relatively holy till they came into it so the holy seed as well as the other holy things of that Covenant were not ceremonially consecrated nor form ally sanctified nor vouchsafed that title of a holy seed though vertually they were a choise seed before till a little before they were to enter it and howbeit I challenge no man yet I intreat any man in the world to shew me if he can where they were denominated and distinguished from all other people as unclean by that term of a holy people till God intituled them so by Moses Exod 22. 31. ye shall be holy men unto me neither shall ye eat any flesh that is torn of beasts ye shall cast it to doggs which place compared with Levit. 22. 8. 9. Deut. 7. 6. chap. 14. 2. chap. 26. 19. doth so plainly shew these two things First That the holiness there spoken of began but thenceforth Secondly that it was but a certain ceremonial distinction and a holinese opposite to that kind of defilement which might be contracted by eating of unclean beasts and so fully ceased in Christ that I even blush to read Mr. Blake and have been ashamed in my mind to hear some Independents also bring those Scriptures wherein God called Israel a holy people to himself to prove that an inchurched believers meer fleshly seed is now by nature holy in the same sense Now then let us hear the conclusion of this whole matter of the things that have been spoken this is the summe viz. that there are three kinds of holiness of which when you say children of believing parents have holiness and consequenrly the spirit you undoubtedly mean one viz. Matrimonial Ceremonial Moral The Middlemost of which because your fellow laborers against the Gospel intend that chiefly in their books I have treated on last and most largely and I now say three things of it in special First That it is a Holinesse which once was but now is not in being Secondly That it is a Holiness which of it self when it was in being as it was at the beginning of the Gospel before Christ crucified could not without faith and moral holiness interest the persons in whom it was seated in any of these three things viz. Gospel Promises Gospel Priviledges or Gospel Ordinances 1. Not the premises for they were made to Abraham in Christ and his spiritual seed not his own fleshly seed upon such terms as bare birth of his body or such holiness and righteousness as was under the Law intituling to Canaan Rom. 4. 13. 14. Gal. 3. 16. 29. 2. Not the priviledges viz. Gospel immunities and Church-membership for those that could plead they were under the typical freedomes of the old house or Church under the Law as Abrahams seed only were are denyed by Christ to be that holy seed that should stand in the Gospel house that was now to be built or share in that spiritual freedome which the sonne gives which is the only freedome indeed unlesse they did Abrahams works Iohn 8. 32. to the 40 ta 3. Nor yet the Ordinances no not so much as Baptism the initiating ordinance it self for when that old holy seed remaining yet under their relative and denominative holiness unabolished did plead it as to baptism they were put back by Iohn and not permitted barely upon that account upon which they stood in the old house without faith unless they now believed and amended their lives whose repulse of them when they came to his baptism was this viz. begin not to say we have Abraham to our Father c. Mat. 3. 7 8 9. Luke 3. 7. 8. Thirdly suppose baptism were entailed so to that holinesse and a meer fleshly seed of believers or of believing Abraham himself as truly as t is true it is not yet how grossely were you overseen Gentlemen in undertaking to prove the holy spirit by it to be in infants for that 's the probandum the very thing which by the holinesse of infants you went about to make good for the minor of your first fylogism which was this but little children have the holy spirit being denied was proved say you first by their faith secondly by their holinesse thirdly by those Eulogies given them in Scripture if then by holinesse you mean this kind of holiness I mean ceremonial which once was in the Iews by nature you have a wet â—…le by the tail then indeed for ask but Mr. Blake and he 'le tell you that that holinesse was in thousands who yet had not the holy spirit yea in truth all the Iews had that holinesse of whom not a Tenth even then when they had it were either in infancy or at years morally sanctified or indued with the holy spirit and as I have said these three things in special concerning that one kind of holinesse so I have three things in general to say in short concerning al these three sorts of holinesse viz. First one of them was in infants of old and now is not but is vanisht and when it was it proved not the spirit viz. ceremonial Secondly another is but nothing to your purpose I mean the proof of the spirit though it be in most infants viz. matrimonial Thirdly the other is not yet come for ought yet appears to infants viz. morall which if it did appear to be in them positive qualitativè as an inherent quality not negative onely so as to be without sin or absolutely innocent for
faith of any believing Gentiles onely I cannot therefore but stand amazed in my mind to consider how miserably Mr. Blake mistakes himself in taking that text from which to prove a present birth holinesse in the infants of believing Gentiles which if there were no other to compare it with doth sufficiently clear it of it self alone how much more if compared with those forecited out of Act. 10. Act. 11 that there is now no such holinesse and uncleannesse as was once between Iews by nature and such as were then called sinners of the Gentiles yea if that distinction of Iews by nature and sinners of the Gentiles spoken of Gal. 2. 15. were now in being remaining unabolished it would be so farre from establishing that indeed it would utterly overthrow what Mr. Blake pleads for from it and instead of advancing the naturall seed of believing Gentiles so high in holinesse as he would have them to be by birth debase them rather into a worse condition then I dare say any unbelieving Gentiles seed is in by birth as to such a kind of uncleanness as they once were denominated by in all the world specially if it be so as he himself saies p. 10. of his birth priviledge viz. That the seed of believing Gentiles are now under one of those two heads in the text For if that distinction be not now destroyed and all men by birth come under one of those two denominations now under which of them I trow will Mr. Blake rank the infants of believing Gentiles he will not render himself so ridiculous sure as to say they are Iewes by nature and therefore unless the distinction be totally taken away he must say they are by nature sinners of the Gentiles which in the sense of the Law is as if he should say Doggs unholy common and unclean and more then we our selves dare say of any now new-born infants under heaven as in contra-distinction to other If he say they are neither sinners of the Gentiles nor Iews by nature neither then either he must say they are some third thing which if he do Mr. Blake himself will contradict Mr. Blake in that for he asserts pag. 10. of his Birth priviledge that the seed of believing parents under the Gospel must be lookt upon under one member of this division in this text and that the Apostles distinction and distribution is so full and compleat that a third cannot be assigned or else he must grant that this distinction is now wholly ceased under the Gospel which because t is the giving up of his whole cause he will be very loath to do and therefore rather than do so then which yet if he well understood what is best for him he could not do a better thing of the two he choses to the utter contradiction of himself to rank them under a third head to assert them to be some third thing namely a sort of carnal holy seed of his own and the Clergies coining a Relative holy seed of their own consecrating a faederall holy seed of their own feigning a holy seed hatcht in their own heads which are neither fish nor flesh nor good red herring nor sinners of the Gentiles nor Iews by nature nor Iews besides nature neither i. e. by personal faith as all true Christians are but quartum quoddam a certain fourth thing called Christians from their mothers womb or ever they are so much as christen'd into the name or discipled into the nature and yet for all this a seed set forth in such a transcendent manner as if all other were in comparison of them by very descent p. 13. unclean sinners unholy dogs and filthy swine 'T were enough to make a wise man wonder to see how superlatively Mr. Blake magnifies this seed of believing Gentiles above the seed of all other men in the world even above the fleshly seed of Abraham Isaac and Iacob themselves who only at least mainly had the promise of this priviledge of transmitting a Covenant holiness to their issue and this but typically and for a time neither even till that seed should come i. e. Christ and believers in him to whom all and only the Gospel promises were made He calls them Children of God and Saints by very nature Little ones of Sion in reference to infants of Infidells which with him are little ones of Babylon and yet to go round again this Babilon in his own opinion is not the Infidells but Rome a Church of Christians in name at least as well as the Protestant nations and consequently to go round again in his own opinion such see pag. 26. as transmit a covenant-holiness into their seed so far as in his own sense to make them little ones of Sion as well as the other and yet for all this too to go round again though it be execration with him to hurt the little ones of Sion i. e. in his sense the infants of such as are not infidels but Christians in name yet to go round again it is an happy thing to dash the little ones of Babylon i. e. in his sense infants of Papists who yet are Christians nomine tenus and not infidels and consequently secundum se the Lords heritage and such as have Christs name upon them and such as for a Turk to persecute were to be guilty with Saul of persecuting the Lord Jesus p. 30. against the walls p. 29. which little ones of both Syon and Babylon he is yet much mistaken in when all is done in taking either of them for fleshly babes of what parents soever Syons little ones in the true spiritual or gospel sense being the Saints themselves onely and not their fleshly babes as such even the little ones Christ Paul Peter and Iohn speak of Mat. 10. 42. Gal. 4. 19. 1 Pet. 2. 2. 1 Iohn 2. 1. 12 13. And Babylons babes being no other then the C C Clergies adult disciples or A A Antichristian C C Christian creatures And to take notice a little more yet of Mr. Blakes high expressions of the birth holinesse birth happinesse birth mercy birth dignity of meer nominal Christians fleshly seed as they lie scattered up and down in p. 28. 30. 31. 32. 33. and other pages of his book he calls them a seed in relation to God as well as their parents and so indeed they may soon be if he mean of such meer outside Christians as he doth the inheritance of God the Saints and Servants of God a holy seed having a royall transcendency above all others as onely worthy the name of a people injoying the light nigh unto God a people of hope and expectation children that have blisse as if they were actually and inalterably already stated in it and possest of it and all other infants and people as inalterably designd and devoted universally to cursing and damnation as having no Gospel at all belonging to them no not that Gospel which is to be preached to every creature a seed
grant p. 88. intailes baptism to the children that have believing Guardians as well as to such as have believing parents and so he gives the question as stated concerning believers children only Some again put it on the score of neither the childs nor the parents nor the sponsors faith but at least either the fathers or the Mothers membership in a gathered Church so as if this be not the parents though otherwise never so faithful may not have their children baptized thus the Churches in New England yea and I think all of this indifferent semi-demi-Independent way both in Old England and New and elsewhere witness Mr. Best Churches plea p. 60 61. who saith thus A man must not only be a Christian and by profession within the covenant only but also a member of some visible Church and particular congregation ere his child be baptized For which Mr. Rutherford rounds him a bout again and takes him to do p. 174. 175. of his Presb. and flatly contradicts him thus saying Baptism is a priviledge of the Church not of such a particular Independent Church and the distinction between Christian communion and Church communion in this point is needless and fruitless for none are to be refused baptism whose parents professe the faith c. howbeit not members of a settled Church Which also contradicts Mr. Cobbets Castle of come down whose whole structure is settled upon that same dainty distinction of Church choice and true choice of this mind also was my beloved friend Mr. Charles Nicolls of whom I have more hopes yet then I have of every one of his own form that he will fully own the truth in time forasmuch as he doth more fully appear for it against that Truth-destroying thing called Tythes then those of his way do in other parts of Kent who either per se or at least per alios take them not to say rake and rack both Christs flocks and the parish flocks also for them still which Mr. Nicolls preaching publiquely at Dover in my hearing Ian. 1650. whether he fetch his doctrine out of Mr. Cobbets book yea or no I cannot tell in page 17. whereof the same is found declared himself to be of Mr. Cobbets mind by the delivery of this doctrine viz. That an enchurcht believers natural seed is faederally holy from 1 Cor. 7. 14. which position I have also since seen under his hands so narrow a corner is the case crouded into now that it is not the believing but the enchurcht belieuing parent i e. who leaving the perochiall posture betakes himself to membership in some seperated society who sanctifies the unbelieving parent and the seed else were the children unclean but now are they holy i. e. from the time of one or both parents entering the borders of a seperated society and so by this means if an old man or woman that hath ten or twenty children the youngest whereof is no less then twenty years old they all though never so morally wicked yet from thenceforth are faederally holy but not before no though their parents believed before Upon this Account the Churches in New England deny their Nullity sprinkling to infants of such parents as are either not yet joined to them or for which they are very oddly also at odds among themselves excommunicate from them in justification of which Gambole Mr. Cotton lapps himself up in such a manglement of discourse p. 81. to the 88. as betokens that wisdome is perishing from the wise for mans tradition sake which they hold up against Christs institutions yea he sticks not to assert p. 81. Thâ—…t the Apostles and Evangelists gathered men whom they baptized into a visible church estate before they baptized them unless they were church-members before they preached to them Which is as if he should say they brought them first into the visible Church that they might be baptized and then to go round again baptized them that they might be brought into the visible Church for unlesse he contradict all those thousands of Old England now becoming New whilest New England growes old who after sprinkling still used this phrase viz. We receive this child into the coâ—…gregation of Christs flock as in the English refined Masse-book the Priests universally did preaching baptism to be the entrance into the visible Church not in word only but in deed also by placing their Fonts at the Church doors unless I say he be contrary to all Paedobaptists who hold baptism to be the way into the Church and not the visible Church the way into baptism and then what another cross whet doth he wipe them with we must needs take Mr. Cotton in that manner and yet to say the truth the Clergy is cross enough to themselves in this case for this is but like that of them that say believers infants are born in the bosome or within the pale of the Church and so must be baptized and must be baptized and so enter within the pale of the visible Church or else they are out and in no better condition than the children of Turks and Pagans What prety Gim-cracks are here yet surely not much above the tyth of those round abouts and contradictions to themselves and one another that are to be found among the Paedorantists should I stand upon a full discovery of them but verily I am weary to see Old England New England and Scotland all together by the ears about their infants sprinkling and had rather if it were possible gain them all to be at peace in that point by laying down their dispensing it any more to infants and pitching all upon the undoubted subject of true baptism i. e. a professed believer without which it is impossible to reconcile them till they have routed each other and stormed themselves out of their strongest garrisons with their own hands Among whom and so to make an end what hold and keep is there likewise about the sprinkling of bastards may be seen by Mr. Cotton page 88. of his way e. Some and those the best Divines holding the baptism of Bastards but not sine sponsoribus i. e. not without witnesses or sureties Others holding it without witnesses for ought I find of which sort is Mr. â—…obbet who brings in Bastards to baptism by a certain fetch beyond his fellowes viz. the faederal interest of those bastard infants that are born in the Church saying Though the parents faith do not sanctify such yet the force of Abrahams covenant fetches them in which I much marvel at sith the law or covenant of Circumcision admitteth not such into the Congregation unto the tenth generation Others again denying that the Scripture warrants any such thing at all as the admitting of Bastards to come by baptism into the Congregation as his neighbour Mr. Cotton who gives liberty to Christian Sponsors to entitle wicked mens children to baptism by their undertaking for them yet can scarce find in his heart for ought I find to allow them the
persons that did then believe whose children yet for all that promise to them and their children you so talk of out of Act. the 2. 39. came all to nought through unbelief for else indeed the promise even after Christ crucified was to them as also to all others so sure in case of faith that that causelesse curse of their parents wishing the blood of Christ to be on them and their children should never have hurt any but them that wished it In further illustration of which yet I mean that personal faith onely not 〈◊〉 gives a standing in the Church now because I write to a generation of men that have more time to read then I to write I hope I may be bold to trouble my self and you with the transcription of at least a page out of a little treatise termed a confutation of infant-baptism by Thomas Lamb very plain and pregnant to this purpose and the rather because I fear you will not search the book it self soundly if I should send you to it onely by telling you t is worth your reading in this point though at your request I have all-to-be-read Dr. Featley in the 12. and 13 pages of which book of Thomas Lamb he writes as follows So then when Christ the true promised seed was come the seed in the flesh that lead to Christ ceased for the natural relation ceased at the death of Christ and not before at which time the distinction or different holinesse between Iew and Gentile ceased Act. 10. 28. Eph. 2. 13. 15. In Rom. 11. 20. it is said through unbelief they are broken off now t is manifest they were the true Church till the death of Christ and then broken off through unbelief why were not the Iews in the sin of unbelief before yes no doubt why then were they not broken off before and why then the reason is because the time of faith was come and therefore now they were broken off through unbelief the seed was come therefore the natural seed ceased Christ was come therefore the law ceased As long as the law lasted they did remain in the Church by being circumcised and observing the rites and ceremonies of the Law though they did remain in unbelief but when the time of faith was come Gal. 3. 25. then they were no longer in the Covenant and Church by observing the rites and Ceremonies of the Law which they entered into by circumcision but now they were broken off through unbelief which notes out unto us that the standing in that Church before Christ in time of the Law and the standing in this Church since Christ in time of the Gospel is upon different grounds for the standing in that Church was by being circumcised and observing the rites and ceremonies of the Law but the standing in this Church is by faith and being baptized into the same faith Act. 2. 38. 41. Joh. 4. 1. Gal. 3. 26 27. Rom 11. 20. And it is to be noted that the Iewes the same people that were circumcised and in covenant with Abraham according to the flesh and thereby members of the Iewish Church could not be the visible church according to the Gospell unless they did manifest faith and so be in covenant with Abraham according to the spirit and baptized into the same faith Whereas if the Covenant now under Christ were the same that was before Christ with Abraham and his posterity in the flesh then by the same right they possessed circumcision and the Iewish Church state they must possesse this since Christ which they could not do therefore it is not the same It is true therefore that the Covenant of God makes the Church both in time of the Law and Gospel too for the Church is nothing else but a people in covenant with God now look how the covenant differs so the Church and people differs which is made by it and which enter into it Now the Covenant whereby God took a people outwardly to be his people then was that whereby they did being circumcised participate of all those outward meanes which led to Christ which was to come Psal. 149. 19. 20. But the Covenant whereby he takes a people outwardly to be his people now whereby they are admitted to be baptized is that profession they make of faith in Christ Acts 8. 12. 37. Mat 3. 6. Whereby they have true and spirituall conjunction with God and are his people Heb. 3. 6. Indeed it is true that Christ is and ever was the Mediator and Means of salvation and also that all those that were saved were saved through faith in him both before and since his comming But yet because the outward means of making Christ known doth differently depend upon his being yet to come aâ—… upon his being come in the flesh the one being more dark the other more plain the one more carnall the other more spirituall therefore the participation of these meanes doth make the state of the participants to differ Thus far are his words and then noting certain differences to the number of seven or eight between the Old Testament and the New which is 1. Established upon better promises 2. After the power of an endless life 3. In Christ. 4. And liberty of the spirit 5. A Celestial Jerusalem 6. A State of faith He very truly concludes that such onely as are in the New Covenant in Christ in faith of the promises born from above and partakers of the spirit and the power of that endless life or of the world to come a re suitable to be admitted to Gospel Church priviledges In the time therefore before Christ saith he such as would circumcise themselves and their males and observe the Law in the rites and ceremonies therof together with their children by generation were the seed and in covenant with that Church but now since Christ only such as believe in Christ and are thereby children by regeneration are the seed and in câ—…nant with this Church and this he proves further yet First Because None of the Natural seed of Abraham are in the Covenant by vertue of any natural relation though they did remain in the Iewish Church till the death of Christ and as that Church then ceased so their being in the Church by an natural relation ceased also Act. 10. 28. Rom. 9. 8. Gal. 5. 28. 31 3. 7 8 9. 14. 16. 19. 26. 28 29. Secondly The Gentiles have no natural relation to become Abrahams seed by therefore a believers child cannot become the seed of Abraham by being the seed of a believer unless such children do believe themselves and cannot otherwise in no respect be participants in the covenant made with Abraham p. 14 15. And again p. 18. No Gentile saith he is Abrahams seed at all but by believing the righteousnesse of faith allthough he be the child of believing parents Now therefore because you tell us not only First that believers children in infancy are Abrahams children though they yet do not