reference to the Gospel Israel dwelt and domineered as the only child of the Church till Christ the true Isaac was born and then afer a while was cast out of the Church that his seed might dwell there alone for ever after Babist If it be so that believers only are that holy seed which is now to stand in the visible Church how is it that you baptize and â—…church such among you sometime's as are no true believers Baptist. We receive all that we receive by baptism into the Church under the notion of true believers only and such they are so far as we are capable to conceive by that outward profession of faith upon which only we admit them but if our charity be so mistaken as that of the Apostles themselves was in the like case that persons after either appear to be Hypocrites or prove Apostates we have warrant from the word according to which we also act to cast them out again as those that have no right at all to stand there whilest by their works they seem to be unbelievers till by some future and clearer fruits thereof we can guess them groundedly to be converted truly to the faith All then that we can say of the holiness and holy things that were under the first covenant which had then ordinances of divine service but carnal ones and a worldly sanctuary an humane infirm and imperfect High-priest-hood an earthly inheritance a fleshly seed which yet were all holy for the time then being all I say that can be now said of them is this they were Typical Ceremonial and abiding only till the the of Gospell reformation Heb. 9. 9. and are now all abrogated and out of date so that we may say as he fuit Ilium so fuit Canaan fuit urbs fuit lex fuit Templum fuit sanctum Sanctorum fuit sacerdotium fuit sacrosanctum semen there was indeed a holy â—…nd a holy City a holy Law a holy Temple a holy Priest-hood a holy seed but all these belonging to a first Covenant which was faulty and so gave place in time to a second all ornaments furniture and accomplishments of a covenant that decayed waxed old was ready to vanish and is now long since vanished before a better there were priviledges there was a freedome there was a rest there was a holiness there was a glory there was a Mosaical ministration but as it was less glorious by far then the Gospel ministration of Christ so as the shine of a Star when the Sun rises it past away and perished from before it when the other came in so that they were at a loss that then did as those are that still do dote though but in part upon it not looking stedfastly to the end of that which is now abolished and not considering that all that glory is done away and hath something remaining in its stead that is more glorious than it nor that all that which was made glorious and holy as a type for a while viz. the holy City the glorious holy mountain the holy Priesthood holy Temple holy root holy branches and what ever else was so denominated hath now no glory nor holiness at all upon it by reason of a glory that excelleth 2 Cor. 3. 9. 10 11. 13. Babist Abraham is still an holy root and his children holy branches even now under the Gospel as well as of old under the law and so are believing parents to their seed as the Iews of old were to their children for saith Paul Rom. 11. 16. if the first fruit be holy so is the lump and if the root be holy so are the branches as Mr. Blake also well observeth in his Birth-priviledge p. 7. Baptist. That the Root here is Abraham for my part I freely grant you since t is supposed you have so much advantage by it although t is sub judice among some whether by the root in that place be not meant Christ because the standing upon it is said to be by â—…aith only which is that only that ingrafts persons into Christ and as some say ingrafts them into Christ only and not any other and that by the olive-tree is meant the house or family of Abraham i. e. the visible Church and that the branches and lump that are here said to be hly are Abrahams children alâ—…o but I beseech you let it be considered that Abraham was a root two wayes or a double holy root standing respectively so to a two-fold lump or two sorts of holy branches viz natural and spiritual his children after the slesh and after the faith â—…is typically and ceremonially holy seed and his morally and really holy seed his sons by generation and heirs by promise of the the earthly 〈◊〉 i. e. the carnal Israelites and his sonnes by regeneration i. e. the Saints and believers who are 〈◊〉 by promise of the heavenly Canaan and theâ—…ue Israelites in whom is no guile under the first Covenant or old Testament Abraham stood a holy root to his natural branches born of his body by Isaac and Iacob which also in a figure and pro tempore to shadow out the holy seed to come that should inherit heaven were by bare deâ—…omination more then inward qualification a holy seed inheriting a figurative holy land but under the Gospel the substance being come in place that shadow is fled and how â—…eit Abraham is a holy root now unto the end of the world as well as befor yet not now any longer to his own fleshly seed by Isaac much less the meer carnal seed of believing Gentiles but to the other sort of seed viz. the children of his faith that walk in his steps and do his works for the natural branches of his own body are now broken off and can stand no more a holy seed and branches in reference to that holy root Abraham for the want of faith but the other i. e. all and onely such as believe of what nation or parents soever Jews or Gentiles are now counted for his seed and stand holy branches to that holy root Abraham and the holy lump to him who was as it were a certain first fruits unto God of the whole body of believers and choseâ—… of God to be a father of the faithful and a holy root for ever to all persons that in after ages should believe to which honor he was also sealed by circumcision The true visible Church then or olive-tree in which there 's fatness and fulness as David saith I shall be filled with the fatness of thy house is counâ—…ed his family to the end in which there 's now no right of admittance or continuance â—…s of old for his own fleshly seed the very Iews that were an holy seed before the time of faith came muchless for any other mans natural seed without faith but for those onely even those individual persons that do believe There 's no room by right for any else in the house of Abraham the Gospel-church whose
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
extension of the grace of God in this Covenant and in the administration of it too it goes beyond the other for not only is the Gospel a clearer promulgation of the eternal covenant then that typical covenant was whereby the glory of it may be seen more plainly and with open face then when it was seen onely in the type as a thing to come for we preach Christum exhibitum Christ crucified a sacrifice already offered and baptize and break bread in token hereof but they and that in much dimnesse too Christum exhibendum a Messiah to come he was veiled though seen through the veil in the old but revealed in this new dispensation but also it is of larger extent in respect of the subject to which it belongs for the revelation of it by preaching and real proferring of the grate of it in the name of God who is not willing that any should perish and fail of his grace unlesse they will is to all people in the world the old administration of circumcision and other pertinances of that covenant which was the type of this was limitted and narrowed into a little corner the land of Israel the people of the Iews yea more the very new covenant administration that we are now under as preaching baptizing c. while the old covenant did continue as it did for two or three year after the beginning of this by Iohn till Christ crucified was streitned exceedingly above what it is among us for saith Christ then go not into any way of the Gentiles but now since Christ crucified its extended freely to every nation and every person in it of capacity of years to receive it and till then dying before they shall never be damned for rejecting it without any exception as they believe for go saith he into all the world c. Mark 16 Mat. 28. then circumcision was limitted to males among the Iews but Christ and baptism is to Jew and Gentile male and female wâ—…thout difference as they believe so that the grace israther lengthned in the administration of baptism by taking in the females that were not circumcised then straitned by the denial of it to infants in their infancy onely for even those also may be baptized too if they will when they come to years the grace of the new covenant therefore is even thus as well as otherwise better then the old in respect of the extent of it and its administration also to more subjects for the Jews onely were the subjects of that grace and heirs by promise of the earth ly Canaan but all the world are heirs of heaven by promise according as they repent and believe the Gospel Besides if you think that ever God took the whole body of that nation Israel that belonged all to the typical salvation of the old covenant into the covenant of everlasting salvation by Câ—…rist in relation to their fathers faith without their own and thence conclude that the whole body of believers seed must be by faith of their parents admitted into that same Covenant of the Gospel this is a meer Chimaera of your own brain for no such grace of God as this though some priests of the Iews dreamed of it as well as you for which they were pretty well curried by Christ and Iohn Mat. 3. Iohn 8. ever was now is or ever shall be As for our valuing believers infants as Turks and Pagans I tell you we raâ—…e them higher then your selves for we set them not so low as Turks and Pagans that are at years and wicked for they though not without many possibilities of life by Christ yet dying impaenitents will be demned as well as many of you that abuse more light nor yet so low as the infants of Turks and Pagans for though they dying in infancy are by your own doctrine all alike i. e. none deserving exemption by actual sin from salvation yet living these have in likelihoood more advantages for life then those of Pagans but you though you set by a few more then the rest in your account and yet in some partes of your Account too you make them equal yet no lesse then 20 to one are valued little higher then the Divels for your speech p. 7. supposes that the divels may be saved as soon as the dying infants of Turks and Pagans Review If they object children cannot be taught nor made to understand the sacraments no more could they at circumcision If further that they shed tears at their baptism as unwilling to receive it so they did at circumcision If they say they were semen carnis and had right by the promise so these are semen fidei the promise is unto them If they say the seal is often voided by their infidelity afterwards because many baptized so young become reprobates so it was among the Iewes witnesse Ishmael and Esau and those of whom the Apostle saith that they entered not in through unbelief Re-Review Here you drive on four deep and against a fourfold assault make a four fold repulse pelting us amain but with pellets of brown paper To the â—…irst I reply no more need they be taught at circumcision but the baptized are commandâ—…d to be taught first untill they believe Mat. 28. 19 20. Mark 16. 15. 16. and also immediately after which is so plain that though here you answer by denying all possibility of childrens being taught before circumcision yet else where viz. p. 10. and 18. you fence this off with such prety contrary quiddy stuff as this viz. that as to baptism infants have a teaching a hearing and a learning for the spirit say you opens their ears quo magiâ—…ro quam cito discitur quod docet he doth it in them and in adultis too or else for all their hearing they l not believe but that we shal have more to say to when we come to it To the second that as unwilling as infants were to receive circumcision and as tedious as it was to them or servants either that received it yâ—…t by express command if they were Males in Abrahams house he was to dispense it to them whether they were willing or no but you have no such flat command to disease your little infants â—…o far as to dip them in water for so you should if you baptizd them indeed whether they will or no. To the third O wonderful that Abrahams own fleshly seed even by Isaâ—…c himself by bare descent from their bodies unlesse they also believed as Abraham did could become and be counted no more then bare semen carnis the children of Abrahams flâ—…sh have right by promise qua sic of no more then the earthly Canaan For Ishmael though born of Abraham and circumcised also as a male of his house was not heir by promise of so much as that Gen. 17. 19. 20 21. and yet that the fleshly seed of believing Gentiles should become and be accounted no less then Abrahams semen fides the children
have declared my sense of it before so I testifie again is so clear against the standing of infants as members in the family of Abraham or Church of God now under the Gospel that he is as blind as a beetle that sees any thing in it tending to the proof of it for it seems plainly that the natural branches or seed of Abraham Isaac and Iacob themselves that stood the children of the Church before without faith upon the meer account of being their naturall branches cannot stand children of the Church now unlesse they be also spiritual branches as Abraham Isaac and Iacob were yea if being the fleshly seed of a believer could ingraft persons into the Gospel Church as it did of old into the Jewish Church without faith then the Jewes to this day being asmuch believing Abrahams natural seed as ever might by that birth stand Members as truly as any Gentile believers seed but they cannot yea the same persons that were members of that Church without faith were not admitted to passe from that Church to membership in this for want of faith but when very forraigners that had no relation to nor descent from Abraham became his children in the Gosspel sense and members of the Gospel Church by personal faith the very naturall seed of Abraham was cut off through unbelief so that the standing before was by a fleshly birth of Abraham of some believing proselited Gentile but the standing now in the Church is not by a birth natural of any parent no hot of Abraham himself unlesse there be faith in the persons themselves as Mr. Baxter believes not there is in any infants for to the confutation of the Ashford Pamphlet which pleads infant-faith Mr. Baxter p. 98. Makes the very essence of faith to lie in assenting to it that Christ is King and Saviour and consenting that he be so to us and whether infants do thus both assent and consent let Mr. Ba. be judge of it if he please Because of unbelief the natural seed were broken off thence Mr. Bax. argues that infants stand still in the Church but thence I argue they cannot stand because those that stand now stand by faith ver 20. i e. personal not parental thou standest saith Paul by faith i. e thy faith not thy Fathers for then we may as well say the just shall live by his fathers faith not by fleshly descent though of Abraham Isaac and Iacob themselves as of old they did and infants cannot stand by faith unlesse they had it and therefore not at all Mr. Baxter argues it was the Jewes own Olive tree or Church they were cut off from for unbelief Therefore infants stand in it still But theâ—…ce I argue that our infants cannot stand therein for if god spared not the Naturall Branches of Abraham but broke them off their own root their own father Abraham and his family so as to be counted no longer his children their own olive tree the church so as to abide no longer in it because they believed not the terms of standing church-members being now no fleshly descent but faith then much lesse will he admit any Gentiles that are not naturall branches of Abraham to be grafted into the good olive tree without faith and therefore no infants that believe not Mr Ba. tells us that some branches only were broken off therfore not infants It is true all were not broken off and why because some believed and so abode in the family others and those the most believe not when they should others and those all infants nor believed nor yet could and therefore could not abide nor have a visible being a visible membership a visible standing in that visible church the termes of standing in which is only and alone by faith Mr. Bax. argues that Israel shall again be grafted into their own olive tree and saved even the children with the parents and therefore infant-membership in the Gospel church is not repealed I answer it is true that if they abide not still in unbelief they shall be grafted into their own olive tree the visible Church and family of Abraham that is so many as shall believe onely this infants do not but whether they believe or believe not when the Redeemer i. e. Christ Jesus shall come all Israel shall be saved and be owned and made the most glorious people upon earth and enter into a flourishing state indeed but not in this way of baptism and membership Mr. Baxter speaks of who I perceive is not a little ignorant of this mystery as yet how long blindnesse shall happen unto Israel and in what manner their calling shall be of which I also have at this time as little list as leasure to inform him Mr. Ba. argues from the samenesse of the Olive tree the Jew was broken off from and the Gentile was grafâ—…ed into that therefore as infants stood members then so they must now I answer it is true there is some kind of indentity between the Jewish and the Gospel Church but not such as concludes an indentity of membership for infants they are the same ingenere visiblis Ecclesiae they agree in the common name of Church and visible Church elected and segregated from the world but there 's little else that I know of wherin they are the same they differ in circumstantials in their accidental forms in their officers ordinances customs constitutions subjects members that being constituted of one whole nation of people or fleshly seed of Abraham taken out from all other nations this of a spiritual seed of Abraham i. e. believers scaterred here and there taken out of any nation as they happen to be called almost every nation some the ceremony of inchurching Abrahams own much more any other mans meer fleshly seed being ceased Mr. Bax. peddles on a pace and brings a company of Scripures in proof of infants Church-membership and baptism which though he stile them as indeed his whole book Plain Scripture proofs for those two yet a man that is not minded to force the Scripture into the Service of his own fancy because it does not serve it freely may look till dooms day before he see in them any plain perspicuous proof of either one of these or of the other Christ saith he Mat. 23. 37 would have gathered Ierusalem oft as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings but they would not therefore sure he would not have put them or their infants out of the Church the strength of the consequence lies here saith he he would have gathered whole Ierusalem and that into the visible Gospel Church therefore infants also Now that Christ does not speak of whole Ierusalem here as he saith he does both men and infants the circumstances of the text do fully evince to us for he speaks of the same persons he speaks to and the same persons he complains of saying ye would not the same and no other are they to whom he speaks when he saies Oh
supposed to be members of the visible Church a priori before they can be warrantably supposed to be of the invisible i. e. to be such as shall be saved for if a person be of the invisible Church he must be thought to be of the visible much more for the visible containes the invisible in it saith he p. 72. and ordinarily we may not judge any to be of the invisible Church he means in real state of salvation who are not meaning first of the visible p. 72. But now I say and suppose the clean contrary viz. that persons must be first supposed to be of the invisible Church a priori before they can be warrantably supposed to be of yea or so much as to have right to be of the visible who backs Mr. Ba. in his sinister supposition I weigâ—… not let him chuse his second if he will I le chuse Mr. Bax. himself to back me and to be witnesse to the truth of mine whose words are altogether the same with mine p 73. viz. if we were fully certain by his own externall discourses that any man were not of the invisible Church that man should not be taken to be of the visible In order of time therefore persons were to seem to be members of the invisible church and were visibly in a state of salvation first before they could have any right at all so much as to be baptized which with Mr. Ba. himself was the first entrance into membership in the visible church but with me is not so much as an immediate entrance into it but that which is necessarily to go before it therefore persons may be seemingly in a state of salvation and not yet in present right to membership in the visible Church much lesse actually and visibly in it And now concerning infants of whom Mr. Ba. asserts that they must be members of the visible Church or else cannot be seemingly or visibly in a state of salvation upon such slender grounds as these he concludes it to be clear viz. First because it is the body that Christ is the Saviour of and his people that he redeemeth from their sins and his sheep to whom he gives eternal life and those that sleep in Iesus that God will bring with him and the dead in Christ that shall rise to salvation and those that die in the Lord that rest from their labours and the Church that Christ will present pure and unspoâ—…ed all which places I appeal to Mr. Bas. conscience whether they speak not of the misticall body and invisible church of Christ to which all and onely they square and are adaequate and not to the visible Church which he was to speak to or else speaks nothing to the purpose to all which visible church and to onely which these things agree not for neither all those that are of the visible churchare saved nor onely those of the visible Church saved witnesse many infants of believers whom Mr. Ba. dares not say are damned some never living to enter the visible Church so farre as to baptism and some once alive coming dead out of the womb which he is blind that ever saw to be in the visible church so that he sits here beside the saâ—…dle Secondly and Thirdly because there is no divine revelation for the salvation of any without the visible Church that yields good ground of Christian faith or hope that any such shall be saved as notwithstanding he saies there â—…s not yet I shall shew there is by and by Fourthly because it is said Acts the 2. 47. that God added to the visible church dayly such as should be saved which though he did yet t was not all nor onely such but onely such men and women not such infants as should be saved Concerning infants in proof of the proposition above viz. that some infants may be in visible State of salvation and yet not be in nor yet in present right to membership in the visible Church I argue thus downrightly First if all infants are in infancy in a visible state of salvation and no infants are members or in any right to be members in their infancy of the visible church under the Gospel then some infants may in infancy be in a visible state of salvation and yet not be in nor yet in present right to membership in the visible church But all infants c. and no infants c. Ergo some infants ut supra The first proposition is most undeniably clear the Minor hath two parts which I shall prove successively one ofter another and then I have done with this argument of Mr. Ba. I le prove the last first and the first last and here I dare-say I might easily muster up scores if not a century of solid arguments toward the fuller clearing of it that no babes now but the new born babes spoken of 1 Pet. 2. 2. 3. 4. 5. i. e. at least in appearance spiritually born babes such as those 1 Iohn 1. 1 Cor. 3. 1. Heb. 5. 13. are to be baptized and built upon the foundation i. e. doctrine of Christ and the Apostles a spiritual house a holy templâ—… i. e. visible church unto Iesus Christ now in these daies of the Gospelâ—… and that no mans fleshly seed or natural posterity no not Abrahams own barely on such an account as being his bodily seed much lesse any believing Gentiles who hath not mâ—…re priviledge then his seed I think but onely the at least seeming spiritual seed of Abraham i. e. those that are children of God and Abrahams too by faith in Christ Gal. 3. 26. 28. as no infant is have right to dwell in this family the babes the seed of Abraham circumcised in heart the children of the heavenly promise pointed at and typed out by the Iews babes and that circumcised seed of Isaac and those children of that earthly promise of the old Canaan these are the true sons of the free woman the Gospel visible church before whom the bond woman and her son i. e. Abrahams meer fleshly seed though by Isaac are cast out that they may dwell alone in the house as Hagar and her son were cast out of Abrahams house of old before Isaac and his seed that they might dwell alone for look how Ishmael and his seed stood in reference to Isaac and his that were the children by promise of the earthly Canaan viz. but servants that must not abide the house longer when the other came in to stand so Isaac the type and his seed themselves in reference to Christ the true Isaac and his seed i. e. believers viz. as servants that must be packing when he comes in and not abide in the house together with him see Iohn 8. Galatians 4. ult But that were to begin the work again which I have finisht above where I have given a touch of these things and but a touch in comparison of what might be said And of multiplying Arguments and making many books there is
seal to him in this special sense i. e. as a seal of the righteousness of that eminent faith which he had that he might be i. e. to that very end and purpose as to ratifie him in that royal title The father of all that believe to this purpose I then spake shewing withall that in the same sense in which the father is said to seal the sonne Iohn 6. 27. to be the giver of that meat that endures to eternall life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 him hath the father sealed i. e. authorized to that business honoured with that office and as Pharoah honoured Ioseph with the sole Dispensation of all the Corn and Government of his Kingdome and as Kings under the Broad seal do seal men to i. e. honour them with and settle them in great Places Trusts and Titles c. in such a sense is God in that place said to give Circumcision to Abraham whereby to seal him up and settle him for ever in that glorious title viz. the father of all that believe in which sense Circumcision though a sign of some things in common to him with his posterity was never given to any one of Abrahams posterity at all this as it is clearly held forth in that place so was so clearly held forth to you from that place of your own naming at that very time that as I wondered you could be ignorant of it then so I much more admire that you are not ashamed to bewray such dissembling in the recording of it as you do and such wretched ignorance of it still besides I know not whether I instanc'd then in any other but I am sure as shy as you seem to be of it there were divers more promises made and priviledges made over to Abraham under the great Seal Circumcision which were neither made nor given much less confirmed by Circumcision as a seal thereof to all his posterity viz. that his seed should inherit Canaan this though it was made and made good to Abraham and that seed of his to whom it was promised yet not to the seed of all his seed for many of his posterity as Ishmael who was circumcised and his children by Keturah also and their whole race had none of all this seal'd to them by Circumcision Again that Christ should come out of his loyns that in his seed all Nations should be blessed these were made to Abraham and were as the rest also great Priviledges to the honour of which he was sealed yet though 't was signified to all his seed by Circumcision that Christ should come of him after the flesh all of them had not that priviledge by promise that Christ should come of them after the flesh by all which it undeniably appears that the same Covenant of Circumcision in every of those respects in which Circumcision was given him as a seal of it was not given to all the Iews and their children and that fore-named place speaks of Circumcision onely in reference to Abrahams person and in that sense and respect in which it was given to him only as a Seal of his faith i. e. that strong faith he acted and gave glory to God by Rom. 4. 20. for which God also gave that great glory and dignity to him viz. the father-hood of the faithfull All which notwithstanding and much to the same effect that was uttered then to shew that Circumcision had more ends and relations to Abrahams Person then to the Persons of his seed yea and though your own paper which lastly I appeal to doth testifie that I I multiplied words that is to say spake much about other ends of Circumcision to Abraham then to his seed yet you both be-lie me and give the lie to your selves so far as to say I was extreamly foundered which to say and yet to say in the very same line that I multiplied words about other ends of Circumcision the very point your selves had urg'd me to speak to if it be not at once to say and unsâ—…y then verily I know not what is for these two are contradictory to each other but perhaps you think to salve all with this that being call'd to speak punctually to that end viz. whether Circumcision were a seal of the righteousness of faith to Abrahams posterity at all or not or if not to shew it I answered nothing to that particular that carried any sense or reason in it but really Sirs I said no less to that very end but rather much more then I have said a little above which whether it have any sense or reason in 't or no yet was it both sensless and reasonless in you however to leave it wholly out and you had dealt far more ingenuously and judiciously in your own Account and in every rationall mans also had you set down what I answered and so put your Reader into a capacity of discerning whether it were to the purpose yea or no but that its like you were very loath to do least as nothing as it was to your purpose it should have been more serviceable then you desire it to be to ours As for that ingagement whereby how wisely a fool may see you bound your selves to become Anabaptists in case I made discovery of what I did abundantly discover I freely dis-engage you from that double performance and shall accept much more of your single submission to that ordinance it being no matter of rejoicing to to me to see any man translated from A-no-baptist to be an Anabaptist for that is from one extream to another Report Next you relate p. 5. that I said I did not deny but that little children might have the holy Ghost and these texts of Scripture viz. Mar. 10. 14. Mat. 19. 14. Luke 18. 16 2 Cor. 13. 5. did seem to intimate as much but that it could not be made appear that they had it to the making of them subjects of baptism Reply To this which is another 〈◊〉 falsity and connterseit resemblance I reply thus first that 〈◊〉 children might have the holy spirit if God please extraordinarily to infuse it I might then possibly not deny nor dare I yet deny but that possibly they may but it 's more then God hath manifested if they have to either us or you nor will this grant either prove the propriety of your Position who down-rightly declare they have it or warrant your baptizing them thereupon so long as still 't is unapparent to you that they have it for first à posse ad esse non valet consequentia it follows not because it may be therefore 't is yet such Country-clearing of things is seen now and then among you Countrey Clergy-men that if from may-be to must-be may not pass for good reason there must be no more given at all witness the yery last Argument us'd by the first opponent at this Ashsord Disputation whereby to prove infants to have the spirit who having urg'd the example of Iohn Baptist whose
onely to the truth but your selves also for you give out in the next page but one before that I denied Circumcision to be a seal of the Righteousness of faith which in your own sense is as much as of the Gospel-Covenant to any of Abrahams posterity and that I multipli'd words in proof of the contrary and yet here in relation to that very Relation of your own in the weak wilfulness of your memories you give out that I had confessed Circumcision to be even to Ishmael the seal of the Gospel-Covenant that is with you still of the righteousness of faith thus for your own ends fathering your own false-tenet upon me ye have not lost all by the shift for you have fastn'd the fault of forgery upon your selves and this puts me in mind of another of your mis-reports which because t is so suitable to this I 'le give you some little sense of it here though I find it farre off hence in your Review p. 13. l. 1. 2. where looking or rather lacking over all your arguments again as somewhat rude and deform'd in their first delivery and among the rest this from Circumcision of infants to their baptism you positively affirm thus that the Adversaries confess baptism to be the seal of the Gospel-Covenant whereas if by Adversaries you mean your friend my self among others besides what else shall elsewhere be produced in proof of my dissent from you in this point your selves can bear me witness or if you will not a thousand others will that on the very day of Disputation when the Clergy-man of Kenington stiled baptism an initial seal I deni'd it to be a seal at all and am sure it would have found you all more work then you are aware of to have made good that un-gospel like expression of it though I grant it to be a sign of the Gospel-Covenant Report Another as flat a falsiâ—…y as ever fell from the mouths or pens of men who pretend to truth is that clause which lies in the last line of the seventh page and first line of the eighth wherein consider it with the words before you say I confessed that the spiritual seed of Abraham and their children had under the Gospel as good right to the seal thereof which is baptism as Ishmael who was that carnal seed of Abraham had right to the seal of the Gospel-Covenant Circumcision Reply Whereas besides my constant denial of Circumcision to be a seal to any but Abraham as I said immediately above and as your selves testifie of me and besides my denial of baptism to be a seal at all I either did deny the children of the spiritual seed i. e. of believers to have right to baptism or else to what purpose did you oppose me for this was the very question between us which as you affirm'd so I from the beginning to the end of the Disputation all along most inalterably deny'd Indeed I confessed ore and ore again that Abrahams spiritual feed i. e. believers have right to baptism but that the natural seed of this spiritual seed of Abraham are Abrahams spiritual seed as so born or that believers children quà tales are semen fidei as well as their parents is a most silly saying of your own page 14. but that which all the day long I most strenuously stood against much more that they were the subject of baptism yet you say here in the Preter-plu-perfect tense that I had confessed their right to baptism as good as Ishmaels to Circumcisâ—…n which me thinks if I had done so would have been exprest some where or other in the foregoing part of your true Account or else it is not so true as 't would be taken for but sith it is not to be found that I confest such a thing in all your Relation of the most materiall things that past among which this had it been confest as you here say had been the most materiall of all for it had been the full giving you the cause and saving you the labor of more Disputing we 'l take it for granted if you please rather then charge your true Relation of the most materiall things as not relating the most materiall of all that this your Testimony of my confession of this matter is most prodigiously false and abusive Sirs I wonder you are not ashamed so palpably to speak contrary to what you have here recorded I know not well what you mean by so many foul mis-reports unless as a certain great Benefactor to the Romish religion perceiving it unable to stand by the Scriptures bestowed a Legend of lyes towards its support which is call'd Legenda aurea so you supposing your Infant-baptism uncapable to be maintain'd any longer by principles of truth and reason have thereupon been so bountiful to the cause as to give in this golden-leaden-legend Another sorry tale and strange story you tell is not of me but of one of my side as you are pleased to speak and this me thinks if I be not mistaken with a kind of Emphasis of the Featlean strain as if it were some presumption for a Russet Rabby or secular Artizan to climb so high and slutter and file so neer the pulpits and pompous Belconies of the Priests and as if he were a man Sacerdotalis ambitionis loving the uppermost Room and chief place in the Synagogue more to be taken notice of himself then that the truth should be taken notice of by the people in which things if you muse as you use yet know Sirs that we have no such custome nor the Churches of God of whom you say thus Report That having plac'd himself on the highest of the pulpit stairs to be seen of all and craved the liberty granted by the propositions to ask questions and receive satisfaction he profest himself a stranger and to come thither by accident though both afterwards appeared contrary Reply Though both will yet appear to be contrary to what you would have them appear to be if you could tell how viz. a couple of untruths for verily he was a stranger and so I then told Mr. Prigg who askt me of him that had not been long in the Countrey and was unknown both by face and name not to my self and some others yet however to most of that Auditory in which I believe not one of many could say who or whence he was as to his coming thither by accident so he did too i. e. unappointed and unsent for in which sense I 'm sure some of you came not by accident but as specially bespoke in the name of a great Patron of your Party both to be there and undertake the business and appointed if not primarily yet secondarily or upon their refusal for whom some too confidently undertook they should undertake it who yet say of your selves page 3. you were not the men appointed to undertake it if by accident you mean thus as well you may for a man may come by accident enough to a
baptized and inchurched also upon their yoke-fellowes faith being sanctified thereby as well as the Infants therefore is it not rather think you a Civil and Matrimonial then an Ecclesiastical faederall sanctity Your usual evasion is this Babist The Parents are sanctified by the faith one of the other not so as to be in covenant themselves by their sanctification nor yet so as to be baptized thereupon but they are sanctified as a holy root so as to bring forth a holy issue that hath by vertue of its holiness a right to the Church Covenant and Baptism Baptist. Then it seems the unbeliever is with you a holy root as well as the other and gives holiness to the child and makes it holy as well as the other parent yea so holy that by that concurrence the child is in covenant and to be baptized First do you not say somtimes that the child hath its holiness from the believing party onely as if there were no influence passing from the unbeliever towards its holiness why then do you say sometimes again that from a holiness which is in both they are co-contributers of holiness to the Infant which of the two is most undoubtedly true for the holiness what ever t is is such and such it could not be if it were any but Matrimonial as is in and equally flowes from the unbelieving parent as much as the believing to the infant Secondly if the Root be holy are not the branches so and if the branches be holy is not the root at least as if not more so in the same sence with the holiness of the same kind which it conveyeth to the branches and if so then must not this unbelieving parent being a Rooâ—… have the same kind of holiness the child hath is he not as holy as the child is and so as capable of being baptized and in covenant thereby sith you all agree that Nil dat quod in se non habet and Quodcunque efficit tale id est propriè est magis tale whatever is a proper efficient to make another so or so must be more so it self so that if the unbelivâ—…g parent be as holy with your very covenant holiness it self as his child must he not as well by vertue thereof be admitted to the same priviledges having though no more faith then his child yet somewhat else viz. That holiness that with you intitles to baptism yea it is more eminently in him than the other either therefore deny those old received Axiomes and that I think you need not do for they are truths or else deny that which is so commonly asserted by you viz. that the unbelieving parents are sanctified so as to be holy Roots to their children by the faith of their believing yoke-fellows as well as the believing yoke-fellows are by their own and this you will be very loath to do for you will hardly coin such a handsome shiâ—…t as that is in hast again if you let it go or else deny that the unbelieving husband and wife is sanctified or holy at all but that you cannot do for the text saith they are hallowed as well and in the same sense as their children and believing companions are in being married to them what sense soever that is or else grant us they are holy with the holiness we stand for as that onely which is meant in this place viz. Legitimacy freedome from the least tinâ—…ture of uncleanness and baseness in their cohabitations generations and issue and this I believe you must do when all is done but then you lose such a supporter of your practise that let go one more viz. Act. 2. 38. 39. which must be handled also hereafter and Iachin and Boaz the two prime pillars that stand by the entry into your Temple i. e. Infants sprinkling which is your entring ordinance will be removed a matter of no small tendency to its ruin or else le ts see in you rejoinder for I put these things upon you by way of quaere expecting to see if by silence you give not the cause how well you will distinguish your selves out of the briars which your opinion upon the place brings you into and how well you will wind your selves out of those many absurdities which you are led aside into from the way of truth by the extravagancies and cunning concavities of your crooked logick lane Thirdly let it be considered that the holiness here predicated of the unbelieving parent and the children is not such as is the result of the faith and faederal holiness of the believing parent as is so frequently asserted among you but of the marriage Covenant which being holy by institution and honourable among all and undefiled gives the denomination of civil sanctity to the unbelieving couple and their seed as to a couple of believers and their seed as also the denomination of honourable in an unbelieving magistrate and master a rises not from any praise worthy qualification in their persons much less in the persons of the Correllatives as you say the holinesse of the unbeliever doth from the faith of the believer but from Divine ordination which constitutes them as holy in their places this will be evident First if you consider the manner of speech here used by the Apostle who saies not thâ—… unbeliever is sanctified in the believing wife and believing husband but in the wife and in the husband i. e. in her being his wife and his being her husband and howbeit its true which is commonly return'd to this viz. that 't is the believing wife of the unbelieving husband and the believing husband of the unbelieving wife when the marriage is between believers and unbelievers yet the believing party is not here preferred before the unbelieving parent as to the conferring of this holinesse upon the issue but they are said to be both and that by your selves who confesse they jointly make one holy root equall in this influence and are sanctified not one by the faith of the other as you suppose the unbeliever to be by the faith of the believer but both by the ordinance of God viz. their marriage each of other so that they both alike do sanctifie the issue Secondly if you consider the true genuine proper direct tendency and weight of this Relative particle else which if you allow it a right reference relates not to the faith or believing of either but to their being true man and wife to the lawful wedlock of them both for that which is the ground of your error about this place is the forcing of this particle else the wrong way for Else i. e. say you if one of the parents be not a believer then the children are unclean wheras the sense of it runs thus vix else i. e. if you be not holy in your copulations if you be not sanctified one in to and by the other as lawful man and wife by your union formerly contracted notwithstanding your now disunion in
Religion then your children are unclean and this is truth for so the children are in this civil sense if begotten and born out of matrimony whether the parents be believers or no buâ—… the other is not truth for whether both or but one or none of the parents believe the infants for that cause alone and without respect to matrimony are in no sense ere the more holy or unclean Thirdly and this will yet appear more plainly if you consider that faith alone in either one or both the parents begetting out of wedlock cannot sanctifie the seed so begotten with this civil holiness here meant no nor with that faederall holiness you plead for nor could it do so even then when that holinesse or birth priviledge you talk of was in force as now it is not viz. in the daies of the law for if two believers came together then out of marriage their seed were not onely base born and so unclean in this our sense but also to the tenth generation uncapable to be admitted into the congregation and so consequently unclean even in your own Deut. 32. 2. whereupon how Pharez and Zarah were dealt with it matters not sith they were born before the law was given Ieptha was exempted from any inheritance with his brethren because he was the son of a strange woman Iudg. 11. 2. and Davids unclean issue by Bathsheba that in the wisdome of God was taken away by death on the seventh day might not surely without breach of the law have been accounted holy and of the congregation if he had lived beyond the eighth whereupon your selves also are much fumbled about the holinesse of bastards and the baptism of base-begotten babies so that you scarcely know how to behave your selves about it though the parents sinning be believers at least en-churched in your Churches yea it s generally known saith Mr Cotton that our best Divines do not allow the baptism of bastards and though he is pleased to say they allow it not sine sponsoribus without Sureties yet I wonder sith Deut. 23 〈◊〉 2. Gods denial of such of old is made the ground of their denial of such now to enter into the Congregation as unholy that our Divines dare take on them to admit cum sponsoribus and so to go besides their own Rule viz. the order of things under the law wherein God gave no such allowance but to let that tolleration pass which they take to themselves you may learn thus much of your selves if you will that though wedlock without faith make a holy seed in our sense yet faith without wedlock in the parents can make a holy seed neither in our sense nor in your own nor any at all for the infants of the married are holy but believers bastards are both civilly and federally unclean inso much that your selves see cause to refuse as federally holy the spurious seed euen of those whose lawfull issue you unlawfully sprinkle Fourthly if you more seriously consider that the holinesse in the Infant here must needs be the fruit and result of that and that must needs be the cause of the holiness here spoken of in the infant quo posito ponitur sanctitas sublato tollitur which being in the parents a holinesse must necessarily be thereupon which not being in the parents a holinesse cannot be in the seed for positâ causà ponitur effect us sublata tollitur abstract the cause and the effect cannot be suppose the cause and the effect cannot but be now that which if it be not in the parents the holiness is not but being in them the holinesse is consequently in the infants 't is not the faith but the conjugal or marriage Relation of the parents for as for the first of these viz. faith it may be in one yea in both of the parents and yet no federal holinesse at all be in the infants witness Ishmael the seed of Abraham the father of the faithful and his Sons by Keturah also born of him after Co venant made with him and his seed in Isaac and Iacob and yet neither of them in that Covenant witnesse the base born children of true believers among the Jews suppose David and Baâ—…hsheba which for all the parents faith could not by the law be admitted in thâ—… Congregation nor have that birth-priviledge to be reputed holy which from the parents faith you universally intail to the infants moreover this birth-priviledge and Covenant-holiness by generation which did inright to Church ordinances which once was but now is a non-entity and out of date might be then when it was in being in children in whose parents faith was not found at all for most of the Iews were unbeiievers yet all their legitimate children were holy federally therefore faith in the parent cannot be the cause of such a thing yea if you will believe Mr Blake himself the strictest pleader for a birth-priviledge of federal holiness in Infants that ever I met with and that from this very place he condescends so far as to contribute one contradiction to himself toward the helping of the truth in this case viz. That faith in the parâ—…nt is not the cause of this holinesse whilst making the holinesse in this text to be a birth priviledge or Church-Covenant holinesse and to be the fruit and result of the faith of the believing parents and consequently their faith to be the sole and proper cause of the same he confesses flatly elsewhere page 4. that a loose life in the parent and mis-belief which is as bad in some cases worse then unbelief for which is worse to believe false things or not to believe true yea Apostacy from the faith which all if they be not inconsistent with faith I know not what is do not divest nor debar the issue from having that holiness which himself saies is meant in this text Babist Perhaps he means not by faith strictly the parents true believing but in generall his being in the covenant and faederally holy himself and so a cause of this federal holiness in the issue Baptist. First Paul means true believing here in 1 Cor. 7. 14. whether Mâ—… Blake do or no. Secondly what will he get as to the point in hand by his Synonamizing faith and faederall holiness for still neither the one nor the other is made here the cause of the holiness of the seed for the holiness here spoken of may be where neither of them is and may not be in the seed even where they are both in the parent as for example in Ezras time Ezra 10 3. we find abundance of the Jews both Priests and people that were in the faith or at least in faederall holiness yet the children were put away as unholy as well faederally as otherwise because their marriage was unlawfull and that bed adulterous wherein they lay with strange wives Ezra 10. 3. and that both parents possibly may be faithful and faederally holy and yet their seed be in all
he travelled with the Galathians till Christ was form'd in them whoâ—… also he bespeaks as Iohn also doth his converts 1 Iohn 2. 1. by the name of my little 〈◊〉 Gal 4. 19. thus far if you will I agree with you but your cause will be no gainer by this agreement that as ceremonially holy ones begat ceremonially holy ones under the law as a tipe in a way of carnall copulation so spiritually holy ones beget spiritually holy ones in a Gospel sense by their spiritual communion and communication for as Christ himself who supremely begets so true Christians as agents and instruments under him may be said to multiply and see their seed when in their endeavours to beget others to the faith the work will way and pleasure of the Lord doth succeed and prosper in their hands thâ—… holy seed therefore that answers under the Gospel to that holy seed the Jews 〈◊〉 under the law as the substance of that shadow that with all the reâ—…is 〈◊〉 â—…d away is Christ and his truely morally and spiritually holy ones onely 〈◊〉 holy seed of the law or that seed which was holy in the old Covenants 〈◊〉 were but as the leaves of an oak which though they flourish and make a shew â—…r a time yet at last are cast off and fall to the ground but the holy 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 Gospel sense i. e. the Saints and true believers not their natural seâ—… with 〈◊〉 foâ—… they are onely Semen carnis and that not of Abraham neithâ—… 〈◊〉 the Iâ—…w is who yet hath thereupon onely no part nor portion in this matter 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 Gentiles these Saints I say are the true Semen fidei children of the faith and 〈◊〉 seed of Abraham and also the very substance thereof as Isa. 6. 13 as the Prophet there speaks of the truly Godly so I say the substance of the Church of the Iews now it hath cast it leaves i. e. all its former figurative holinesse holy Priests and holy â—…eed the substance thereof is still in them For all things under the law and old Testament even the whole Covenant and Testament it self as well as every part and parcel of the â—…ame did but serve unto the example and shadow of the New Testament will and Covenant that stands ratified by the blood of the Testator as neither was the first dedicated without blood and the more holy and true heavenly things thereof yea as wâ—…ll the holy promises that were made to that holy seed as the holy precepts upon performance of which they were made and the holy seed it self also to whom the promises were made and of whom these precepts were required did exemplifie a better Testament and those better promises upon which it is established and the better and more spiritual ordinances which in order thereunto are to be observed and that better and far more holy seed that observing these ordinances shall at last inherit which all were to come in under Christ and before which all the other were to vanish viz. First a heavenly Canaan Country Kingdom inheritance substance peace prosperity plenty advancement rest immunity glory answering to all that of Israels which was but earthly Secondly the life of faith and obedience to Christs law which is more inward and spiritual Mat. 5. answering that law of commandements conteined in ordinances given by Moses which was more ad extra and carnal Thirdly that holy seed which is not of the law of Moses nor of the flesh of Abraham by generation but of Christ by regeneration the seed or successors of the faiâ—…h of Abraham and so heirs with him by that faith of all Gospel-promises answering Antipically to the other for though the promise of being heirs of the old Canaan which was but a spot of the world and pickt out as a pattern for the time was made to Abraham and his seed through the law i. e. the children of Isaac and Iacob which were counted for his seed under the law viz. the natural branches of his body for these onely were the heirs of that old earthly legall and tâ—…pical land of promise in token of which all the males were circumcised in their â—…lesh yet the promise that Abraham should be heir of the world which is the Gospel pointed at couched and exhibted tipically in the delivery of the other was not made to Abraham and that seed of his through the law quâ—…tales only unless they were as some few were by faith his seed in the other sense also but through the righteousness of faith i. e. to the branches grafted in by personal believing in Christ Rom. 4. 13 14. where the Apostle saies plainly that if they which are of the law and circumcision only meaning the fleshly seed of Abraham as such unless they also walk in the steps of that faith which Abraham had be heirs with him of the world which is the thing promised in the Gospel then faith which is made the onely term intitling to Gospel-promises is made void and the promise of just no effect at all much more may we say if the fleshly sâ—…d of your Gentile believers most of which are no believers neither be heirs of this Gospel-promise and Gospel-inheritance as so born so that they may be signed for heirs by the Gospel-ordinance of baptism upon that meer and simple account of their parents being believers without respect to faith in their own persons then the Gospell requires faith to be acted by us in order to salvation altogether in vain and to no purpose yeâ—… if goâ—…pel promises and priviledges be intailed to me upon my fathers being a believer I need no faith of mine own as to the making of me an heir thereof and if it were so as you commonly say but most horrible in considerately from Acts 2. 39. that the promise of the Gospel is not onely to the believers but also to their bodily issue as barely descending from them qua sic simpliciter and without their own personal faith which in infancy appears no more to be in them then infants of unbelievers and which if it appears as oft it doth in unbelievers children when they come to years and not in the other declares them to be heirs apparent thereof when the other are not then I say plainly that all believers children must unavoidably be saved if God be true in his promise though when they come to years thâ—… never believe and live never so prophanely the terms being still fulfilled upon which you say the promise is made to them which is this being born of believing parents for the prophanness of their lives and non-believing themselves Non est causa quo minus c. is no cause whereupon they are a whit less the seed of believers after the flesh and if so and also that that only gives a title to the promise then he that made that promise on those terms viz. being the fleshly seed of believers the terms of being so born being fulfilled by all
persons which and no other are the terms inrighting therunto to any of these Gospel ordinances at all and all this will be seen most undoubtedly to be true by him that searches the Scripture which testifie no lesse and because this is the yery Root and Knot in the state of this controversie the unfolding and laying open of which will discover the whole mystery of your mistakes in this point all which arise originally from your erring in it for Error minimus in principio fit major in medio maximus in fine pray have me excused both in that I have been hitherto so long and in case I be yet a little longer on this matter First then let it be considered that Abrahams own seed even that seed that were heirs with him by promise of the Earthly Canaan though born of his body now by Isaac and Iacob as truely though more remotely then of old of his body I say that was the greatest believer that ever was Christ only excepted and therefore must much more then any other believer if any believer at all could by his faith confer a right to Gospel priviledges upon his seed even these are not his seed in the Gospel account noâ—… his heirs according to this Gospel promise nor as barely born of his body to be baptized and enchurched and this I shall make plain unto you from many Scriptures the first whereof is Romans 9. 6. 7. 8. In which I beseech you to observe how the Apostle there denies Abrahams own naturall children the name of Abrahams seed in the sence of the Gospel first mark how he magnifies them exceedingly and sets forth their dignity and preheminence above all other people under the name of Israelites as to whom pertained the adoption and the glory and the Covenants i. e. both Testaments the type and the antitype unto whom then pertained not only the giving of the law but also the promises for verily the several excellencies of both law and Gospel upon the several terms upon which both were established did in more special sence belong unto that people at that time then to any people under the Sun yea the first covenant and the promise thereof the Earthly Canaan and all the priviledges and ordinances signing it did pertain to them as the proper heirs therof by bare fleshly descent from Abraham Isaac and Iacob yea all that was theirs ipso facto as so born without more ado whether they were believers or not believers as to the Gospel and as for the Gospel covenant which is now belonging to them in common only with all other men in one respect it did principally pertain to them above all others till they lost their preheminence viz. not in respect of any right to it they had by birth whether they received it yea or no but in respect of the first tender therof which when it came in fuller force to be ratified to the world in the preaching of the Gospel was by special order and appointment from God in the first place to be tendered unto them nor was it carried at all to the Gentiles till these Jews had both slighted and rejected it when brought to them in the Ministery of Christ and Iohn in proof of which see in Mat. 10. 5. 6. 7. where the Disciples sent forth to preach are forbidden to go in any waie of the Gentiles or to any save the lost sheep of the house of Israel yea they were the Children whose bred this was at that time and which till they loathed it was not to be given to the Doggs excepting a few Crummes of it I mean to the Gentiles who till the Partition Wall was broken down between them and the Iews by Christ crucified were accounted Doggs Common unclean sinners by nature in a certain ceremonial sense in reference to the Jewes who then by birth were holy in a ceremonial sence now vanisht then answering as opposite to that birth uncleanness of the Gentiles Maâ—… 15. 24. 25. 26. 27. see also Mat. 22. 3. where the Iews are said to be first bidden to the wedding so Luke 24. 46. 47. where Christ commands that in their preaching the Gospel to all Nations they should first begin at Ierusalem and so we see they did after his ascension Act. 2. see also Act. 3. 25. 26. where the Jews are said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 T H E Children of the Gospell Covenant in respect that unto them first God sent his son to bless them in which respect they are said Mat. 8. 12. to be T H E Children of the Kingdome i. e. the heavenly Kingdom which yet they were cast out into utter darkness from any enjoyment of for their non-acceptance of it so Act. 13. 46. where Paul saies to the Jews that 't was necessary that the word of the gospel should be first spoken to them so Acts 28. 28. 't is said the salvation of God which the Iew rejected was from henceforth sent to the Gentiles Notwithstanding all which glory and preheminence of this people Israel whose were the fathers also and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came Paul after he had shewed their high prerogatives above others comes with Alas and great sorrow of heart and much bewailing for their infidelity to exclude them even all of them save those few with whom the word of the Gospel took effect so as to gain them to believe notwithstanding the antient and legall title from the very name of Israelites and from standing Abrahams children now any longer for saith he as who should say the more is the pitty They are not all Israell that are of Israel i. e. all that are Israelites after the flesh are not the Gospel Israelites or Israelites in the Gospels account because few of them did receive it all that were Abrahams seed after the flesh and stood in his family i. e. the visible Church of old as being his seed cannot stand so now for belivers onely and such as are Christs by faith are counted for the seed that this is the meaning of those words is most evident by them that follows for saith he neither because they are the seed of Abraham i. e. his fleshly seed are they called children i. e his children thereupon as to his Gospel Covenant but in Isaac i. e. Christ in the Antitype shall thy seed be called that is saith he expounding himself and alluding to what was done Allegorically as in a figure as concerning Ishmael and Isaac in Abrahams family of old the children of the flesh these are not the children of God but the children of the promise are counted for the seed the children of the flesh by which he means those that were born of Abrahams body by Isaac who now stands in reference to Christ as Ishmael did in the house of old in reference unto him these are not the children of God but the children of the promise such was Isaac in the legal typicall ceremonial and carnal account in
relation to Ishmael for not Ishmael but he and his posterity were the promised seed which should inherit the old Canaan and such is Christ in the reall spiritual Evangelical and everlasting account in relation unto Isaac himself for not Isaac and his seed as they were Abrahams seed by Sarah though they were the children of the promise of the earthly Canaà n and a promised seed in respect of Ishmael but Christ who is the true Isaac and those that believe in him among whom siâ—…h Isaac was one he will inherit here also as else he could not these are the promised seed that must inherit heaven Rom. 4. 13 Gal. 3. 16. these children of the promise i. e. these that are of Christ by faith and so his seed after the faith are accounted Abrahams seed his sons and heirs of the world with him and of the eternal inheritance A cleerer illustration of this to be the true sense and meaning of the spirit in Rom. 9. you have in Gal. 3. 7. 9. where the Apostle uses this term viz. they which are of the faith to express no other then the very same persons whom he here stiles the children of the promise know ye saith he there that they which are of the faith i. e. which believe for none else are of faith that I know of the same are the children of Abraham and blessed with faithfull Abraham he saith not they which be of Abrahams flesh for such neither are accounted his children as to the gospel promise nor simply as such are heirs thereof with him muchless doth he say or mean that those which are born of the bodies of them that be of faith are Abrahams children and such as must be signed as his sonnes and heirs by baptism in such wise as his own fleshly seed were signed by Circumcision as heirs with him of the old Canaan yet these are your common sayings who raise such a sort of seed to Abraham at second hand or third remove as will never be able to prove their pedegree or descent from him either after the slesh or after the faith either till they believe themselves whilest they breath on earth as if because Abraham is the spiritual father of all that believe and walk in his steps and they his seed and sons and heirs with him by promise of eternal life therefore he must patrizare to all their natural posterity too and be the spiritual father not of their persons onely but of their off-spring also But Sirs let me tell you he is not so much as a father to his own seed in the Gospel sense neither can they stand his children or the children of God and heirs of the heavenly blessing and kindome because they come out of his loines unless they do as he did for though his fleshly seed as a type for the time then being stood denominated the children of God and holy in an outward sense and heirs according to the earthly promise yet that account is gone now and there 's no other way whereby the Iews themselves much less any generations among the Gentiles can be stiled the children of God or Abraham so as to expect the gospel portion but believing in Christ Iesus in their own persons Gal. 3. 26. 29. Ye are all the children of God by faith in Iesus Christ if ye be Christs then are ye Abrahams seed and heirs according to the promise Another place which cleers it that Abrahams own seed in the old Covenants account are not his own in the account of the gospel so as barely thereupon to stand in any title to either the priviledges or ordinances thereof or to fellowship now in his family is Iohn 8. where Christ being cavill'd at by the Iews for promising them the priviledge of the Gospel-freedom from sin to which they were slaves servants and bondmen for all that legal freedom they did so boast of upon faith and continuance in his words discovers so plainly that a man may run and read it the discarding of the Jews from all these three things which I am now proving that for want of faith they are perished from them since the gospel First from the repute and denomination of Abrahams children any longer Secondly from any share in the glorious or spirituall blessing of the Gospel Thirdly from any right of abiding longer in the Church which they were the children of before which Church as visible now as well as then and to the end of the world since Gods conferring the fatherhood of the faithful upon him is called the house or family of Abraham First they say in a snuff two or three times ore that they are Abrahams seed v. 33. that Abraham is their father v. 39. that they are not born of fornication meaning as Ishmâ—…el the Son of the bond-woman or servant to their mother Sarah was but they had one father even God v. 41. to which Christ replies not by denial of any of all this for 't was true every tittle in that sense in which they meant it i. e. the typical sense and meaning of the old Covenant yea they were Abrahams children and this Christ confesses in plain terms verse 37. I know you are Abrahams seed yea they were also the children of God by an outward and typicall adoption of them unto himself as his peculiar ones and heirs of that typical inheritance Ezek. 16. 8. c. but by telling them that Abrahams children are accounted of otherwise now then formerly viz. not as comming out of his loines but as doing his works as being like him and allied to him not so much after the flesh as after the faith whereupon they not yet believing he denies them to be and goes about to prove them not to be Abrahams children in the true and substantial sense in this Hypothesis verse 39. if ye were Abrahams children ye would do the works of Abraham to which do but add the minor viz. but ye do not the works of Abraham and the conclusion follows thus viz. therefore ye are not the children of Abraham you see Christ asserts them to be Abrahams children in the old account so as to stand members of the old house but denieth them to be Abrahams children in the sense of the new Secondly they say they are free men and were never in bondage to any man to which Christ replies by granting it was so indeed in the outward typical sense that they were free men and true heirs of that earthly glory that was promised to Abraham in that old Canaan but denies them to be freemen as to the gosspel with that heavenly fredom of the Ierusalem which is above the mother of all true believers Gal. 4. 26. yea in those spiritual respects in which the Son makes free indeed those that know and receive the truth and gospel they were but servants verse 34. and in bondage to sin which is the greatest slavery of all as also Paul sayes Gal. 3. 25. that Ierusalem was which was
of old and was in bondage with her children so he saies for all their Sonship yet in truth they are but servants and not sonnes he grants their Sonship freedom and title to the old inheritance but denies their son and heirship as to the new Thirdly they boast and bless themselves in their standing in the house or family of Abraham i. e. the Church as to the ordinances rights and priviledges whereof who but themselves had the title for this indeed was their advantage of old that to them were committed all the oracles of God to which Christ replies true they did stand in the house for a time yet but for a time and though sons and heirs in the laws typical sense yet they were were but servants in the Gospels because they believe not in him and being but servants as Moses and all his house or church the old Israel were in comparison of Christ the Son and his house or Church i. e the Saints they must anon be packing out of the house and abide in the Church i. e. Abrahams family no longer that the true Sons and heirs may come in i. e. believers who are the blessed seed to whom onely the Gospel-promises and priviledges do belong ver 35. And the servant saith he abideth not in the house for ever but the son abideth ever if therefore the son make you free and that he doth not for all your former freedome unless you believe in him and continue in his words then shall ye be free indeed even to the glory oracles and blessings of the spiritual house the Gospel-church which else you must be cut off from for ever thus Christ tells them and so indeed it came to passe within a while for not believing and repenting which are the only terms â—…at give right and admittance to the ordinances and fellowship of the Gospel these Iews though natural branches of Abraham still as much as ever if being the fleshly seed of a believer could have steaded them at all as to a standing here were yet clean broken off from the Root Abraham as he stands a Root to all the faithful because onely of unbelief Rom. 11. 20. when such as were wild olives and no kin at all to Abraham after the flesh were in their own persons but not their natural seed with them save as they believed with them own'd as his children by believing and as members of the true Church under the Gospel And this was also most directly declared by Iohn the Baptist and the rest of the first ministers of the Gospel who would not admit of the Jews as Jews though Abrahams own seed and holy by birth and members thereupon of that Church under the law to baptism and membership in the Gospel-church when they offered themselves upon the aforenamed terms without faith repentance and amendment for howbeit the Pharisees and Saduces and the whole multitude of people came forth to be baptized of Iohn Mat 3. 7. c. Luke 3. 7. c. pretending and pleading that if baptism were a Church-priviledge it must needs belong to them as who were the children of Abraham yet see how he rounds them up as having no part nor portion in that matter O generation of vipers saith he who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come as if he had said what have you to do with that remission of sinnes righteousness and redemption from wrath to come which I preach and baptize in token of being though invested with circumcision Church-membership and other legal rites and priviledges yet corrupt and crooked in conversations bring forth therefore i. e. to the end that you may be admitted baptized and inc hurched here fruits answerable to amendment of life and begin not its like that plea was in their thoughts and mouths too whereupon he puts them off from it think not to say that we have Abraham to our father we are the seed of such an eminent believer for God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham i. e. God will without being beholding to you raise a seed to Abraham rather then want them from among these stones which whether he meanes stones litterally or the Gentiles which were yet as stocks and stones in their eies I leave you further to examine but thus much we may gather hence however that even in that very time wherein the birth-priviledge and holiness of a fleshly seed stood in full force and power unrepealed as then it did so far as to give right to all ordinances of the law yet even then I say before how much more since the Abrogation thereof by faith Abrahams own seed could not much less then may the seed of believing Gentiles now it s repealed as such be admitted to baptism without repentance the Jews as impenitent and unbelieving as they were stood uncast out of the Jewish Church while that Jewish Church it self was yet standing but they could not passe per saltum out of that Church into the Gospel Church nor immediately from their right to circumcision which meer fleshly birth gave them prove their right without somewhat more to baptism yet thus they might have done if what gave right of old to one of these ordinances doth in like manner inright persons to the other And this that Abrahams own naturall seed do not now stand his seed so as thereupon onely or at all to stand in this house of Abraham i. e. the visible Church of the Gospel and in title to the promises and priviledges thereof is further and more lively figured out to our undestandings in that admirable allusion of Paul to the things transacted of old as a type hereof in the family of Abraham between the two mothers and their children viz. Hagar and Sarah Ishmael and Isaac Gal. 4. 21. to the end where to give you but a hint of the thing that you may follow it in your own thoughts at leasure having first related what is written of Abrahams having two sonnes one by his bond-maid Hagar viz. Ishmael that was born after the flesh the other by the free woman or his true wife Sarah viz. Isaac who though born of Abrahams flesh as well as the other yet because he was promised to come of Abrahams true spouse Sarah long before he did was said to be born by promise he asserts these things to be an Allegory i. e. things which though really and truly done yet were done also in a figure and as a shadow of some other things to come viz. the two Covenants and two seeds of Abraham thereunto belonging or the two several Jerusalems or Churches of the law and the Gospel with their several children viz. the fleshly seed of Abraham and the spiritual each answering respectively not only as anti-types to their several types that pointnd at them whether the maid and her son or the mistriss and hers but also inter se invicem as the two mothers and their children did each of them
unto the other for these saith he i. e. these two mothers and children the bondwoman and her son and the freewoman and her son are the two Covenants or testaments meaning in signification or in way of resemblance of them the one from mount Sinai the other from mount Sion both spoken of and to the life also pointed out one ore against the other in Heb. 12. 18. to the end that from mount Sinai or that Testament which was given in the hand of the Mediaror Moses that gendreth to bondage or enthrawles her children this is Hagar for this Hagar who brought out her son to bondage is saith he mount Sinai in Arabia or that law of Moses given on mount Sinai in Arabia and answereth to i. e. as a type points out and signifies the Ierusalem that now is i. e. the Church of the Iews before Christ which notwithstanding her childrens abode iâ—… the house of Abrâ—…ham and her Hagarlike flaunting and vaunting her self over the other for a time as if she were the onely mistriss whose seed must inherit all yet in comparison of the true mother and her seed viz. the gospel Ierusalem which was yet to come was but in bondage with her children and must when that seed once should come in be chashiered and cast quite and clean out of doors as a seed to be no more accounted on so far as to abide with the other for nevertheless i e. all her present liberty and immunity notwithstanding what saith the Scripture saies he cast out the bond woman and her son for the son of the bond woman shall not be heir with the Son of the free woman i. e. the seed of the old Covenant of the Earthly Ierusalem viz. the natural seed of Abraham shall not share in priviledges nor the inheritance promised in the Gosspel together with the spiritual seed viz. the believers or children of the Church under the Gospel Thus as Hagar and her son Ishmael that stood in Abrahams house a while and were proud and insolent as if they should have dwelt there for ever were at last packt out before Isaac the true son and heir by promise of the old inheritance and ordinance when he was born and before Sarah who would not indure to have Ishmael have any portion in Canaan or any room in the house with her son Isaac so also Sarah her self and her son Isaac I mean the fleshly Ierusalem and Jew that dwelt as Mistris and heir for a time in the house inheriting only some outward excellencies and enjoyments were at last being found mocking thereat cast out of the house i. e. the Church the Son-ship the glory and all before the true Mother and her children viz the Gospel Church or true Sarah and the true Isaac Christ and his Saints or seed of Believers who will not bear not brook it to have a meer fleshly seed though of Abraham himself much less of any Gentile believers to dwell with them in the family Isaac and the fleshly Israelites were by promise to inherit the old Testament priviledges and the Ishmaelites were not suffered as such to partake with them therein Christ and believers are by promise to receive the eternal inheritance nor is any mans fleshly posterity no not Abrahams own by Isaac I mean the Israelites themselves as such permitted or promised to participate therein Ishmael though as Abrahams seed after the flesh he had a portion yet had nothing to do with that of Isaac the child of promise in the type Isaac though Abrahams son not only after the flesh but by promise too as in reference to Ishmael and so in true title to a better portion then Ishmaels viz. the Earthly Canaan and that as a type for a time yet being but his fleshly seed in comparison to Christ and believers and by his bare fleshly birth save only that he was a spirituall child also by believing as inferior to them as Ishmael was to himself hath nought at all to do as the fleshly seed of Abraham with that heavenly portion that belongs to these Now then if it be so and so it will appear to him that doth not trifle but truely understand the Scriptures and this last especially which with many more viz Heb. 8. Heb. 9. speak expresly of two distinct covenants or Testaments made with two sorts of seeds of Abraham concerning two Canaans viz. an Earthly and a Heavenly whereof one all along was a type of the other for a time only and now ended contrary to all our blind Seers that confound and blindly blend both of them into one if so I say that Abrahams own sons by bodily birth are not now his own in Gospel account nor heirs as so born only of the Gospel promise and inheritance nor house dwellers in the Gospel Church for want of personal faith though Abrahams children after the flesh still as much as ever then I cannot but stand amazed at the perverseness of you the Priesthood in three things First in that meerly because you and your people do believe and I would to God you did believe for so but few for all your flourish of either you or your people do indeed therefore you count your natural seed the seed of Abraham this you express in plain terms in your Review p. 14. Secondly in that even Eâtenùs as your children only you hold them heirs of the promise of the Gospel covenant made with Abraham Thirdly in that you sign them as visibly such by Baptism as you call it and thereby admit them into membership â—…n the Gospel Church as you call it and having yet no evidence of their belief conclude them under a true title to all outward ordinances save such as upon your own heads only you keep from them if by the word they have such title to Church-fellowship as you say they have viz. the Supper of which you make them snap short as much and as groundlesâ—…ly to the full if baptism at all belong to them as we in baptism Sirs let me reason with you a little and begg some cool consideration and ingenuous answer from you concerning these particulars First which way come your natural seed you being but Gentiles in the flesh to be the seed of Abraham Secondly why do you or how can you sign them as heirs of the Gospel promise so simply upon that account only there are but two seeds of Abraham that I know of in all the world viz. 1. His seed after the flesh and such are all those that are born of his body viz. Ishmael and his Children by Keturah to whom he gave portions and those that came of him by Isaac and Jacob which only for Esau sold his birth-right were heirs with him of the Land of Canaan 2. His seed after the faith and such are those only that walk in his steps Rom. 4. 12. that do his works John 8. Who are also by that same faith which denominates them his children said to be
Christs also and the children of God and heirs with him of the world according to the Gospell Promise Rom. 4. 12 13. Gal. 3. 16. 1 Cor. 3. 21. 22. 23. Non datur tertium semen Abrahae two seeds of Abraham the Scripture mentions but a third fort cannot be assigned all and only those that descend from his loines as the Midianites and others by Keturah the Ishmailites by Hagar the Edomites and Israelites by Sarah which last only were the holy seed and children of promise in reference to the Hagarens in a type and sole heirs of the typical Canaan all these I say were the first sort all believers of what nation soever are the second sort but the natural seed of believers are neither of the one nor of the other As for the children of the Proselites i. e. Iews not by birth but profession which by way of exception against this may possibly pop into some of your minds I utterly deny them as so born to be any seed of Abraham at all or heirs of either inheritance unless they believed also though their parents believing might be his spiritual seed and heirs of the heavenly inheriâ—…ance and if you ask why then was every male among the infants of Proselites circumcised I answer not upon any such account as their being Abrahams seed or heirs with him of either this or that but meerly as they were Males in the house of one that was a Jew at least by devotion though a stranger as to fleshly relation that being the express command of God for thâ—… time then being and during the standing of that Covenant of circumcision the like to which if you had for infant-baptism the controversie were at an end between us that every man child in every family throughout all generations whether born in the house or bought with money of any stranger that was not of Abrahams flesh should be circumcised Gen. 17. 12 for there was but one Law and ordinance for the stranger or Proselite Iew and him that was a Iew by birth concerning circumcision and the Passeover Numb 9. 14. upon this same and no other account very many viz. forreign man-servants in every family of any Iew were by appointment to be circumcised meeâ—…ly as being males of the family though neither born of Abraham nor believing with him nor any way at all his â—…eed nor yet heirs with him of either Canaan which injunction and order of God concerning that old covenant ordinance of circumcision or the Passeover either to which the Supper answers more lively than baptism to the other if we might at all regard what was done then as a Rule for us now who so shall produce as the Pattern or infer any thing from as the instution of God according to which we are to act in the New Testament ordinances of Baptism and the Supper and yet not act according to them neither but abominably besides them both as the Priest-hood doth baptizing as not at all but rantizing so not at all after the manner of circumcision viz. not males only not on the eighth day only but any other when they may as well upon that not servants also upon the Masters faith as well as the Children upon the parents and as for the Supper denying it utterly to infants that might then eat the Passeover I avouch them to be not a little besides their natural but much more besides their spiritual intellectualls Let this then satisfy as to any conceit that any may have as that the Prosolites seed were the children of Abraham and heirs with him because circumcised viz. that though all Abrahams seed that were heirs with him were circumcised yet all that were circumcised were not thereby proved to be Abrahams seed nor heirs with him of either promise and though his fleshly seed Israel the heir especially and his spirituall seed also i. e. believing Jewes and Proselites were both thereupon to come under that dispensation and that as heirs too severally of the two severall promises viz. the typifying and typified Canaan yet many past under circumcision upon that forenamed account only of being males in the house that were neither Abrahams seed after the slesh nor after the faith as Servants and the seed of Proselite Masters Fathers not appearing yet to believe with them for even such were to be circumcised under the law though by your leave not such to be by the like reason baptized under the Gospell for as there is no command for such a matter so if there had the Servants of the Eunuch himself only turning Christian must have been as t is known they were not baptized together with him besides if baptism must be like to circumcision in its subject then not only he that is not yet apparently an heir but he also that is apparently not an heir by faith must be baptized aswell as Abrahams sonne Ishmael and his servant Eleazer and all the other males of his house were circumcised who were all well enough known to Abraham to be none of the heirs of that land of Canaan whereof circumcision was given to him and his seed in Isaac in token of their inheriting of it at that very time when he circumcised them I demand therefore yet once again what seed of Abraham your infants are in that thereupon you undertake as so to baptize them you tell us in your Review pag. 14. They are Semen fidei the children of his faith his spiritual seed I am ashamed to hear you say so which way do they come to be in that minority his spiritual seed sith believers only are so you seem to tell us they are so by believing themselves for so Zachaeus say you by believing was made the Son of Abraham as who should say Zachaeus became as infants do the spiritual seed of Abraham by believing which word believing is as much as not having only but acting faith which to act not others only but your selves who sillyly assert them to have faith do somewhat more sensibly p. 8. confess them to be uncapable Others tell us and even your selves too sometimes and in effect in that very same page that they are semen fidei or the seed of Abrahams faith upon another account viz. as their parents are believers for the promise is say you though that is no Scripture phrase at all in that place whence you quote it viz. Act 2. 39. to believers and their seed and if the adversaries say that the Ieweâ—… were Semen carnis and had right by the promise so these say you concerning the seed of believers are semen fidei and the promise is to them which words The Promise The Promise The Promise you will scrible down twenty times in one Treatise before you will sit down once and search out seriously what it is or once shew distinctly what it is you mean by it So then howbeit with Iohn baptist Maâ—… 3. with Christ Iohn 8. Luke 19. 8 9. with Paul Rom. 4. 13. 9 6
8. Gal. 3. 7. 9. there is but one way of becoming Abrahams spiritual seed or the children of his faith so as thereupon to be signed by baptism as heirs with him of the Gospel-promise and this is not by being the fleshly posterity of a believer though it should be of believing Abraham himself for even his own fleshly were not his spiritual seed but onely as they believed with him but by bringing forth fruits of repentance doing his works treading in the steps of his faith you belike have found more wayes to the wood then one whereof when ones failes you in the fight you commonly take your flight by the other and with you there 's two wayes whereby persons nay which is a greater mystery whereby the same persons even believers infants in their very infancy may and do become Abrahams spiritual sons and heirs viz. first by their own walking in the steps of Abrahams faith i. e. believing themselves which though it be the true way of becoming Abrahams spirituall seed yet infants are not capable to walk in it Secondly by being the natural progeny of believing parents which though infants are capable of it yet is none of the way whereby to be canonized according to the sense of Scripture the Spirituall seed of Abraham But it seems the terms upon which persons become heirs with Abraham of Gospel-promises and stand in true title to Gospel-ordinances are not uniform but mulâ—…form in your imagination for those on which persons in the capacity of parents are privilâ—…dged with the title of Abrahams spiritual seed and title to Gospel-ordinances and enjoyments are their own believings not anothers but those on which others i. e. all that are in the capacity of children to those parents are thus highly priviledged are the believing of their parents whether they have any faith of their own yea or no and yet some count that the childs own faith which the parent professes for him But Genus et pro avos et quae non â—…cimus ipsi vix ea nostra voco Sirs what pretty intricate blind bo-beep Divinity is this of yours do the same priviledges and promises belong to the believing parents and their children and yet though exhibited to them both alike in one and the self same phrase and form of speech for saith Peter the promise is to you and your children and to them that are farre off yea even as many meaning of you and your children and of them that are far off as the Lord shall call do they belong upon such various and different grounds viz. to the parents upon their own faith to the children upon the parents faith my father then it seems what ere his fathers were must prove his pedegree from Abraham by his doing as Abraham did or else he can be no gospel-son nor share at all in any gospel-priviledges and immunities but if he were a believer I his son may prove mine at easier rates by farr viz. by going no further then the faith and faederation of my father But Sirs will this hold a triall think you by the word is there any such manglements as these to be found there is it to be found there that now under the gospel-Covenant since that outing of the old Covenant and that fleshly seed that were heirs of it and all the tipical pertinencies thereof the faith and faederation of fathers inrights and enrouls all their fleshly seed as Heirs with them of salvation without any evidence of their believing themselves then tell me why the fleshly seed of those great believers Abraham Isaac and Iacob stand excommunâ—…cated from all Gospel-priviledges participations of ordinances promises c. even from the beginnings of the Gospel Church and first administring of baptism to this very day will you plead your own right above theirs to stand his children in the Gospel-Church by saying we had holy men and believers to our fathers but their fathers believed not the Gospel therefore worthily are they cut off with them I reply thus were not Abraham Isaac and Iacob their fleshly fathers and though remote ones yet were they not their true fathers after the flesh still as much as ever did Iohn Mat. 3. and Christ Iohn 8. and Peter Acts 2. deny them a standing in the Gospel house and admission unto baptism and membership without repentance and belief in their own persons and doing the works of Abraham did they I say put such off from all Gospel-expectations and priviledges who offered themselves thereto with this plea viz. we have Abraham to our father and dare you admit such without faith or repentance for whom you can make no higher pretence then this viz. they are the children of believers me thinks if meer birth-priviledges and fleshly descent must carry it still without faith in the seed themselves are not the Iews infants to this day higher born then any Gentiles infants in the world whose parents are believers for they verily can say no less then this we are the natural issue of the father of all the faithfull yet may they not be own'd barely upon that account to gospel-ordinances and if the natural seed and that by Isaac and Iacob of Abraham himself the grand believer which seed could of old claim a room by right of birth from Abraham in the house of Moses cannot possibly carry it so high under Christ as by the same descent onely without faith in themselves to gain a standing in his house or so much as right to be stiled their own natural fathers children as to the Gospel I am amazed to see you Gentile believers to conferre upon your meer natural seed the name of Abrahams spiritual seed and denominate your semen carnis his semen fidei Baptist. The Iews though the natural seed of Abraham yet cannot have the account of the spiritual seed nor any right to Gospel priviledges because they believe not themselves which if they did they should have right to the Gospel as well as we who believe but sith they abide in unbelief they are cut off from all share in these things Baptist. Then learn once I beseech you this lessen from your selves which you will not learn from Iohn Christ and Paul viz. that the ground of standing Abrahams spiritual seed sons and heirs and Church-members under the Gospel is not the the faith and faederation of the parents by vertue of which you plead your childrens right to baptism saying they have believers as the Jews once to Iohn pleaded theirs saying we have Abraham to our father but faith it self in the particular persons so standing for so many Jews heathens infidels children as are of the faith of Abraham i. e. not born of faithful parents but faithful themseves as he was are incorporated incovenanted inchurched as Abrahams seed and Evangelically blessed with faithful Abraham but till even believers children yea Abrahams own believe themselves the parents faith cannot now possibly ingraft them the time of faith or standing by faith
alone in the house or visible Church of God being now come in the standing by any fleshly generation what soever is done away yea Abrahams own children the naturall branches that grow out of his loynes are cut off from standing as till Chirist they did now any longer upon their own Root Abraham because of unbelief I say then that no infant in infancy of what believing parent soever is either Abrahams spiritual seed or dying in infancy is saved upon any such account as a believers seed or Abrahams seed nor whilst living an infant onely may be signed by baptism as an heir apparent of salvation for if Abraham stand not a spiritual father to his own meer fleshly seed he stands not so sure to the meer fleshly seed of any believing Gentile for that were to priviledge every ordinary believer and his natural seed above either himself or his own Nor doth this hinder or deny the salvation of the dying infants of believers or dispose them ere the sooner muchless necessarily to damnation to say they are not Abrahams spirituall seed quâ believers infants nor heirs to salvation upon any such account as that for though neither upon that nor any other account at all they may warrantably be baptized yet it s more then possible or probable either because infallible that there 's other Scripture account enough upon which when we see them die in infancy we may assert them undoubtedly not to be damned for as it is most sure and true that all that are apparently if really Abrahams spiritual seed by faith must so living so dying be saved in token and farther evidence of which to themselves more then others they are by the good wil of Christ to be baptized yet is it neither true nor necessary that all that are saved must be Abrahams spiritual seed by faith but most certain that some shall be saved that never were Abrahams seed in any sense at all witnesse not onely the faithful fore-fathers of Abraham for he was their seed and not they his but also all dying infants of what parents soever both before Abrahams time and since of whom to salvation notwithstanding those are the onely termes on which it belongs to adult ones to whom it s preacht Mark 16. 15 16. these being truly capable of neither 't is not required that they should either repent believe or be baptized I know this Iustification of dying infants without faith is uncouth and little less for all it holds forth so much salvation then damnable doctrine among you Divines that plead the contrary but I shall by the help of God make it good to the faces of you all when I come to consider the baldness of your consequence in this point as you give me good occasion to do in some places where me thinks you meddle with it somewhat clumsily as it were in mittins as if because there 's no other way revealed for the salvation of such by Christ to whom the gospel is preached who are capable to hear and do what 's required for such onely the word universally speaks of when it speaks of salvation in that way but the way of belief and actuall obedience onely therefore there 's no other way for the salvation of dying infants by Christ who can possibly neither believe in him nor obey him which as it is such shameful stuff that I cannot bear it with out inward blushing at your blindness so whether you have not as much cause to be ashamed on 't within your selves is well worth your inmost inquiry I say therefore again so far is this from excluding dying infants of believers from entrance into the kingdome of heaven to say they are neither Abrahams spiritual seed by faith nor heirs thereof upon that ground onely of being so that it rather concludes and supposes there 's some other ground that is common with them to the innocent infants of even infidels and all the world upon which these whom though they are hundreds to one yet your selves in your fierce wrath and merciless cruelty devote universally to damnation may dying in infancy universally be saved also which ground if you will yet know it is the righteousness of Christ the free imputation of which universally from the father saves not onely all that believe from both that and their actuall transgressions too but even the whole world whether they believe it or no from the the imputation of Adams transgression so that none at all ever perish upon that account in which respect he is said to be the Saviour of all men but especially of them that believe much more doth it and that without faith save all dying infants who as they believe not so have not as yet by any actual sin bard themselves or deserved exemption or become liable at all to the second death i. e. the damnation of hell which befalls not any but upon personal neglect of the light and grace of life brought in by the second Adam as the first death onely overtakes mankind for onely that sin of the first Adam Babist If all dying infants are saved then not few but many if not the maior part must be saved contrary to that of Christ Mat. 7. 13. 14. Luke 13. 23. 24. where he saith few there are that are saved Baptist. There are indeed but few inter adultos among persons that come to years of whom alone and not of Infants at all Christ there speaks and even every where else where he speaks to us of the way of life and this is plain by the reason he there gives why so few are saved which is the straitness of the gate and narrowness of the way that leads to life viz. of self-denial and suffering for Christ which men mostly being very loath to walk in it comes to pass that few of them come to life by it but infants being altogether uncapable to walk in it are are altogether dis-ingaged from walking in it till they come to capacity so to do and yet are not damn'd for not walking in it when we come to years of understanding and to apprehend the good will of God to us in providing a Saviouâ—… for us his good will concerning us in order to salvation by him is that we believe in him and obey him and apply his righteousness unto our selves Gal. 3. 27. but whilst we are yet in such minority as neither to know what God hath done for us nor to be capable of putting on the Lord Iesus our selves he himself is pleased to impute his righteousness to salvation to us so dying even as we our selves whilst our infants are new born do not onely provide but also put on what clothes we have provided in our pitty towards them for the covering of their nakedness but when they come to years of such discretion as to discern and be sensible of their own shame and capable to dress themselves with their own hands we expect when in our love we have once
right to baptism we seeing them certainly to professe faith as infants cannot which whether they deceive us in that profession or no is clear ground to baptize them on this I have shewed so sufficiently above that there needs no more be said of it here Determination Our Respondent hath confessed that Ishmael who was that carnall seed of Abraham yet had right to the seal of the Gospel Covenant circumcision and that the spirituall seed and their children have under the Gospel as good right to the seal thereof which is baptism Detection O rare and base what again Sirs what again I professedly denyed baptism to be a seal at all witnesse my then disavowing the Scotchmans proceedings in the dispute of baptism under the term of initial seal I also denied circumcision to be the seal of the Gospel Covenant or that it was set to Ishmael under such a notion yea you your selves are my witnesses but three pages above that I said circuncision was a seal to Abraham only and not to his posterity and yet here again as well as before you turn false witnesses against me and will needs fasten this upon me for a farewell that I grant all for truth that your selves ignorantly assert in these particulars and not content therewith a matter more monstrous tâ—…en all the rest you say I confess not only Abrahams spirituall seed themselves i. e. believers but their children also to have under the Gospel as good right â—…o baptism as the seal of it as they the direct contrary to which is the Position I stood then to evince yea which I both then did do still and ever shall till you disprove it better than you have yet done maintain against you or else wherin do we differ Sirs you should have done well to have expressed your minds in plain right down English and then the scope sum and scum of them would have risen and appeared thus viz. we the Disputers and Sâ—…ribes of the Ashford disputation having more mind that victory then verity should befal us and having first given and granted to our selves the priestly prerogative of being sole judges and determiners of that daies disputation between us and our respondent do thereupon determine and by these our letters pattents give and grant the cause and the day to be wholly ours and least it should be hardly confessed and yielded to by fair means we will have it by fowle and wrest it from our Respondent as fully granted by him though we know it was not and take it from him pro confesso by force even by forged cavillation and false accusation and therfore know all men by these presents that though it be most expresly denied by our Respondent that infants of believers have right to be baptized yet it is most expresly confessed by him that infants of believers have good right to be baptized had you said thus well indeed might the world have cryed shame on it more then now but in effect it had been but the proper paraphrase of what you have more closely and covertly presented it with in this place Wherefore Sirs I do you and the world to wit once more to prevent any ones being charmed into a misbelief of me by your juggles how little I concur with you in these things and to say no more then what I have shewed above viz. First That baptism is no seal at all of the Covenant of Grace but a sign of it onely Secondly that believers infants have no right at all to be signed with it in infancy Thirdly That circumcision was no seal of the Gospel covenant but a sign only or token between God and Israel of the old Covenant concerning the Land of Canaan and some other particular personal promises and priviledges pertaining to that people though it was a type of Circumcision in the heart wherewith Abrahams spiritual seed are circumcised and thereby inrighted to the heavenly inheritance Fourthly that it was no seal at all to any but Abrahams person and that in another sense then the word seal is accepted in with you Fiftly that it was dispensed to Ishmael under no such notion as a seal of the Gospel covenant but meerly as he was a male of Abrahams house on which account it was set to every male born in his house or bought with his money though visibly an heir to neither the earthly nor the heavenly Canaan as wicked servants were not and no doubt to his Sons by Keturah also as well as to Ishmael though both he and they before known to Abraham to be no heires of that covenant of circumcision which God gave him in Gen. 17. and told him that he would establish that with Isaac only Gen. 17. 19. 21. Determination It is further added for satifaction how children have faith viz. in Semine radice munere habitu actu primo not in fructu folio usu actu secundo in a word they have the habit and the seed not ths exercise and fruit of it Detection You asserted above p. 3. from Mat. 18. 6. that little ones do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere believe in Christ which phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. to believe to drink to eat to read to teach to hear c. do ever expresse productionem potentiae in actum not simply the habit facultie gift inclination power seed c. but the very second act the use the fruit the putting forth of these faculties into their several acts and exercises this as all well studied Schollars know so your selves cannot but acknowledge that to believe is not only to have faith but to act faith and it cannot properly be said of any that they dâ—… believe but such as quoad nos do so indeed As for such as are onely in potentiâ ad fidem though proximâ and sâ—…ch as are in capacity to believe and do not they cannot be said by wisemen to believe for then all men mâ—…y be said to believe who have facultatem munus credendi as well as intelligendi ratioâ—…andi Eligendi c. though they never do it I appeal therefore to your own consciences whether your saying that infants do believe and yet cannot act nor shew that faith by any fruit of it hath not in it plus Idiotae quam Idiomatis and be not as palpable a contradiction as can fall from mens tongues or pens Determination Their not declaring of it themselves can no more conclude against infants faith then against their reasonable soul. Detection The Reasonable soul is in them universally essentially in the highest degree necessarily and praedicable concerning them de omni per se qua sic as being de esse constiâ—…utive for Animarationalis est forma hominis quae dat esse the very essential form of mankind so that he can as easily cease to be as to be without it therefore there can be no conclusion against that in any infants
p. 24. to Mr. Blackwood who faith of faith in the root or of this semniall faith this faith is not our ground for infants baptism being undiscernable Some again upon their acting faith which they assert infants capable to do though against their wills as well as to have it as to the clear contradiction of themselves Mr. Willcock and many more do whilst they with him and he with them speak of children in this phrase viz. that they do believe and thus they speak whilest they interpret that clause Mat. 18. 6. i. e. these little ones which believe in me of little ones littterally taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 crâ—…dere i. e. to believe expresses not the habit onely but the act of faith as to know to read to teach to love to learn do sound out non munus non actum primum onely but actum secundum also Some of you again put that practise upon score of the parents faith not the childs and of these which are also subdivided some the faith of the next parents onely as Dr Holmes who in his to Mr. Tombes p. 216. 217. saith thus the children are not to be baptized whilst the next parents are unbelievers i. e. though the grand parents be believers and Mr. Cotton also who p. 87. of his book stiled the way of the Churches of New England saith thus God never allowed his Church any warrant to receive into Covenant the children of godly parents who lived a thousand years ago nay rather the text is plain that the holynesse of the childrend pendeth upon the faith of the next immediate parents or one of them at least as if the seed of parents were not their seed at two or three generations off others the faith of the remote parents as Mr. Rutherford Pres. p. 164 where he saith all infants born in the visible Church what ere the wickednesse of the neerest parents is are to be received into the Church by baptism yea p. 173 Joshua had commandement of God to give the seal of the Covenant to their children who were as openly wicked against the Lord as murderers drunkerds swearers c. also Mr. Marshall and Mr. Baily who commends Mr. Cottons learned maintenance of infants sprinkling in p. 132 and yet contradicts him in this thing no further off then p. 134. saying although the parents are wicked meaning the immediate parents yet the Lords interest is in the children i. e not of the 3d and 4th but of the 1000th generation and by this shift the Ishmaelus the Edomites the Turks are of Abraham though not of Isaac and so Gods by birth yea we and the whole world are of Noah though not of Abraham and so belike must be baptized and Mr. Blake in p. 24. of his birth-priviledge who saith If the ground of a childs admission to baptism be â—…ot the faith of his immediate parents but the promise made to Ancestors in the faith whose seed is though at a greater distance then the loose life of an im mediate parent can be no bar to his baptism this is plain if Josia have no right from his father Ammon yet he is not shut out in case he have right from his father David or his father Abraham yea even all the national Clergy I think excepting your new English and congregationall men and lastly they themselves too witnesse Dr. Holmes who p. 11 makes the remote father Abraham he upon whose belief those 3000 Iewes in Acts 2. were to be baptized aâ—…d Mr. Cotton himself Aliquando bonus dormitat Homerus who p. 79. of his grounds c. affiâ—…ms all the seed and then surely the seed to many generations as well as the nearest to be holy by adoption and wearies himself and his reader in about 20 pages to prove remote Abraham to be the parent upon whose faith the â—…ew shall be taken in at last viz. from p. 79. to p. 100. Some again put the practise of infant baptism upon the score of neither the childs not the fathers faith necessarily but on the faith of Christian Sponsors and of these there 's two sorts too considering Sponsors as either witnesses or sureties alias Gossips or Guardians first some sprinkle them upon the witnesses or gossips faith thus all that still retain the old English deformation after which yet the New English Christians that were born here were Christned by the Priests saying I baptize thee when they did but Rantize which practise though the directory allow as the ordinary way yet the common prayer book did not save in case of necessiâ—…y which Priests when they should by right baptize the sponsors professing their faith and repentance from dead works and desires to be baptized in that faith in those words we forsake them all all this we stedfastly believe that is our dâ—…sire instead thereof take a child of what parents it matters not out of the midwifes arms putting two or three drops of water upon the face of it and so there 's an end of the business this is that which Mr. Cotton the great Gamaliel of New England though after that fashion possibly himself was sprinkled is now utterly and bitterly against professing for himself and those Churches p. 88. of his way of the Church of new England that they know not any ground at all to allow a faithful man liberty to entitle another mans child to baptism upon the pretence of his own promise to have an eâ—… to his education unlesse the child be either born in his house or resigned to him to be brought up as his own and then he is confident but from no other law then that of circumcision from which I may be as confident that males onely and that on the eighth day must be baptized it may be done Some upon the faith of the sureties or guardians as Mr. Cotton who from Gen. 17 12. 13. grants but very doubtfully and therefore whether damnably or no let him look to it so much liberty to a Christian Sponsor i. e. Surety that if a stranger or a very wicked man should give him his child from his infancy to be brought up as his own it may be baptized as his own in confutation of which I le quote no Author but Mr. Cotton who in that same 88. page where he speaks this but two or three lines above it saies thus The Covenant is not intailed to Sureties i. e. to such for whom they undertake but this is the utmost bounds of liberty Mr. Cotton saies he can give and I wonder who gave him power to give so much in this case he allowes a little bit and no more because he is not sure he may allow that but by his leave from that inch I le take an ell for if a wicked mans child may be baptized then it may and then why not a 100 as well as one in the like case and so at least the promise is not entailed to faithful parents only and their sced yea his
that the infants of believers are really the seed of Abraham the seed of faith the spiritual seed so as Zacheus himself was that is by believing doth that Scripture so much as implicitly say any such thing either that the seed of believers do believe or that they are the seed of Abraham when it saith v. 7. they which are of faith the same are the children of Abraham and ver 9. they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham doth that phrase I say they which be of faith signifie believers infants or believing infants quid â—…ides such folk as those though some are ashamed to say they see yet some are not ashamed to say are to be seen in the world or doth it signifie such as are true believers indeed which of the two think you doth it expresse such persons at years onely as are in the faith or onely the natural fleshly seed of such or if you say both that that one phrase viz. they which be of faith should express two kinds of persons so differently descended of two so different births viz. believers themselves born of God by faith in Christ and also the meer fleshly seed of believers who are no higher born then of their bodies is so far from truth that it is more then flat folly to conceive it And if you mean it not of their being Abrahams children really by faith so as thereupon to be assured heirs of salvation but of their being counted of the faith so as to outward membership in the Church onely t is plain that Gal. 3. 7. 9. speaks of such onely as are truly in the faith i. e. faithful as Abraham was so as to be not onely outwardly inchurched but eternally saved also as none can say all believers children are some of them proving wretches when they come to years for as many as be of faith saith he i. e. faithful as Abraham was are blessed and shall be justified and saved with faithful Abraham whose faith was imputed to him for righteousnesse as faith shall be imputed to us also Rom. 4. 22. 23. if we believe on him that raised up Iesâ—…s from the dead c. answerable to that also is Gal. 3. 26. 29. ye are all the children of God by faith in Iesus Christ if ye be Christs i. e. by faith then are ye Abrahams seed and heirs according to the promise i. e. the promise not of the law or old covenant or earthly Canaan for the Galatians were never heirs according to that nor yet of meer membership and participation of ordinances in the Church that 's more pertaining to the preceptory then the promissory part of the Gospel but of the eternall inheritance it self which is made not onely to believers and their seed as you lace it up but to all men and their seed on terms of believing and comming in at Gods call and made good to as many as are so effectually called so that they obtain the promise of that eternal inheritance indeed compare Heb. 9. 15. with Act. 2. 39. answerable to that also is Rom. 9. 7. 8. where its said in a figure that as the seed of Abraham himself by Ishmael were not children of God i. e. as to the old Covenant so as to be counted heirs of that Canaan and members of that Church though they were his true seed and the children of his flesh as well as Isaac was because Isaac onely and his seed were the children of that promise Gen. 17. 19. 2â—… 21. for in Isaac shall thy seed saith he be called the children of Abrahams flesh the Ishmaelites these are not the children of God in the old legal sense but the children of the promise are counted for the seed so even the seed of Abraham by Isaac himself are not at all children i. e. the children of God as to the new covenant so as to be counted heirs of the Gospel Canaan and members in the Gospel church though they were his true seed and children of his flesh as well as Christ was because Christ onely and his seed are the children of this promise for in Christ who was the true Isaac of whom the other was but the type must Abrahams seed now be called i. e. they that are the children of the flesh onely whether of Abraham or of any other man in thâ—… world these are not now as of old the fleshly seed of Abpaham Isaac and Iacob were the children of God but the children of the promise are counted now for the seed T is true to Abraham and his seed the Gospel promises were made as well as those of the law but mark it he saith not unto seeds in plurali as of many but of one and to thy seed in singulari that is Christ Gal. 3. 16. of whom being born by faith we are his seed to whom in and with him the promise is made for as the believer himself as a believer i. e. as Abrahams spiritual seed had no share in the old covenant promise i. e. Canaan if not descended from him by Isaac after the flesh because to Abraham and that fleshly seed onely in a type of something else and yet truly too those promises were made so a believers fleshly seed as barely a believers seed though born of believing Abrahams own body as the Iews are at this day and that 's a higher birth one should think to entitle to the Gospel if any fleshly birth could do it then to be born of our Protestant believers have no share in this new Covenant promise if not born as I may say of Abraham by Isaac i. e. Christ after the faith or by faith in Christ and so personally even every individual for himself not Catervatim or domesticatim whole families whole nations of parents and children at once ingraffed as branches upon the root and spirituallized into that stock or family of Abraham i. e. the visible Church in which his own natural branches much more any other mans meer naturall branches can have no place now any further then as they appear to believe Indeed the natural branches stood of right upon meer fleshly birth of believing Abraham without faith so long as that fleshly birth-priviledge lasted and could give a standing and till the time of faith and standing there by personal faith onely came and then they were broken off indeed because of unbelief yet not nationally as you say i. e. the whole body for the unbelief of some viz. the persons of the children through allages for the infidelity of the parents for its evident that as many as believed and those were not a few when the rest were rejected were then and thereupon admitted Act. 2. And as many children of them in any age as believe the unbelief of their parents shall not prejudice them but personally every individual that did not believe which the more is the pitty were for the most part both children and parents too in the primitive times save some few
the works of Abraham i. e. believe not on him that justifyes them as some of you doâ—…e they do but also Secondly that the promise of the Gospel is to believers and their seed These both are abundantly confuted by that quotation of mine which quotes more Scripture then you will ever answer so that I wonder you blush not to shoot out so boldly two such blind and unâ—…ound assertions together the second of which I shall say no more to it being virtually answered by what is more formally spoken to the first also because I have shewed so undeniably above that I know your consciences must yield to it and that from this Act. 2. 39. whence you would wrest a proof to the contrary that the promise if you take it for the profer of the Gospel Grace is to all men in the world every creature and so not to believers and their seed only but to all unbelievers and their seed also in case they shall believe for he conditionats the promise on calling for such these were whom Peter spake to whilst he was yet speaking that very word to them viz. the promise is to you and your children but if you take it for the thing promised which is not Church-membership and participation of baptism as some say whose absurdity therein I have declared but the spirit remission of sins and salvation this is made good also to the believer himself and it is mercie enough to him that it is so I think but not at all to his seed for his sake nor his faiths sake for if it be I testify his children need no faith of their own nay more God never made promise to save any of believing Abrahams natural seed without faith in themselves for Abrahams sake as neerly as he took Abraham to be his friend for even he had sin enough of his own to have â—…unck him if the same Mediator that saves any of his seed in that way of faith had not mercifully saved him the same way nor yet for Abrahams 〈◊〉 sake for that merited not salvation for them nor was it instrumental but faith only in themselves to any one of his sonnes salvation for every one must bear his own burden if Christ bear it not and the just must live by his faith and not his fathers neither did he ever promise for his faiths sake to give faith to his natural seed as his for then they must all have had it qua sic including dâ—… omni and being universale summum or God shouldly which he cannot neither could God blame them as he doth for unbelief but himself without whom say you they could not believe who had promised to make them believe and did not though yet he promised to circumcise i. e. by his spirit to sanctify the hearts of his spiritual seed as well as his own i. e. all such as believe and are in the faith with him for the promise being still sure to all the seed which it is made to they all must be blessed with faithful Abraham Now if God who made the old Covenant promise of the earthly Canaan to Abraham and his fleshly seed did not make the Gospel promise to him and his fleshly seed but onely that 〈◊〉 of his that believes with him can we think that he made that promise to the Gentile believer and his fleshly seed for his fathers sake unlesse he have faith of his own Babist No we do not say without respect to his own faith but as the believers seed shall believe so it s made to him as well as to his parents Baptist. So it s made to the unbeliever and his seed also viz. as they shall believe as well as to either of the other and by that account you may baptize all the world Again none of the Jews though the natural seed of Abraham and partakers of all the ordinances of the old testament as Abrahams children could be admittted to be baptized upon that same natural relation though they pleaded it never so stisfly Mat. 3 but only on manifestation of amendment besides that 3000 converts should not baptize their children when they were baptized themselves as Abraham by command took all his males and cirmumcised them the self same day with himself argues plainly that both the covenant and the promise as Mr. Marshal saies truly as to the manner of administration was now changed and not continued to parents and children both alike but as they both alike believed And that these were not baptized with their parents I take Mr. Cotton at his word who as I have shewed before confesses it and if he should not stand to his testimonie herein yet these words viz. as many as glady received the word were baptized which exclude infants and were an imperfect relation if he meant not onely them that received the word are so cogent that they cannot but compell him So I have escaped two of your bullets and as for the third viz. that the Gospel which is a better Covenant would be far worse if believers children be not counted in it and have not right to baptism and membership as well as the Iews children and be valued but as Turks and Pagans this is so sick of the same disease of absurdity with the rest that I fear not its doing much execution besides we have lamed it before having told you before and proved it too and now will again that the exclusion of the fleshly seed from this Covenant and administration which was taken into the first doth not lessen or straiten the grace of God under it at all not render this covenant worse then the first contrary to Heb. 8. 6. the place twice quoted by you where it s called a better for the meliority there spoken of of this covenant above that lies not so much in the extension of the grace of it to such subjects as in the meliority of its promises for this is a better covenant still then the other who ere it belongs or belongs not to forasmuch as it makes better promises then the other viz. of a heavenly Canaan and all spiritual blessings in and by Iesus through faith when that promised an earthly Canaan onely and certain temporal blessings therein on performance of those tedious services of the law T is true theirs in this sense and thus farre was a Covenant of great grace too as t was made freely to that people above other nations for he did not so to any people else concerning outward benefits and such statutes and judgements as should on their observation of them not onely continue them therein but as a shadow type and schoolmaster conduct them to this yet greater is the glory of the Gospel covenant which now is so that the other had no glory in respect of this glory that excelleth therefore the grace of God under the covenant to them that are under it is greater also Besides if you speak not onely of the intention but
the words are not as he reads and construes them viz. I will shew mercy to a thousand generations of them but to thousands of them that love me i. e. to thousands of such people such persons as love me and keep my Commandments and so if the mercy were that of membership yet it were nothing concerning infants in their infancy at all but concerning thousands of such individual persons as love him and keep his commandments or else God must shew mercy to all infants in their infancy to this day meerly for their father Noahs sake though the immediate parents be wicked and if he he do not he shewes not mercy to the thousandth generation of believers infants there being not a thousand generations from Noah to this day We may see what little plain proof these men can find for their false way of inchurching and baptizing of infants in the New Testament in that they are faine to fetch it so far off as the old thus doth not Mr. Ba. onely but others also as well as he who would certainly never look for it so far behind as â—…he second commanment if they could easily find it neerer hand among the rest this mindes me of one of more then ordinary note viz. Dr. Channell of Petworth in Sussex who Ianuary the first 1651. in a publique discourse with my unworthy self being desired to assign some particular place of Scripture where Christ commands the practise of infant-baptism assigned the second commandment to whom as I said then before hundreds of people so I testify here again before the whole world that if any man see infants baptism commanded in the second Commandment it is because his eyes are out for though he tell me that the generall scope of the second Commandment is to command all Gods people to observe all Gods institutions from time to time yet I tell him again as also I did then that infant baptism is none of those institutions yea I tell him yet further and Mr. Bax. also that unlesse it can be made appear by plainer Scripture proofs then ever were yet brought by either of them that Christ Jesus injoined the baptizing and inchurching of infants or that its any other then a tradition of man and an addition to the Gospel which was not so from the beginning and that is more then either of them will ever make plainly to appear the second Commandement doth rather forbid them both yea Ah si fas dicereâ—… sed fas the second commandement the general scope of which as their own selves expound it is to pâ—…ohibit all will worship and superstition all serving of God after our own invention all customes devices innovations Traditions of men all addiâ—…ion to and alterations of Christs will and Testament all teaching other doctrine then is containedin the word doth forbid it and therefore iâ—… haled in by head and shoulders to serve the turn of these men and to help to uphold them in their rantizing of infants into the same visible body with them whom yet they deny to drink with them into the same spirit as all that are baptized into the same body are to do 1 Cor. 12. which infellowshipping persons by the halves into Gospel participation if it be of Christ what else is of man I plainly know not His 17 plain Scripture-lesse proof for infants Church-membership and baptism is drawn from Psalm 37. 26. where it is said that the seed of the Righteous are blessed whence he argues as before and therefore need not have made a distinct Argument of this if God have pronounced the seed of the righteous blessed then certainly they are members of his visible Church its absurd once to imagine quoth he that god should pronounce a society blessed and take them for none of his visible Church But I am ashamed of such trifling stuff such strawâ—… and stubble as he here builds upon as if God himself can no way be said to blesse the seed of the righteous unlesse he require them to be baptized and inchurched visibly in their infancy as if God had but one blessing even that of baptism and church-membership upon which all other blessings are so eternally intailed even to infants that such of them as attain not to an actual interest in these are ipso facto accursed in all respects else that for ever wheras to say nothing how that phrase the seed of the righteous may be taken for the race of righteous ones that succeed one another in righteousnesse as well as a seed of evil doers Is. 1. 4. for the whole race of evill doers that succeed their fore-fathers in evil doing for these indeed I take to be the seed to which the Scripture oft pronounces blessing and cursing and not alwayes the meer natural seed of good men and bad for theâ—… there is manifest falsehood in many promises and threats the natural seed of righteous men often perishing and being not counted their own fathers children unlesse they be like them in righteousnesse as Iohn 8. 39. Christ denies Abrahams natural children to be Abrahams children and blessed with him because they did not as Abraham did and contrary wise the natural seed of the wicked prospering when they do well contrary to Prov. 2. 21. 22. Is. 20. 14. Ps. 37 20. if the word seed were there taken for the natural seed where it is said the seed of evill doers shall never be renowned And so the seed of the serpent and the children of the devil expresses those that do his works to say nothing I say of this which yet is enough to blunt the edge of Mr. Bas. argument grant the word seed here to be taken for the natural seed of the righteous even those in infancy may be many wayes blessed though they neither be baptized in infancy nor inchurched yea they may be blessed with eternal salvation dying in infancy without either baptism or membership in the visible Church for I hope you will not say those 1000s of Jewes and belieuers infants that have died before circumcision baptism and visible admission are damned without any more ado because they fell short of your admired membership and if these be blessed with salvation to whom you delay baptism why not those to whom we deny it doth our denying baptism to an infant before he dies send him to hell sooner then your delaying it till he be dead But however the seed of the righteous may be blessed with many temporal blessings as provision fruitfulnesse multiplication and yet not be taken into the visible Church and to say the truth if Mr. Ba had not been resolved to wrest this Scripture besides its true sense to botch up his proofs into a multitude he might easily have seen by consultation with the verse before that it is not such a thing as membership that is here meant by the word blessed but meer matter of outward sustentation I never saw the righteous forsaken nor his seed begging bread he is
those to whom we deny it dying in infancy without it may be saved without it as well as if they had it And at the same rates as they dispute them to be under cursing to whom we deny baptism and visible Church-membership and our doctrine to be false that denies it may we dispute those infants to be under cursing to whom they delay baptism and visible membership though but for a week during the time of their delaying it and their doctrine to be false that delaies it if we retort the same Argument on themselves which I shall do and leave it That doctrine which makes the children of the faithful in as bad or worse condition then is threatned in that curse Deut. 28. is false But that doctrine which delaies baptism and visible Church-membership to the infants of the faithfull till the tenth twelfth or twentyeth day of their age till Plumcake be made maketh them during the time in which t is delayed in worse Condition then is threatned in that curse Deuter. 28. Ergo t is false Till then you have ingrafted your children into the Church by baptism they are it seems with you in worse state then if they were in captivity and all the poor innocent infants of those parents that are in England to which your selves O Presbyters deny baptism unlesse the parent will confesse his faith before the â—…ason are in worse and more cursed condition then if they were in captivity And if an Indians infant should be born and bread up here in England and be in never such a hopâ—…ful way of comming in time to the knowledge of the truth yet all the time he remains unbaptiz'd and not visibly added to your corrupt church of England he is belike under a worse curse and condition then if he were in slavery or captivity I wonder where Christ or his disciples ever preached such kind of Gospel His 21 plain Scripture-lesse proof for infant-Church membership and baptism runs upon this disjunction viz. Either they are in the visible Church of Christ or in the visible kingdome of the Devil for there is no third state saith he in which they are but if they be not in Christs visible Church they are visibly out of it and if they be visibly out of that visible Church then they are visibly in Satans Kingdome This is the summe and substance of what he laies down and the basis upon which he builds a necessity of admitting the children of the faithfull into and reckoning upon them as in the visible Church of Christ or else we must saith he say they are in the visible Kingdome of the Devill which to say saith he is false doctrine the rest is but amplification and augmentation rather then Argumentation of this position now how beâ—…t a wise body that is not resolved to trouble himself and fill the world with curious pryings long proofs and prolix prates about matters which the wisdome of Christ in the word of his Testament which was written to for and concerning men and women and not infants is pleased to be silent in would surely have sat down satisfyed with that sober saying which Mr. B. himself cotes out of Mr. T. Apol. p. 66. viz. that infants are neither in the Kingdom i.e. visible church of Christ nor Satan visibly till profession For really so it is and no otherwise properly and quoad nos who have no warrant to take cognizance of them as in either one or in the other visibly but as at years they visibly appear to cleave to either neither are these two viz. the visible Kingdome of Satan and the visible Church of Christ the adaequate dividing members of the whole world but excepting infants of the adult ones in it only which visibly obey either Christ or Satan neither doth Satans visible kingdome consist of any infants visibly at all but of such as visibly are acted by him even the children of disobedience in whom he works Ephes. 2. 2. nor Christs visible Church of any infants visibly at all save when some were inchurched and incovenanted as a type for a time but of such onely as visibly obey him these I say are visibly the subjects servants disciples and children of each Rom. 6. his servants ye are i. e. visibly to whom i. e. visibly ye obey whether c. 1 Ioh. 3. 10. in this i. e. doing or not doing righteousnesse are manifest i. e. visibly the children of God and of the devâ—…l so Iohn 8. They are visibly of their father the devil who do the works of their father i. e. in Gospel account for else in the lawes account they as Abrahams seed were then the Churches children howbeit I say any one that is not willing to be wise above what is written and to have vision of more then is visible would rest in this yet sith Mr. B. will put us positivly to prove a third state denying that there 's any medium asserting that infants if they be not in the visible Church of Christ in their infancy are in the visible kingdome of the devil which to say is false doctrine I shall bring Mr. Baxter to stop the mouth of Mr. Baxter and to convince him that either there is a third state in which believers infants are in their infancy which is neither of these two or else to drive him to that Dilemma to preach this false doctrine himself that believers infants are in the visible kingdome of the Devil To this purpose I first demand of him which of these two viz. the visible church of Christ or the visible kingdome of the devil believers infants are visibly in before baptism First as for the visible kingdom of the devil he must say they are either visibly in it or out of it if he say they are in it then he himself preaches that false doctrine which he saies is ours and makes all infants even of believers members of the visible kingdom of the devil if he say they are out and not in the visible kingdom of the devil then that doctrine which teaches men to leave them unbaptized and denies them to be admitted members of the visible church of Christ till they come to age is not guilty as he saies it is of making them doctrinally members of the visible kingdome of the devil for it is but a delay indeed till they can do what is required to baptism As for the visible Church of Christ he must say they are either visibly in it before baptism or not in but out of it if he say they are in the visible church of Christ visibly before baptism then they cannot be said to be as oh how oft ore and ore again are they said to be by Mr. Bax. p. 24. 25. admitted to be members entered listed added initiated into it as into Christs School and first stated into it by baptism for to be first entered into it by baptism and yet to be visibly in it before baptism these two are 〈◊〉
then of the whole species of the whole kind of that Stature called infants and not of infants of one kind more then another For first whereas his 6th ground for the salvation of believers dying infants and of being without any fear of their damnation is this viz. because it is said Psal. 127. 3. 4. 5. children are the heritage of the Lord and the fruit of the womb his reward c. if that be spoken of infants at all as it seems rather to be spoken of children that are grown up that are the strength of their father and his family it is surely spoken of all infants as well as some and he that particularizes that indefinit term of children and the fruit of the womb where ever the Scriture speaks hopefully of such so as to understand it universally to expresse and sound forth no more then those individualls viz. the seed of believing parents and yet thus Mr. Bâ—… muzzles up all such Scriptures and makes them sound no more then he would have them doth little lesse then force the word to his ownfancy Secondly whereas his 13th ground is from Mat. 18. 10. where he argues thus If little ones have their angels beholding the face of God in heaven then they shall be saved for that is a mercy peculiar to the people of God I argue that if little ones litterally taken i. e. if infants be there meant as he saies but never shewes they are saving per alios and not per se then surely all infants as well as some for he speaks not there of the little ones of believing parents in special but of what kind of little ones soever he speaks he speaks of that kind of little ones in general without exception whether it be of infants or of his disciples and if yet it must needs be understood of infants onely that they shall be saved it is understood universally of them and so much Mr. Ba. might have seen and would have said had he consulted the 14. verse but just below where it is thus said of all little ones that are lost and so of all as well as some viz. it is not the will of your heavenly father that one of these little ones shall perish And sith Mr. B. so suches it out below p. 104 105. c. from Mark 10. 14. 15. saying that of such is the kingdome of Heaven must needs be meant viz. by kingdome of Heaven salvation which I grant and by such as I le grant also at this time however sith thence I shall have another Argument ad hominem to give hope by of the salvation of all dying infants not such as are like infants but infants themselves and that not of those individuals onely that were then brought which whether they were children of believing parents or no too is more then Mr. B. ere can demonstrate there being many that came to Christ for healing of themselves or theirs as t is most evident that these did of whom not more then one of ten were as they should be for of 10 leapers clensed where were the nine I say not of those individuals onely but of the very species of infants yea how oft ore and ore and ore again does he inculcate this upon us in that place saying it was the species of infants the very species infants in specie and not those individuals whom Christ saies the kingdome of heaven i. e. salvation doth belong to I appeal to Mr. Bâ—… own conscience whether there be not out of his own mouth a strong Argument of hope if not of assurance from Christ himself that the whole species of infants so dying i. e. all infants and not some onely shall be saved for the â—…pecies of infants expresses not some infants onely but all infants or infants quâ tales so that quatenus ipsum evermore including de omni whatver belongs to infants inspecie i. e. to the kind or to infants as suchbelongs toall infants quod convenit homini purely qua est homo convenit omni homini and so what ever belongs to any thing as t is such belongs also to all that is such But Mr. B. teaches us the truth in this that the kingdome of heaven and salvation belongs by Revelation from Christ himself to infants not in individuo onely i. e. not to those infants onely that were then brought to Christ nor any other but to the kind to infants in specie i. e. all infants as infants therefore the kingdome of heaven and salvation belongs to them all and so did that kind of comming to Christs person while he was on earth with infants not for nor by baptism but for healing belong to all infants that needed it as well as some that were then on earth as comming to Christ with infants by prayer to him to help and heal them in whatever malady since his person is absent belongs to all infants in the world and not to believers infants onely and yet not baptism and a standing in fellowship in the visible Church for they indeed are not fit for fellowship Therefore though Mr. Ba. contracts the grace of God to infants as concerning their everlasting salvation into little a little corner yea good lord how few dying infants does he hope shal be saved that hath hope of none but of some i. e. believers infants which are but one of many and also not of all but onely some of them yet to conclude this in a way of resemblance to Mr. Bâ—… conclusion of his Argument from Mark 10. p. 107. I blesse the Lord Jesus Christ King of the Church though he gave no order to baptize and inchurch infants here on earth yet for having a greater tendernesse towards the eternal state of all dying infants then Mr. B. is yet aware of and towards all that live to years such a tendernesse as to invite them to himself universally and bid them wel-come and so great a care to inform his Chutch in his Word and Gospel concerning his good will to all men and to all insants also in that particular so as to speak it so plainly that plain minded men that are not minded never to change their minds as I hope Mr. B. is not may well see his mind in this case even as if he had therefore done this because he foresaw that some would arise so carnally and so cruely conceited as to suppose it impossible to be and but in vain to hope it almost that Gods saving mercy should extend to any more dying infants then those few and not all those few neither of their own and for my part I gladly accept Christs information and submit to his discovery let them resist it that dare And lastly one more Argument of hope that I have within my self that all dying infants must needs be saved is this yet because I could never find since I lookt for it as also none ever shall that look not without their eyes what should nor what save the
it utterly overthrowes his hopes by the halves of infants for it is both a good ground and as good a ground whereon to hope the redemption from wrath to come of every dying infant as of any one And lastly to conclude my answer to this 22 Argument of Mr. B. which I have insisted the longer on in much hope of helping him to a better hope of all dying infants that neither are nor are to be added to the visible church whereas I was once set upon by a Gentleman with this objection who if ever this book came to his hands and this passage to his eye will remember it though I forbear to name him Viz. Obâ—… If we may be assured of the salvation of all our dying infants we may then in love to them knock them on the head in their infancy and so be sure to prevent their perâ—…shing by condemnation I intreat that Gentleman to beware oâ—… so much as saying that we may do such gross â—…vil that so great good may come thereof least his damnation for it be just and then what little benefit will accrue to him all men may judge that to save his infant damnes himself There 's but four Arguments of M. Bs. behind brought in proof of the right of membership to infants whereof two viz. his â—…4th and 26th are the one from 1 Cor. 7. 14. the other from Mark 10. 13. 14. 15. Two Scriptures that I have talkt on so much in the book above and given the genuine sense of that I shall but tautologize to speak particularly to them again seeing I see nothing new taken notice of in them by Mr B. but what is abundantly answered in effect above where I have shewed the abrâ—…gation in Christ of that birth holinesse he means and the uncleannesse consequently opposite thereunto so that there 's no man however born though a barbarian can be called in opposition to others as by birth holy by nature a sinner in that ceremonial sense from Act 10. Gal. 2. yea M. B. confesses p. 8â—… the Commoâ—… sâ—…se of holinesse was one and the same in all i. e. Priests and Levites under the Law c. Temple Altar Sacrifices children of believers and believing yoak fellowes viz. a separation to God so then if that holinesse of Priests Temple c. was ceremonial so this is and if that holinesse is abolished in all other things why abiding onely the seed I have also proved that the other place where it is not evident that the infants brought to Christ were ever baptized by his disâ—…iples or any other doth more deeply disprove infanâ—…s-baptism and membership then all the places ever brought by Mr. B. are capable to prove or make good eiâ—…her Yea as good a man might have said as send me to those two places for infant-baptism you may find it if you lâ—…ok in the bible I le say no more therefore to them His other two viz. the 23th and 25â—…h are both as he conâ—…esses but probable and and by and by will appear not to be so much His fiâ—…st is this If an Infant were head of the Church then infants may be members But Christ an infant was head of the Church Ergo. That cannot be half so much as a probable Argument whose premises are neither of them true yet such is the syllogism here brought by Mr. B. both the propositions of which I deny his consequence is true indeed that infants may be members if an infant were the head i. e. are capable oâ—…t supposing Gods will that it should be so now in the Gospel which a man may suppose if he will but shall never find to be so in his word nor does his curious crotchet out of Irenaeus that Christ went through every age to sancâ—…ify it unto us prove the other to be a truth for there 's no truth at all in it self yea t is falsum peâ—… falsius for Christ did not passe through every age of man that he might sanctâ—…fy that age for he lived not to any old age here though now he that was dead is alive again for evermore for his life was soon cut off from the earth And as concerning his headship in his infancy I admire a man of wisedome should assert it for to say nothing how little this agrees with that above page 62. where he saies â—…is disputable whether ever Christ was a Churchmember properly or no as if the head because the principal that rules the rest were no member at all of the body t is evident to me that as man be had not any of his Prerogaâ—…ives settled actually upon him till after he had purchased them by his death he was perfect first through sufferings Heb. 5. 9. and after his death and resurrection he was made Lord and Christ Acts. 2. And exalted highly above all Phil. 2. and set faâ—… above all principality and given to be head over all things to his Church which is his body Ephe. 1. ult Moreover to me there is as much force in it if Christ had been head of the Church in his infancy and much more then in Mr. Bâ—… to argue thus if Christ the head of the Church that was circumcised in his infancy yet was not baptized till he came to years then though under the Law the circumcised were circumcised in theiâ—… infancy yet under the Gospel none are to be baptized till they come to years His 25th runs thus If the Scripture frequently and plainly tell us of the ceasing of circumeision but never at all of the Churchmembership of infants then though circumcision be ceased yet we are not to judge their membership to be ceased but c. Therefore This is so far from a demonstration that it s not a Topical but Sophistical Syllogâ—… in which there is fallacia homonomiae or ambiguity in the middle term viz. tâ—…e Scripâ—…ure tells us which may be taken for an expresse or for an implicit telling or having a word for a thing yet one of his propositions will be false let him understand it how he will for if by the Scripture telling us and having a word for it he means an expresse telling of the cessation of membership in totidem verbis a Syllabical word given out of that particular by name then his consequence is false for it follows not because there is not an expresse particular prohibition in the New Testament for the cessation of things that were under the old therefore they are not ceased for so we shall make most of the types and ceremonies among which infant membership was one as I have shewed to remain in force still as well as that as the dedication of the first born and many others the cessation of which is not so syllabically spoken of But if he mean an implicit prohibition or word for the cessation of Churchmembershâ—…p of infants which is enough then there is prohibition enough yea the very command for the cessation of circumcision of infants any more Act.
senses utterly unclean is evident for the child of two believing Jews begotten besides the marriage bed was both a Bastard and also barr'd from the Congregation Deut. 32. 2. again this faederal holiness as well as faith may be in neither parent and yet the issue not be unclean but holy still and so are all Matrimonially and civilly at least that among Pagans are the issue of the marriage bed and with the holiness of the Covenant of Grace too when they come to years and believe themselves as not a few children of unbelievers do and sometimes the seed of Turks and Tartars this therefore i. e. the faith or faederal sanctity of the one parent nor of both cannot be the cause of this sanctity is here denominated of the seed for holiness in the infants is not alwaies when this is and sometimes it is in the infant when this is not in the parent which being of each without other cannot be between a true cause and its effect but as for the second viz. the marriage sanctity in the parents it is that which being in the parents holiness is naturally and necessarily in the seed that is born of them whether they be both or either or neither in faith or unbelief but being not in the parents there can be no holiness no birth holiness in their infants nor Matrimonial nor Congregationall neither therefore this is that which is the cause of the holiness of the issue in this Scripture the result of which and not of faith in the parents is this non-uncleanness in their posterity and so I have done with this kind of holiness and with this Scripture which speaks of this Matrimonial holiness and no other Thirdly Ceremonial holiness I call that same holiness which properly peculiarly and pro tempore only pertained to the whole nation and congregation of Israel denominating them all holy every one of them and distinguishing them from all other people and nations which during the time of the Iews pedagogy according to Gods own imposition were then accounted sinners common and unclean by a certain ens-rationis an extrinsecall meerly notional and nominal rather then either real moral or substantiall sort of sin and uncleanness to which the others holiness was directly opposite and answerable The subjects of which Accountative holiness were not only the people of the Jews themselves which were a holy people Deut. 7. ver 8. Exod. 22. 31. but also and more specially the Priests and more specially yet or in a higher degree but in the same kind of holiness for degrees do not vary nature the High Priests which were holiness to the Lord Exod. 39. 30. also their parents which were not matrimonially only nor often morally yet to allow your own phrase here because they were outwardly in Covenant with God concerning outward promises and priviledges on performance of outward ordinances every faederally a holy parentage a holy root Rom. 11. also their natural if withall matrimonial issue which were not at all in their infancy and but seldome when at years spirituaâ—…ly allwaies faederally holy branches a holy seed also their land of Canaan which was the holy Land their Metropolitan City Ierusalem which was the holy City their Temple which was a holy Temple the Utensills vessels 〈◊〉 and other accomplishments which were all holy a holy Lavar a holy Altar a holy Ark holy Candlesticks holy Cherubims most holy place c. and in a manner all things belonging to the Law of Moses and that first Covenant made with Abraham and his fleshly seed whether hollowed or consecrated by God himself or dedicated to him by men at his appointment viz. the first born the first fruits tithes offerings sacrifices daies feasts which were all holy and had relation as shadowes and types for a while unto things Evangelically Spiritually and substantially holy that were to be there after yea with this same kind of holiness some meats were holy some flesh Hag. 2. 12 13. was holy some birds and beasts were sanctified as holy and lawfull to be used and eaten when others were prohibited as prophane common and unclean not so much as to be touched without sin without contracting such an outward fleshly kind of guilt and impurity as made their souls in that ceremonial sense abominable yea with an uncleanness oppositely answerable to this carnall holiness those fleshly purities and purifyings that then were some actions as the touch of a dead body some issues of men and women some diseases as the Leprosie some bodily blemishes as crookedness dwarfishness blindness lameness yea the very easements and excrements that passed from them in the camp without covering did defile and render them sinners prophane unclean unholy and guilty before the Lord Levit. 5. 2. 3. 5 11. 43. to 46. also Chapters 14. 15. 22. also Levit 20. 25. 26 21. 18. to the 24. Deut. 23. 12. 13. 14. which deâ—…ilements did then reach to pollute the flesh only which the bloud of Bulls and Goats that could not cleanse the conscience morally did sanctifie to the purifying of Hebr. chap. 9. ver 13. neither do these things defile any man now in any such sense at all This is the holiness which when you say infants of believers are holy I have ground to perswade my self you Ashford Disputants mean not but rather some inherent morall holiness when I consider how you talk of infused habits in the hearts of infants in your Disputation and Review and yet again I have ground to believe you mean this holiness which was in the Jewish infants and their implements if I may imagine your meaning by what is extant in the writings of your brethren upon the subject specially if I may measure your meaning by Mr Blakes in his Birth-priviledge or covenant-holiness of believers and their issue wherein he laies himself out at large and yet is too short when all is done in proving from the like under the law among the people of the Iews and their issue that even now in the times of the Gospel also a people that enjoy Gods ordinances convey to their issue a priviledge to be reputed by birth not unclean but holy persons and thereupon to be baptized the absurditie and inconsequence of which doctrine and so I hope to make it appear now I am upon it is little less then if he had argued thus as the Pope doth from that time to this viz. there was an Hierarchy or holy principallity among the Priests under the law therefore there must be such another under the Gospel and as then the high-Priests Aaron and his Sons who were holiness to the Lord wore holy garments in their ministration for glory and for beauty viz. Coats and robes embroydered with gold and blew and purple and scarlet and fine linnen and curious girdles of needle work nnd miters and holy Crowns upon the miters so his Holiness to the Lord the High-Priest of Christendome Appollyon and his sons must thus swagger in their service and
the natural seed of believers be they never so ungodly in their own persons must be faithful to fulfil his own part and their ungodliness non obstante make it good to them concerning their salvation which drives you oft to such a Dilemma in discourses that for your ears almost you dare not answer distinctly to us when we ask you what that Gospell promise is which is made as you say to believers infants and upon what terms it is made to them beyond the infants of unbelievers Babist We do not say that being born of believing parents only intitles persons to the Gospell promises but they are heirs thereof and of all the glory and priviledges and salvation held forth therein as they shall hereafter believe themselves also and live godly when they come to years and not otherwise Baptist. Yea say you so then pray how doth the promise of the Gospel appear to belong one joâ—… more to believers children then to unbelievers for the believers child it seems by you now cannot by promise be saved upon his parents faith unless he believe also himself and then he may and what is this more then I can say to the full of all unbelievers children yea and as well of all unbelievers in the world for even the children of Turks and Pagans and all the children of all the men upon the face of the Earth shall be saved upon these terms viz. believing and obeying the Gospel themselves when they come to years whether their parents ever obeyed it yea or no where then is the preheminence of your believers seed above unbelievers if you go this way to work either therefore grant the one or else the other viz. either that believers children are heirs of salvation upon their fathers faith onely without their own or if you say not so but by their own faith t is that they must be saved then that the Gospel promise belongs not to believers children beyond other mens and that one mans seed hath no such birth-priviledge and preheminence as you dote of about anothers for unbelievers children may as well as they by promise be saved upon their own faith when they come to age without their Fathers Babist We can easily answer you to all this by distinguishing upon the promise thus The promise of the Gospel is either of salvation life remission of sins the holy spirit as the earnest and the inheritace it self to come or else of external priviledges only and participations of Ordinances as Baptism Churchmembership c. the promise of the eternal inheritance life and salvation we grant is not made much less made good to any upon terms of the parents faith but upon our own personal belief and obedience but the promise of outward priviledges and of right to participation of ordinances as to be baptized and inchurchâ—… this belongs to children upon their fathers faith so that believers children are children of the promise in this sense when others are not and in this last sense it is that Peter saies the promise is to you and to your Children c. i. e. you and yours have the priviledge of right to baptism Baptist. Then it seemes you quit the former sense I pray therefore let us here no more of that till next time however but let me tell you one thing by the way concerning that first sense before I say ought to your second viz that if the promise of salvation belong to persons upon their own personal belief and obedience as undoubtedly it doth according to the whole tenor of the Scripture as to men at years and such onely then as very a sigment of ours as you feign it to be t will put you to your shifts to find out what way dying infants are saved in unless you own another way then that which the Scripture tenders it to men in for the justification and salvation of infants viz. the presentment of the righteousness of Christ for them without belief in them or any other kind of obedience And sith in such sense as this only you own the Gospel promise to be made by Peter Act. 2. to believers infants viz. that they shall by right be admitted to outward priviledges as baptism and membership when others shall not I beseech you consider what a poor piece of promise is made by him and what a miserable comforter the Apostle is made by you in making as if this were all his meaning and all that he intends by that precious word of promise I suppose his drift was to support the Jewes now smitten down under sense of sin and the guilt of Christs blood which then lay upon them by propounding to them some ground of consolation but here is cold comfoâ—…t in what he saith if that be all which you saie is the sense he speaks in he had spoke little to their purpose and as good he had said never a whit as never the better for this promise as you take it hath more matter of mourning in it then otherwise to say you shall be brought nearer to the Church but never the nearer to salvation thereby further then you do that which others doing that are further off the Church shall be saved so doing as well as you Sirs you had as good cut off the entail of that piece of promise which you intitle believers infants to as cut of the best part of the promise from them which yet you seem to entail as from their parents to them for this is not worth a rush without the other for abstract this great priviledge you seem to invest them with from that which you divest them of by this distinction and its worth little or nothing if not plainly worse than nothing without the other what better to be under a promise of being priviledged with and what priviledge at all to be admitted to this and yet to be no more nor upon any other terms under the promise of the inheritance it self then others such as were yet never at all signed to it Is it not râ—…ther a burden and a bondage for outward ordinances verily are part of the preceptory part of the Gospel and the precept in point of ordinances as well as in point of manners is part of the yoke and burden of Christ and of the hard sayings of his which flesh and blood brooks not to hear off for though the way of Christ is light and easie and not grievous where it is lessened by thoughts of the recompence of reward yet is it in it self a burden and a yoke and such a one too as considering the sufferings of all such as submit to own it well nigh wearies them that walk under it though under clearest title to the Kingdome for which they suffer much more may it be a misery and not a mercy to such who have a promise of being barely admitted to it but no more of life and salvation or at least upon no other terms then such as have not the
priviledge to be admitted to it yet at all if the promise to believers and their children run only thus viz you shall stand under the title of the holy people of God under rightto outward ordinances when others shall not not only you but also your children shall be baptized and inchurched but neither you nor they ever the sooner saved as born of you further then together with you they shall believe and obey me in all things in which case of faith and obedience all unbelievers in the world and their children shall be saved as soon as either you or they it is as much as to say the promise of a liberty and freedome to partake of the ordinance is to you and your children above others but the promise to partake of the inheritance is as much to all others and their children as to you and yours what most comfortless comfort is this to men cast down under sense of sin and guilt what a pittious plaâ—…ster is here applied to men wounded in conscience and smarting under the direfull apprehensions of Gods wrath besides what exquisite non-sense do you make the Apostle speak if his words be taken in your sense for they must run thus viz. first by way of precept repent and be baptized you and your children in the name of Christ for remission of sinnes and then by way of incouragement thus viz. so this great priviledge of being baptized shall belong to you and your seed which impenitent unbaptized ones and their seed shall not enjoy but the promise of salvation and remission of sins is made no more to you then unto them this is to restore them from their contrite and weather beaten condition and to invest them cum privilegio with a witness yet this is all the priviledge if the promise here made to these parents and their children be of no more then being outwardly incovenanted i.e. inchurched by baptism as you say it is But undoubtedly it must be otherwise then thus for all your saying and the promise take it which of these two waies you will viz. for the meer tender or profer of the thing as the word promise is sometimes used or for the thing it self profered or promised in which last sense its mostly taken it must needs be of some more excellent matter then meer outward membership in the Church on â—…arth abâ—…ract from all true and immediate title to remission of sinnes and salvation yea verily its most evident that the thing here promised is no less then remission of sinnes and salvation itself for as no less is exprest in the very text wherein he names remission of sinnes and the holy spirit which elswhere is called the earnest of the inheritance so unless you will divide the children from sharing alike with their parents in that promise which in the self same sentence terms and sense is propounded alike to them both so as to say the word promise is to be understood of remission of sinnes and salvation as in relation to the parents but of an inferior thing viz. a right to ordinances onely as in relation to the infants which were intollerable absurdity to uâ—…ter it must necessarily be meant of one and the same kind of mercy to the children as is exhibited therein to the parents yea and upon the same terms too and no other then those upon which iâ—…s tendred to the parents viz. personall repentance and obedience and so consequently of remission of sinnes and salvation and not of such a triviall title to external participation onely as you talk on which if it be then unless you assert that God hath promised salvation absolutely to all the natural seed of believers upon those very terms onely as they are their seed which you are ashamed to stand to the promise mean which you will by that word promise in this text whether the bare proposall or the salvation propounded or both upon these terms belongs of right not onely to believers and their posterity but also to all men and their posterity to without difference when at years of capacity to neglect or perform them throughout all ages and places of the world for as the gospel or glad tidings of salvation are commanded by Christ Mark 16. 15 16. to be preached or profered to every creature at years to hear and understand though not to infants on terms of belief and baptism so assuredly those terms being performed the salvation so promised shall be injoyed accordingly if he hath any truth in him who said â—…e that believeth i.e. lives and dies in the faith of Christ and is baptized shall be saved and Paul likewise Rom. 3. 22. intimates no lesse saying that the righteousness of God which is by faith of Iesus Christ is unto all and upon all them that believe and there is no difference so that if they that are now unbelievers and unbelievers children also shall hereafter believe with such faith as shews it self by obedience which kind of faith onely the Scripture means the promise of salvation and remission of sinnes is as well unto them as unto those that do now both believe themselves and were also born of believing parents yea and the promise of the holy spirit also Prov. 1. 22. 23. for indeed God so loved the world not mundum electorum onely ex mundo electum that he gave his onely begotten Son not to condemn one person more then another but as they should personally reject him but that the world through him might be saved that whosoever in it i.e. in all the world not in the world of Elect for that sounds as if some of the elect may believe and some not doth believe might not perish but have everlasting life Iohn 3. 16. 17. 18. 19. All which things well and wisely weighed he is blind that sees any more birth-priviledge or right by birth to salvation or the promise of it in believers seed then in unbelievers neither is there now any more priviledge at all in any one mans naturall seed above anothers save the meer hopefulness of education and advantage of instruction in the way and means of salvation which may possibly befal believers children more then others though in case it happen as it may possibly also do that believers children have their breeding among 〈◊〉 and the children of very Indians among believers in that case these last have not onely no lesse priviledge as to the promise of salvation by bare birth but a priviledge also by that breeding beyond the other That therefore the promise of the Gospel-Covenant in any sense in the world is made to believers seed as barely such more then to the natural seed of unbelievers can never be proved by the word while the world stands yea the very contrary is most evidently proved in this place Act. 2. 38. 39. if we consult no other Scripture besides it For First neither were these parents believers as yet when Peter said the promise is to you and to
members are born unto it not offlesh but of faith not by being of Abraham himself but as Abraham himself was not by being of believers after the flesh but by being believers with them In the Allegory while Isaac the typical promised seed was only in the word of promise and not in actual being Ishmael dwelt in the house but soon afterhe came into the world Ishmael must abide in the house no longer so while Christthe true Isaac typified by the other to whom the Gospel promises were made was but barely in the promise the fleshly Israel vaunted it in the Church but when the fulnesse of time was come for him to be â—…ncarnate and in esse reali that fleshly holy seed much more the fleshly seed of believing Gentiles could have no right of residence in the family of Abraham nor are any saving believers allowed members thereof to this very day Babist But it seems to be the Iews themselves even the naturall seed of Abraham to which in that Rom. 11. 19. Abraham is said by Paul to stand a holy root if it be considered with reference to the verse before where he speaks plainly of them as in contradistinction to believieng Gentiles therefore Abrahams own fleshly seed are holy branches still of that holy root Baptist. In no wise as they are his natural seed onely but as they may hereafter be hoped to become his seed by faith also and be grafted again upon their root Abraham and their own olive tree i. e. the visible Church their fathers family by believing and imbracing the Gospel from which they were broken off through unbelief in which if they abide not still they shall saith he verse 23. be grafted in again but never simply as they are his natural seed onely Abraham may be said to stand a holy root to his own bodily issue two wayes first onely as they were born of his body by Isaac and Iacob with whom and whose seed that typically holy Covenant was established which being now vanisht away he is no longer such a holy root to those natural branches of his body as that they have any birth holiness now therefrom Secondly as the same persons that were his natural seed might also be his spiri-seed by faith in Christ and so he is here said to be a holy root and the Jews in reference to him holy branches viz. in respect not to their fleshly birth of him for as they are his natural branches onely and no more they are broken off but in respect to their future calling to the faith and receiving in again in time to come upon account of their owning of the Gospel the spititual branches onely are now grafted into the olive-tree and growing up upon the root the natural branches are broken off and the root as a holy root to them withered that holiness of it faded it is alive as a holy root now to none but the believer not its own natural branches muchlesse to the natural branches of believing Gentiles Babist When the Iews were broken off their naturall children were broken off with them therefore when the believing Gentiles were grafted in their stead their naturall children must in like manner be grafted in with them Babist No such matter Sirs there 's either no good Antecedent or else no good Consequence in this for first if you mean as to the Gospel Church and Covenant the children of the unbelieving Jews are not so broken off and excluded with their parents in such a sence as you imagine i. e. upon the Account of their parents unbelief onely but for want of faith in their own persons and as succeeding their fathers in unbelief for if any children of the unbelieving Jews when they come to years and children when at years are the naturall seed of their parents I hope as well as in infancy it self if being the children of such or such parents alone would either ingraft or exclude if I say unbelieving Iews children do believe the promise is so made to them that their parents unbelief cannot exclude them but if the children at years do not believe the promise is so little made to believers and their seed as that the parents belief availes no further then to the engrafting of himself and hecannot at all entitle all his natural seed by his single faith nor as heirs of the same heavenly inheritance with him inright them to the ordinance in token of it but if you mean as to the old Church and Covenant then Secondly it follows no more then if you should go about to make a way for the needle by the thred that because the Iews and their seed under the law were taken in and thrown out of Covenant altogether so the Gentiles under the Gospel and their seed must be owned and disowned thus collectively for as to that old Covenant of the law made with the fleshly Israel concerning the earthly Canaan the very promise of that was made to the whole body of that nation and people that came of Abraham Isaac and Iacobs loins in such a manner as that their infants were by very naturall descent according to the promise as tâ—…y and fully heirs of it as themselves from which consequetnly when once God took his advantage by the breach first made on their part to break it on his part also he must necessarily turn them all out together and so he did discovenanting the whole nation at once and as it is said in Zach. 11. 10. breaking the Covenant which he had made with all the people discarding and disinheriting them from all that glory in the lump but the Gospel Covenant and promise concerning the heavenly inheritance is not at all on this wise but of a different nature taking in no whole nation in the world nor any one or more mens meer natural seed no not Abrahams Isaacs and Iacobs as the other did to all generations of its continuance but rather Sigillatim such several persons out of every nation tongue kindred and people that fear God and work righteousness Rev. 5. 9. Act. 10. 34 35. even all and onely such as obey him Singulos generum credentes not genera singulorum credentium vel non If therefore you speak of the Jews standing upon the Root Abraham and in the Church before Christ upon the old Covenant account then I confess that the whole body of them were broken off altogether and that as they and their fleshly seed were all incovenanted so they were all discovenanted at once when that covenant of circumcision which God gave to Abraham and his fleshly seed Gen. 17. concerning the land of Canaan was it self abolished in Christ crucified but then the consequence will not hold from that covenant to this of the Gospel these being two distinct and different covenants the terms of standing in which are in no wise the same But if you speak of the covenant of the Gospel then your Antecedent is false for I deny utterly that the Jews
and their seed were altogether alienated from that further then every individual of them did cut themselves off from a right of standing therein by want of faith in their own persons for as this covenant was never made with any men and their meer fleshly seed no not with Abraham Isaac and Iacob and their natural posterity so that a bare birth of their bodies doth ipso facto make them heirs of the heavenly inheritance promised therein nor give them a right as such only to be signed as true heirs thereof but only with Abraham and his spiritual seed i. e. Christ and all believers in him so no men and all their naturall posterity are outed from it together but as both they and their posterity do stand together in unbelief upon which account faith being the only way of standing heirs under the Gospel and the Iews Children proving unbelievers in all ages as well as their parents I confess they are broken off together and not otherwise for if the Children of the Iews did appear to have faith as in infancy they cannot and when they are grown up unversally they do not their parents infidelity could in no wise prohibit their standing and since neither in infancy nor at age they appear to be in the faith their parents in case they were never so faithful can in no wise intitle them to a standing for then the natural seed of those thousands of Iews which did believe in the Primitive times have a birth-priviledge and holiness to this day whereupon they may claim admittannce unto baptism as well as any specially if those words Rom. 11. 16. if the Root be holy so are the branches were to be taken in such a sense as you put upon them but we know that though they are branches growing naturally upon that holy Root as you call it of believing parents yet they are counted unholy by your selves because they believe not in their own persons yea if we should ask how the children of those Iews that at first believed did come to be such strangers to the Gospel Church your selves would answer vs because they believed not as their parents did by which you do no less than grant what we contend for viz. that the faith of Ancestors gives no right to their posterity to stand at all in the Gospel Church and Covenant but faith in the particular persons only so standing Well then they were broken off but why not because they had not believing parents for Abraham was the fleshly Father of all of them and the primitive believing Iews were the fleshly fathers of many of them and are to this day as much as ever if bare birth priviledge could ingraft them as it did of old in the family of the Iewish Church Nor was it because they wanted title upon which they might have stood still in the Iewish Church if that Church it self had stood to this day for they were Abrahams seed and that gave them capacity enough to dwell in the house before their own unbelief notwithstanding but because they do not believe themselves because the terms of standing in the Church which before Christ were these viz. We have Abraham to our Father we are the Children of such and such parents are now quite changed so that it boots not to say such a thing as Abraham is our father Mat. 3. unless we can also say we repent and believe the Gospel The Jews were broken off by unbelief and thou and thine o believing Gentile must stand by faith yet not thine by thy faith but thou thy self by thine and they by their own faith is that in which thou standing and not thy seed thou hast right to stand in the Church and not they in which they standing and not thy self they have right to stand in the Church and thou hast none Perpetuity in personall faith gives perpetual personal right to baptism and to Church-membership but not a perpetuity of the same right to any mans whole posterity there 's now no difference made at all as to Gospel interest by being either this or that by nature but in all the world any person Jew or Gentile male or Female seed of believer or of unbeliever Barbarian Scythian bond or free is capable both to be saved and signed as an heir of salvation by baptism upon personal faith but in no wise the progeny upon the faith of the parentage And yet to put it more out of doubt that the Covenant holiness and church-right of mens fleshly seed which was of old is not continuing under the Gospel but Ceremonial and so ended in Christ in whom your selves say Iudicialia sunt Mortua Ceremonialia Mortifera I will leave two or three consequences upon the file which either answer and that not invitâ Minervâ nor stretching your Genius beyond sense and reason rather than want somewhat whereby to prove your Iudaizing to be judicious or else by silence say you cannot I leave you to consult with them as you see occasion That holiness which sanctified the Iewes Land City Temple Altar all its untensils Priest-hood and the whole body of that people and all the pertinences of the first tabernacle and old Covenant was Ceremonial only and is now abolished and not abiding among believing Gentiles But that holiness that sanctified the Iewish seed was the same and no other then that which sanctified their Land City Temple Altar and its Utensils Priest-hood and whole people and all the appertenances of that first Tabernacle and old Covenant Ergo That holiness which sanctified the Iewish seed is now abolished and not abiding at all among believing Gentiles As for the Major I would wish you not to subject your selves so much to suspicion of superstition as you will do in these daies of light by putting me to prove it as to require proof on 't since no intelligent man or religious Christian save the Pope and Dr. Featley and the rest of their several fryes and fraternities will deny it or did ever in the daies of the Gospel attribute the same holiness to outward and inanimate things viz. places Lands profits Emolluments first fruits Tithes Oblations and other obventions Temples Altars Tables Lavers Chalices Vestiments nor yet to Priests and people that all these were denominated holy by under the Law for to me by the same reason that first fruits tythes and such like are now to be called holy the first born of every creature both of man and beast is still to be called holy also for even these were sanctifyed and holy Denominativè and Dedicativè as much as any of the rest Ezod 13. 2. yea as Paul did in another case viz. appeal to the Pharisees to judge between him and the Sadduces so may I to you of the Presbyterian Priest-hood to decide this matter between me and the Seducers of the Popish and Prelatick strain whose holy sandalls copes surplices and other superfluities viz. railes high Altars holy Tapers and
meats drinks divers washings and carnal ordinances for that time onely a holy service their land of Canaan it self a holy land their language a holy language and in a mannet every thing of theirs was discriminated by the term holy from what ever was then counted common and unclean among the Gentiles in such sort that people were a holy people and their issue reputed not an unclean but a holy seed If this be his sense then me thinks its a very sensless thing for him to affirm that same holinesse to be removed from all other things that were the subjects then denominated by it and to remain onely in people and their seed but if he deny this to be his sense in those recited words of his I think he must either crack his conscience to evade the disadvantage that accrues to his cause by owning it or else grant that he was not sensible of what he wrote for I see not how he can shuffle those sentences into any other sense And as he so Mr. Baxter that backs him in his opinion of birth-priviledge sayes the same and confesses p. 81. of his book that the common nature of holiness is one and the same in all these viz. Priests and Levites Temple Altar Sacrifices under the law and in the children of believers and their unbelieving yoke-fellows spoken of 1 Cor 7. 14. i. e. a separation to God for so saith he there i. e. in such sense as the Priests Levites Temple Altar Sacrifice c. were sanctified both children of believers and also unbelieving yoke-fellows are here said to be holy and sanctified It being then in both Mr. Blakes and Mr. Baxters own account one and the same holinesse whereby as well the seed as the land people Priests sanctuary and service were all denominated and distinguished as holy which surely was no other then a meer ceremoniall holiness it s but folly for me to say more in proof of this that it was the same nevertheless forasmuch as here is the very foundation of all your falsity and confusion in that you either do not or else will not discern a difference between the time of the law and the Gospel for distingue tempora et reconciliabis scripturas and for that also I am jealous over you with a godly jealously that I may espouse you who are yet a treacherous and adulterous as a chast ministry unto Christ would to God you could bear with me in my folly and indeed bear with me if I yet insist a little further to shew the sameness of that holinesse that was then in the Iews land sanctuary service c. and in their fleshly seed which that it may yet more plainly appear I beseech you let it be considered that as your selves grant that the holiness whereby the seed was then said to be holy was not real and inherent but meerly dedicative relative denominative i. e. titular and discriminative so indeed it was but typical and consequently but temporal as all thâ—… rest was for in such wise as their Temple was but tipical of the Gospel Churches I mean not steeple houses but congregated and truly constituted Assembliesof people 1 Cor. 3. 17. Eph. 2. 21 22. 1. Pet. 2. 5. And as that nation and people in their holiness and all other particulars was tipicall of the Saints where ever locally scattered yet mistically imbodied and not of Christian nations collectively taken and as their holy land and kingdom flowing with milk and hony was typicall of the heavenly Canaan and kingdome flowing with rivers of pleasures and their holy City of that holy City new Ierusalem that is to come down from God Rev. 21. and their holy high priest-hood of our holy harmless undefiled high-priest Christ Iesus and their holy priest-hood of all the elect of God sanctified and anointed not with material holy oyle but the holy spirit it self or holy unction to be a holy priest-hood to offer spiritual sacrifice 1. Pet. 2. 5. and as their holy Altar and Sacrifices was a type pointing out our Altar Christ that immacculatelamb offered without spot to God whereof Paul saies they have no right to eat that serve the tabernacle Heb. 13. 10 by which saying of Paul in that place you may by the wayif you be not stocks and stones take notice thus far of your selves that the same holy persons that by that holiness had a real right to be not onely in the neerest service but highest office also in that Church of the Jews cannot possibly upon the meer account of that holinesse plead a right to participate of Gospel-priviledges and if the holiness of the priests which was superiour in degree though the same in kind with that of the people and seed by which they were priviledged with so high a standing in that Church could not inright them of it self unless they were obedient to the faith also to membership and communion with gospel-fellowships in gospel injoyments shall we suppose the bare birth-holiness that was in the Jews seed if it were now as truly in the fleshly seed of believing Gentiles as t is certain there 's no such matter can entitle and give right to enter and partake of Gospel-priviledges without more ado be asham'd Sirs to assert it and lastly as all that holinesse of the old Testament and tabernacle and things thereunto belonging was no more then a type for the time then being of the New Testament and Tabernacle and holy things thereof so even that fleshly seed of Abraham and that birth-priviledge and Covenant-holinesse which they then had yea that law of infants Church-membership and Circumcision which Mr. Baxter p. 59. of his book will at no hand yield to be but typical and ceremonial or to have any anti-type that succeeds it was as meerly typical and ceremonial as all the holinesse that was in the other subjects viz. the holy persons and things above named and sith he there challenges us to shew what it was a type of and prove it to be so if we can as simple as he seems to make himself in this matter I dare be bold to tell him that there was not any one thing under the Law or in that whole Church of the Jews which though this will not down with him was all but a Cerâ—…mony but it was a more lively type in reference to its Anti-type than this Infant-birth-priviledge birth-holiness and that Law of Infant-Church-membership and circumcision were for verily as that fleshly seed of Abraham Isaac and Iacob were reputatively holy and were by Covenant and special promise from God heirs by that bare fleshly birth with Abraham Isaac and Iacob of that Earthly Canaan together with all the glory priviledges immunities rest riches and bodily blessings of that earthly inheritance and in token of their true title thereunto as so born were circumcised in the flesh so Anti-typically all the faithful seed of Abraham i. e. true believers in Christ and these only ate that truly
comparison of others Whereupon though Christ called the Canaanites by nature dogs in reference to the Iews and their seed the children while that birth-uncleanness or holinesse stood yet unabolished Mat. 15. 12. 26. after which example Mr. Blake takes such blind boldness to himself as to imagine the new born infants of believers and unbelievers may respectively be so denominated still yet he takes upon him much more then God ever gave Peter leave to do or any man else in those dayes of the Gospel if he now call any person by meer naturall birth more holy common or unclean then other T is not now fleshly birth nor circumcision nor uncircumcision in the flesh that discriminates men as Saints or sinners children or dogs holy or unclean in Covenant with God or out fit or unfit further then non-age unfits all alike for such a thing now to be of the visible Church which is not now nationall neither as heretofore it was for under the law this only made men communicable or incommunicable one with another this was the cause why those of the circumcision cayilled with Peter till he satisfied them to the contrary because he being a Iew by nature and circumcised in the flesh went in to men uncircumcised and did eat with them Act. 11. from eating with whom he dissemblingly withdrew himself at another time fearing them of the circumcision Gal. 2. which way of discrimination of persons each from other as holy and unclean fit or unfit for Church-communion each with other by meer fleshly birth and circumcision in the flesh was but a type the Antitype whereof is not this viz that believers fleshly seed are holy Saints Gods people Church-members by birth and contrariwise unbelievers fleshly seed by nature dogs swine sinners unclean in such sort as the seed of Iews and Gentiles were under the law but this rather and indeed viz. that believers themselves spiritually born by faith in Iesus Christ circumcised in heart doing Abrahams works are now the children of Abraham a peculiar people a holy nation neer and deer unto him that must dwell in his house and be fed and refresht with that bread of which there 's abundance and vnbelievers themselves unholy ones in heart and life never new born nor become children to God and Abraham by faith in Christ but remaining uncircumcised within under the unclean lusts of the flesh are those unclean ones and sinners with whom communion is not to be held by the other in Church bodies those dogs and swine to whom the childrens bread is not to be divided nor holy things given even the holy ordinances of the Gospel nor pearls cast i. e. the precious particularities of professed believers viz. baptism and the supper thrown away upon them Moreover as God shewed Peter by that vision Act. 10. that not any man now no not a Gentile by nature may be called common or unclean any more then one that is a Jew by nature so he shews him the same ore again in a round reproof by the mouth of Paul Gal. 2. 11. to 19. where t is recorded how shamefully he separated from eating with the Gentiles for fear of offending the Jews of whose cavils with him in this kind he had had some experience before Act. 11. as if he had been opinion'd still according to the law that such meats as were then unclean and such people as were then sinners by nature in reference to the then holy seed of the Iews had been no lesse then abomination still for him or any Iew by nature to eat of or eat with and likewise how roundly he was dealt with by Paul who minded him of that which he knew well enough but was too willingly ignorant of at this time viz. That these who were but a while since by nature holy were now no holier by nature then Gentiles that were then also called sinners of the Gentiles but that as to that old account of ceremoniall uncleanness and holinesse whereby they were distinguisht from the very womb before they were now all alike by nature viz. Iews no more holy then other men and other men even Gentiles no more sinners by birth then they all that partition wall of birth holinesse and uncleanness propinquity and alienation that did once difference some men from other ab incunabilis being broken down and themselves such as must look upon themselves as dead to that law whereby they stood the children of God and Saints and all other men sinners by fleshly birth and under another law now even that of the Gospel by which there is no other way of being holy and becoming so much as relatively onely much lesse really the children of God then that of faith in the Lord Iesus for the Iews themselves more then for any other and therefore in case they now go about to build again the things that they had destroied meaning that fleshly birth holinesse which they had before disownd they should make themselves transgâ—…essors in so doing this verily is the very sum sense and scope of that Scripture viz. to cry down all the old ceremonial distinctions of men by nature and Nation to beat down all that old birth priviledge and preheminence of one person however descended above another as to Gospel participation and communion out of which yet Mr. Blake blindly takes his text where upon to build again a certain birth holinesse in one mans fleshly seed above another the very thing that Paul there declares rather to be abolished most perversly propagating to the meer carnall seed of Christians that antient tipical and now ended holinesse of Iews by nature who though the seed of believing Abraham himself yet have none of it at all now themselves nor yet whilst they had it could be admitted by Iohn to baptism and gospel priviledges upon that onely account and yet if it still remain as the thing intitling to ordinances both must have it and a right also to baptism by it specially if Mr. Blakes own tenet be true that the ground of a childs admission to baptism is not the faith of his immediate parent onely as he saies it is not p. 24. of his birth priviledge but the promise made to believing Ancestors at a great distance for as he sâ—…th there that if Iosia have no right from his father Ammon yet he is not to bâ—… shut out having right from his father Abraham so say I Abraham being not onely the remote parent of Iosia but of all the Iews that are born at this day also if the Iews have no right now from their own immediate parents that in the primitive times or more lately believed not the Gospel yet may they have right if right at all be to be had to Gospel priviledges from the parents faith at a distance from their remote fathers Abraham Isaac and Iacob whose believing of the Gospel is as well worthy to intitle all their seed to this day to the Gospel promises as the
years before Christ came or the Gospel began in its last and most clear and perfect promulgation for in Heb. 11. 24. Moses is said to esteem the reproach of Christ as great riches c. So that we see the crosse of Christ was before Christ was born even so what was a part of the typical law or old Covenant was stiled Mosaical though some parcels of it were given out and in use before Moses was born yea circumcision it self which was four hundered year elder then Moses is said to be given by Moses and called the Law of Moses Moses gave you circumcision c. and ye on the Sabbath circumcise a man that the Law of Moses may not be broken Ioh. 7 22. 23. And not only circumcision and sacrifices but even the whole Law is said to come by Moses though circumcision and sacrifices which were parts of it came long before him and grace and truth to come by Christ i. e. the very things themselves of which Moses Testament was but typical and a shadow Though grace and truth were both in the world in part long before Christ came personally into it Iohn 1. 17. yea something of both Law and Gospel came into the world before either Moses or Christ yet they are denominated after them Moses Law Christs Gospel and said respectively to begin in them to come with them to be given by them as if they had been altogether unheard of before these times because when they came they gave the things a new that were before and also the fullness of the things respectively perteining to each Testament which in part were but not in their ample perfection till their times and thus the Law was said to begin at Moses Gal. 3. 17. and the Gospel to begin at Christ birth Mark 1. 1 the one 400 years the other at least two thousand years after both Covenants viz. the Law and the Gospel too began in the word of Promise to Abraham and his two seeds Isaac and Christ to whom respectively the two promises were made of two several Canaans the Earthly and the Heavenly whereof the one together with the promise it self that was made of it and the Promised seed to which it was made viz. the fleshly seed of Abraham by Isaac was a clear type of the other i. e. of the promise and promised seed that by that promâ—…se were to be heirs thereof viz. a spiritual seed of Abraham by faith in Jesus Christ Gen. 17. For there the Inheritances of both Covenants were both given in the word of promise the one viz. the Heavenly Canaan more darkly through the other typing it out the other i. e. the Earthly Canaan more clearly plainly and in terminis ver 7. 8. I will give to thee and thy seed after thee meaning Isaac the onely seed and heir of that promise for Ishmael and his had not that typical covenant established on them p. 20. 21. but Isaac and his fleshly seed as also Antitypically Isaac and his fleshly seed who were sons of the bondwoman and a meer fleshly seed in reference to Christ though children of the free-woman and a promised seed in a type in reference to Ishmael had not the true or Gospell Covenant established on them meerly as born of Abrahams body but as believing and so it is established on all men but Christ and Believers I will give thee and thy seed saith he the Land of Canaan even then and there God gave out both the Covenants in the promise viz. the Gospel more implicitly and in a shadow the other 〈◊〉 e. the legal Covenant concerning Canaan in express terms together with a present grant of one of the grand Ordinances of it as a sign and token viz. Circumcision typing out the spiritual Iews or seed of Abrahams circumcision in heart that must be heirs only under the Gospel Rom. 2. Phil. 3. to which Ordinative or beginning or cardinal ordinance circumcision many more Statutes Laws Judgements and ordinances were to be added in after ages when the time of their entring their Possession should draw nigh to the observation of all which as in time God should give them out more clearly by his Servant Moses the Deliverer Minister and Mediator of that Covenant circumcision was an obligation and in these Respects that Covenant is called the Covenant of Circumcision Act. 7. 8. and Circumcision it self called an Engagement to keep the whole law i. e. binding to the performance of all things required to be done on mans part i. e. the Jewes in order to their enjoyment of Canaan under that old Testament or Covenant Gal. 5. 3. For though Circumcision as well as that promised Land whereof it was a token and that fleshly seed that were signed heirs by it and all other the Ordinances of Divine Service which the first Covenant then had and in a manner every thing else under the Law related thus far to the Gospel Covenant as that they were types and shadowes of something answerable under the Gospel i. e. Circumcision of the heart and that other seed i. e. Iews inwardly both answering to that Circumcision and those Iews which were outward only and in the flesh Rom. 2. 27. 28 29. Phillip 3. 2 3. and of the Heavenly Inheritance which these inward Iews i. e. believers or circumcised ones in heart are heirs to by promise yet both that sign Circumcision and the promise signified by it were all alike relating immediately to that Old Testament of Moses as parts thereof and were not parts but paterns only of the new nor was Circumcision any other then an ordinance of the Law of Moses and not a direct rule for us to square or steer by in our dispensing any ordinance of the Gospel for that were to disparage the Law-giver we are under even that other great Prophet Christ whom Moses pointed at saying Deut. 18. A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you him shall â—…e hear in all things c. as if he were not as faithful and punctual to the full in fitting lawes for his house the Gospel Church as Moses was for that old Israel or Church under the Law which was his Heb. 3. 1. 2. 5. 6. 7. Though therefore both Covenants were in being i. e. the Law and the Gospell before either Moses or Christ the one concerning the Earthly Canaan to a fleshly seed in a Type the other a Heavenly Canaan to a spiritual seed as the Antitype yet are they said to begin the one in Moses the other in Christ because these two were respectively the two Mediatours of these two Covenants and as it were the two several Masters and Law givers to the two seeds or the two several families of Abraham viz. the two Churches under the Law and the Gospel the fleshly Israel and the spiritual the personal comming of which two Mediators and abiding for a time in their several houses did perfect what was lacking in them before in point of
the holy spirit Secondly If you take Christs blessing as in this place you must for it s so expounded and plainly expressed in one of the three Evangelists you quote which write all the same thing in some difference of prase for his praying for the persons whom he blessed I say that even spiritually persons may be blessed by Christ in prayer for them yea blessed with the blessing of the spirit it self as de futuro and and yet not pro presenti have the spirit for Christ blessed his disciples Luke 24. 50. i. e. prayed for them that they might be endued with the spirit and yet that he then prayed for or by lifting up his hands to the father then blessed them with did not come on them till some while after in this sense Isaac blessed Iacob Gen. 27. 28. 29. Iacob Ioseph Gen. 40. 15. 16. the High-Priest all the People Num. 6. 23. Moses all Israel before his departure also Deut. 33. 1. c. and yet they were not actually possessed of the blessings just then when they blessed them but along time after There is a blessing by promise as God blessed Abraham with a Son and the Land of Canaan a blessing by Prophesy as Iacob blessed all his Sonnes fortelling as I may say their several fortunes Gen. 41. a blessing by Prayer as in the forenamed places and in this of Mat. 19. 13. Mark 10. 16. And there 's a blessing by putting into actual possession and fruition of a mercy so God blessed Israel with the real enjoyment of the Land of Canaan and all temporal blessings in that earthly place so Antitypically will once bless all the spiritual seed of Abraham with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places by Christ Iesus Eph. 1. 4. Now the three first waies of blessing persons are all concerning things to come and sometimes a long while after yea in prayer Christ blest all that ever should believe on him through the word to the worlds end Ioh. 17. so long before the thing befell them that it was even before most of them were born As to your Minor then wherein you say little children were blessed by Christ I grant it to be true but not in any such sence as truely argues at all that in their infancy they had the holy spirit For First it of the two most plainly appears that his blessing was no other then bodily infirmities which are as incident to infants as men and the end for which they brought them shews the utmost he did to them which was not that he should baptize them as I shall more clearly shew by and by but that he should touch them and put his hands on them and pray no question t was in order to healing for t was at a time when he healed many others if you compare this passage as t is in Mat. 19. with the first and second verses of the Chapter yea v. 15. t is plainly expressed what he did i. e. he laid his hands upon them and departed thence besides Luke saies they brought little children unto him also that he should touch them which ALSO shews that others were brought too as sick folks commonly were because vertue went out of him so that as many as touched him were made perfectly whole Secondly if he did blesse them spiritually in his prayers t was doubtless yet all whom he healed were not so blessed neither witness the nine Leapers concerning things to come and if he prayd for their particular salvation yet they might not immediately have the spirit But Thirdly What ever t was he did to those particular infants which whether they were believers infants or no too no man can tell for many sought him for loaves and outward mercles and many for healing of themselves and children meerly that they might be rid of their burdens on whom yet he had compassion for all that yet first what is this to other infants or to ours that cannot now be brought to his person besides what more to believers than unbelievers infants what more to any then to all away therefore for shame with such dry Divinity as this he touched those children and blest them that were then presented to him that he might touch them therefore all believers infants have the holy spirit and must be baptized away with such dribling dispute also it is not fit for Christs School nor mans neither The next Eulogie you mention is this viz. Their being declared to have right to the Kindome of heaven whence your Argument must run thus Babist Those who are declared to have right to the Kingdome of heaven have the holy spirit But little children of believing parents are declared to have right to the kingdome of heaven Ergo they have the holy spirit Baptist. In answer to which I must distinguish upon your middle term There 's a two fold right to the Kingdome of heaven viz. a remote right and an immediate right conditional or absolute a right in potentiâ and a right in Actu The remote Conditional potential right ad regnum to the Kingdome upon future Contingencies and Events this all persons that ever were born into the world have i. e. conditionally or in case they dying in infancy do no evil or living to years shall believe and obey the Gospel but what is this right to your purpose for verily First It proves not the holy spirit which you speak of to be in those that have it Secondly if it did it proves it to be in unbelievers as well as believers seed as unto whom when they come to years Christ is a common salvation and the Gospel of the kingdome is to be tendered and that not in moâ—…kge but truly and really as theirs till they reject or put it from them and as the â—…ews to all generations since Christ have done that they may believe and believing have life through his name i. e. immediate right to it here and possession hereafter or if they happen to dy in the innocency of their infancie before they have to speak in your own phrase p. 5. by any actual sin barred themselves or deserved to be exempted from that generall state of littl children declared in Scripture viz. secundum te O Accountant right to the Kingdome of Heaven then have they all such apitudinem regnandi as will cost the Priest-hood of England for all his Christian charity in declaring the right of belivers seed to the Kingdome more reason than they ever did or yet have to bestow that way to clear themselves from the just censure of Antichristian cruelty for their excluding and damning all the dying infants of others which are rari quippe boni numero vix sunt totidem quot c. counting the little corner believers will stand in at least no less then twentie to one And as for that other more immediate actual absolute right to the Kingdom when it shal come this Mediante Morte in infantiâ all dying infants have as well
spiritual seed of Abraham now then it was to his carnall seed under the law This is in short the plain sense and ordinary way of urging this argument By way of Answer to which let me be so bold first as to ask you this one question viz. why you stand so stifly to have baptism dispens'd so strictly after the manner of circumcision and yet stray and vary your very selves from the fashion of that administration in a manner as much as any men in the world for verily though the way of circumcision be that you stickle for yet you stragle from it and as to the very subject it self vary from it as much as in any thing else if that be the rule after which men must baptize as you plead why then do ye not baptize for so they circumcised First onely males and no females Secondly all male servants upon the masters single faith as well as male cchildren on the fathers Thirdly on the eighth day onely and neither sooner nor later nor one day before it nor behind it Fourthly by the hands of parents fathers Mrs. Mothers as well as by the hands of the Priests onely Fifthly any where viz at home or abroad in Inns or other places as occasion is but onely or for the most part in your great stone houses for this is both the liberty and the bondage of your late directory that baptism must be dispens'd by a Minister onely not in any case by a private person much lesse by a mother or any woman Secondly in the places of publique worship onely not in private places or privately Thirdly on any day not specifying he eighth so it be not unnecessarily delayed Fourthly to any child whether male or female for ought you expresse to the contrary if so be the parent be a believer Fifthly to no man servant so far as I find on the masters belief though a Christian may chance to hire into his house an Indian or infidel when as its most notoriously known that thus it was then viz. that not the publique Priests onely in the publique places but masters might and must circumcise all their male servants fathers or mothers their male infants on the eighth day onely and that either at home as Abraham in his house Gen. 17. or any where else as Zipporah at an Inn Exod. 4. 24. 25. 26. O the prodigious proling that you Priests make from your own pattern how crookedly close do you keep to your own coppy there are about some seven several modifications of actions in respect of which one may be said to differ from or be like another which for memories sake are coucht altogether in this verse of interrogatories Quis quid ubi qualis quando quibus auxiliis cur In all which if inquisition be made how far forth your baptism and circumcision do agree or differ though you contend or rather pretend them to be like one another in each yet we shall find a deep disparity between them in no lesse then all First if we ask as de subjecto this question quis who is the true subject of circumcision who of your baptism yea even your own so circumcision-like baptism much more that baptism which is rightly dispensed how far is the one divers from the other though this is one of the main things wherein you profess they must be alike for that as I shew'd before did belong to males onely this you dispense to females also that to the natural infants of the Jews though the parents were known to be unbelievers for Ioshua circumcised the seed of all those murmurers that were cut off for unbelief this as to no natural infants at all by right no not to the Jews infants so by your own confession not to any infants whose parents are unbelievers whereby you may see that as the law is changed so there is a plain change also in the subjects of these two ordinances circumcision and baptism not onely as we but as you your selves contend to have baptism dispensed for as onely so all the male children of the Jews both might and must be circumcised though their parents were never such wicked unbelievers but even your selves say the Jews seed are all cut off from baptism and the Gospel Church because their parents are un believers both all the Jews and their males might be circumcised though none of them believed while that Covenant of circumcision stood meerly as they were of the stock of believing Abraham but might not be baptized when the Gospel Covenant began in Iohns Baptism upon that account unlesse they now believed in their own persons though they were of the stock of Abraham still as much as ever nor may to this day in your own opinions Secondly if as to the nature matter and essential form or being of the Rites themselves we ask the question quid what circumcision was and what your baptism how far do they differ the one being a cutting off the foreskin of the flesh the other a wetting of the foreskin of the face onely with a few drops of water no more like it then chalke's like cheese Thirdly if as to the place where we ask the question ubi where circumcision was dispensed and where your selves say baptism ought to be how greatly doth your manner of baptism differ from it and how much more then ours for circumcision might be dispensed any where but in the Temple where I find not they were to be brought at all till circumcised as Christ himself Luke 2. 21 22. but your Rantism no where else by appointment but in your Temples herein I say our baptism squares more with it than yours who pretend so much to baptize after the manner of it for all places are to us alike where there is conveniency of water enough to baptize in and therefore we must except the Font and Bason Fourthly if as to the quality special properties uses ends and offices of these two dispensations the question be asked in quale quid what were the special properties purposes uses ends and offices of these two several administrations what things persons were specially obliged to by them what was specially signified to persons in them and such like how little do these look each like the other for circumcision tied men to the observation of a certain carnal cumbersome costly service Law Priest-hood in order to their inheriting the Earthly Canaan which all are now clean changed and confiscate but baptism as dispensed by us according to the word binds to the observation of another Law and the voice of another Law giver High Priest and Prophet Christ Iesus whom Moses spake of and God hath now raised up accordingly and this in order to a future enjoiment of a heavenly inheritance typed out by the other and as for your rantism it ties to neither this nor that but to a certain service and law of Ordinances and Gospel and Church posture and priesthood of mans own making which one
the faithfull are to be baptized The former proposition is clearly exprest in the text saith he make disciples and baptize them therefore all disciples are to be baptized but had he concluded according to mood and figure or the tenor of this text or had he not been both blinded and minded to go besides the sense of the spirit in this place he would have said therefore all that are first made disciples by instruction are to be baptized and then he had mard all his proceedings concerning infants As for the second proposition which is the assertion of you all viz. That infants are disciples Mr. Cotton toward the proof of it so miserably misapplies 2. pieces of Isaiah that he rather proves himself thereby to be yet but an infant in discipleship and Gospel understanding then proves infants to be disciples from thence The first place is Isa. 54. 13. whereby its said by way of promise to the Church of the New Ierusaâ—…em when once it shall be established a praise in all the Earth as it is not yet nor ever shall be till Christs second appearing when God shall wipe away all tears from her-eies and secure her for ever from all future sufferings and oppressions That all her children shall be taught of God and great shall be the peace of her children from this place which is meant of all the Saints and that immediate teaching which they shall once have he argues thus to all the naturall infants of believing parents in the Church now viz. if they be taught of God then are they disciples for that is the meaning of the word disciples Disciples are taught or learned of God His second place is Isay. 65. 20. where its said there shall be no more thenceforth an infant of daies c. in which place what ere the meaning is it matters not a rush as to his purpose so long as it s spoken of a time that is yet to come Now here is such a messe of mistakes as may well make a wise man amaz'd and and make him muse whether the pen-man of this proof of that Minor that infants are disciples and consequently to be baptized according to Mat. 28. 19. were well awake or asleep when he set it down concerning it I le propound four things to be well examined of you all First whether he be not egregiously mistâ—…en in the persons to whom those promises are made which if they be all infants of the faithful considered as in their minority then is there a mighty mist before my eyes for really by the bâ—… improvement I can make of my understanding I can possibly ken no such matter nor that it is any other then the Saints and faithful ones themselves even all of them and not any of their children after the flesh but as they prove faithfull and do â—…ome Saints in their own persons as well as their parents Secondly whether he be not grossely mistaken about the time wherein these promises are to be fulfilled in fuller evidence of both which consider first as to the first Scripture who ever they are that are there expressed by the term thy children they are all and every of them without exception partakers of the Lords teaching and of all the other priviledges there promised for it s said All thy children shall be taught of the Lord c. at that time therefore wherein this shall be fulfilled this promise shall be performed to every individual of those kind of persons to whom it s made not one excepted which shews that it is meant onely of the Saints for they are the Churches children and not their natural seed and of that time onely when the New Ierusalem which is not yet shall come down from God out of heaven for so shall it then be with all the faithful that shall inhabit that City of the Lord whose people are said also to be all righteous Is. â—…0 21. but this is not performed to all the children of the faithfull now neither are they all taught of God with that effectual teaching there promised as is evident in that many of them in time prove reprobates when wicked mens children prove elect Secondly It is expresly shewed in the 17 v. who are the persons whose portion and heritage these priviledges are for this saith he is the heritage of the servants of the Lord. As for the second place so far is it from speaking of infants in infancy that it rather shewes that there shall be no infant of daies i. e. that shall dy an infant nor old man that hath not filled his daies in that time but the very child shall dy an hundred years old i. e. he shall be counted as dying young or a child that lives but an hundred years so long lived shall they be in those daies yea as the daies of a tree shall be the daies of my people saith God and mine elect shall long enjoy the works of their hands And as to the time when these things shall be t is not now but in the reign of Christ when the New Ierusalem shall be built with Saphirs and all precious stones and when the Lord shall make the New Heavens and the New Earth which is not yet in being but is looked for of all the Saints at the comming of Christ and the redemption of Israel as Peter saith according to his promise which appears plainly by comparing Isa. 65. 17 66. 2â—… with 2 Pet. 3. 13 14. and also by the last text of the two which Mr. Cotton abuses viz. Isa. 65. v. 20 which saith this shall be from thenceforth i. e. from the time of Gods creating that new heavens and new earth Thirdly Whether he doth not most palpably depart from the matter he took first in hand to prove unto another thing which is no more to his purpose then if he had said bo to a goose yea he runs clear away from the Scripture he began upon and never returns to it more as if he were affraid to come near it scarce ere so much as facing about or looking behind him for what he ought to have cleared but surely he thought he could not and therefore was not minded to meddle with it was this viz. that in order to being the subjects of the baptism there injoined infants are disciples in such a sense as is there spoken of viz. made so by the Ministery of the word and teaching for saith Christ go teach all nations baptizing them but his is not to the same not ad idem but ad aliud quoddam a certain other thing which if he did prove as he doth not it could in no wise prove what he brings it in proof of viz. that infants of the faithful upon the account of some uncouth unheard of strange secret sort of teaching and learning which these infants have from God above any other may be truly said to be disciples and thereupon to be baptized And this though it be not spoken so broadly
Priesthood not onely confesse to be agreeable and conformable to that custom of circumcising children under the law but also contend with all your might to â—…ave them baptized now upon no other account mainly then this upon which Paul plain ly seems to forbid it for you say t was the custom and manner of old to circumcise children therefore though circumcision it self be ceased and baptism come in the room of it yet thus far at least we must follow the fashion of the Church of the Jews that as they then circumcised infants so we in like manner must baptize them but Paul saies plainly that we must forsake Moses and neither circumcise children now as of old they did nor yet walk after the manner of circumcision nor conform to such Jewish customes therefore we may not now baptize them which to do your selves as you contend so to have it so confesse it to be after the manner of circumcision Whether therefore we shall believe him or you in this case judge ye This as it is of weight in it self so it must needs be an argument ad hominem however of force enough to stop the mouthes of all such as though they yield the law it self and circumcision to be ceased yet will needs in point of Priesthood nationall Churches Tythes Temples outward administration infants admission have all things at least after such a manner as the Jews had and specially to Mr Marshall and Dr. Holms and all such as assert that the very command that was given to circumcise infants of old is vertually the command to us to baptize them for thus saies not onely Mr. Marshall but Dr Holmes also out of Aâ—…nsworth p. 9. and 7. of his animadversions fetching his argument for infant baptism as far as from the first book of Moses called Genesis thus Where there is a command for a thing never remanded or contramanded there the thing is still in force But there is a command for signing the infants of a believer with the sign of the Covenant of Grace Gen. 17. 7. 9. never yet remanded or contramanded Ergo signing believers children with the sign of the Covenant of Grace namely baptism now is still in force The Minor of which argument hath no lesse then three false assertions in it For First circumcision was not a sign of the Covenant of Grace as baptism now is nor did any further relate to the Covenant of Grace then all other things under the law did viz. as types and shadows of the things to come but that Covenant of which circmcision was giyen to be immediately a sign and token was of that earthly Canaan made with Abrahams fleshly seed onely nor Secondly were they believers infants only who were there commanded to be circumcised but all the male infants and male servants also of every houshold of Abrahams posterity by Isaac onely through their several generations though the parents and masters were unbelievers as the Iews were for the most part of them in all ages and both they and theirs neverthelesse to be circumcised while that Covenant of circumcision lasted Thirdly whereas he saies that circumcision of infants for that 's it he falsely signs there with that name viz. the sign of the Covenant of Grace was never yet remanded or contramanded it is as false as all the rest for we see plainly that it was remanded by that text I am yet in hand with viz. Act. 21. 22. Babist But baptism which is the sign now was never remanded Baptist. I grant it is not yet I le prove it to the faces of you all that t is as much remanded and contramanded as ever it was commanded in Gen. 17. Sith then Mr. Marshall and Dr Holmes both say and so indeed you say all in effect that the command for circumcision of infants was a command to us to baptize them and therefore unless we can shew that command to be remanded again it is still in force to bind us to baptize them I dare be bold to tell them that if infant circumcision and infant baptism were both commanded together in that one and the same precept Gen. 17. 10. where God bidds Abraham and his seed to circumcise their children then they are both uncommanded again in that one and the same prohibition wherein God by the mouth of Paul forbad the Iews to circumcise their children any longer I say if infants baptism were commanded in that very command for the circumcision of infants then by Analogy for contrariorum contraria est ratio infants baptism must needs be remanded in the remanding of infants circumcision the remanding of which by Paul among all the Iewes that dwelt among the Gentiles where he mainly exercised his Ministrie is related plainly Acts 21. 21. To conclude then though I utterly deny as being well assured that nor Dr. Holmes nor Mr. Marshal neither have yet nor ever will make it good that the precept for circumcision is so much as a virtual or consequential command to baptize infants yet if it be I hope they will receive the sâ—…me Law they give and rest satisfyed in it that this Countermand to circumcise infants is a consequential and virtual countermand also to baptize them By all which it appears still that there is not only no precept but also plain prohibition enough of infant-baptism And as there is no precept so neither is there any president of baptizing infants as there was of circumcising them of old from which practise of circumcision therefore there is no consequence to infant-baptism there is not one example to be found any where upon the file of such a thing as infant baptism unless it be in your Parish Registers and there indeed you may shew us not only three or four hundred as vpon occasion of our calling for example Mr Kentish in a discourse we had with him and Mr Glenden at Swevenock said he could but as many as we can shew you of baptized believers in the Scripture-Register viz. no less then three or four thousand but this though it satisfy them that live by the example of the world yet will in no wise serve their turns that live by the example of the Word and therefore Ms Kents negative precept of non express prohibition and Mr Kentish his popish president of parish church admission may go both together as things that can never pass for currant among the true Christians of Kent though they pass for good proof of infant-baptism among most Kentish Christians and Priest-ridden people As for the Scriptures there 's not so much as the least shew of any example of baptizing infants iâ—… them for howbeit you draw in the several housholds that were baptized as that which you would fain seem to make somewhat of to this purpose yet how well they serve your tum that way judge ye when as whether there were at all any one infant in any one of them is confessed to be uncertain by your selves so Mr. Blake
it was under the Law and to bereave little children of what belongs to them Thus Mr. Marshal where by the word housholds he should understand children as well as others for his own ends he leaves them out but where by the word housholds such families are exprest as in which he knows not that there was one infant and may know if there were by the very places themselves that they were excluded yet there he winds things aboutto wind them in By all this you see how little consequence is in the Argument children were circumcised Ergo they must be baptized Yea say you Ashford disputants in the tail of your argument or else the Covenant of the Gospel is worse to the spiritual seed of Abraham then it was to the carnall seed under the law Bus Sirs to conclude this matter I say no for if by spirituall seed you mean Christians natural infants I must as before cry shame on you still for stiling them the spiritual seed of Abraham for if Abrahams own semen carnis be not qua sic his semen fidei are the semen carnis of believing Gentiles Abrahams semen fidei but if by his spiritual seed you mean such as are so indeed i. e. true believers are this spiritual seed ere the worse because a meer fleshly seed may not without faith be signed as heirs together with them how will you ever be able to make that good yet again to take your words so punctually as may be by meer denial of baptism to your carnal seed is the Gospel made worse to Abrahams spiritual seed then the same Gospel was to Abrahams carnal seed of old no such matter surely Sirs for the Gospel was preacht but darkly to the Jews of old which were Abrahams carnal seed viz. onely in types and figures and shadows and prophecies pointing out onely Christum exhibendum a saviour to come but now it s preacht not only to believers that is Abrahams spiritual seed but also to unbelivers and to the whole world and this more plainly too and without a vail holding forth salvatorem exhibitum a saviour that hath already offered himself a ransom and salvation by him in common to all Iews and Gentiles bond and free even every creature that puts it not away from him when tendered to him Mark 16. 15. 16. 1 Iohn 2. 2. so that the Gospel is as good now to the full to all men in its administration as it was of old and in many respects far better though no infants at all be baptized and so I have done with this argument and come to the next Disputation That opinion which destroyeth the comfort that the holy ghost administreth over the losse of our children by death is a desperate and ungodly opinion But such is the opinion of the Anabaptists concerning little children Ergo it is desperate and ungodly The minor proved It destroyes the hope that parents can have of the salvation of their children for it makes them in no better condition then Turks and Pagans and so our Respondent himself professed and when the Apostle saith 1 Thess. 4. 13. I would not have you sorrow as those without hope the grieved parents might reply what hope can we have of our child who is in no better condition then the children of infidels what comfort can we have from the Covenant made with and the promises to our children c therefore why should we not sorrow as those without hope Our Respondent replyed to this that for ought he knew the children of Turks and Pagans might be all saved and one replyed Perhaps he thought the devils might also which was the end of the argument there being no other answer given nor to be expected Disproof As I replied then so I reply still that for ought I know the children of Turks and Pagans dying in infancy may be all saved yet will it not follow so much as probably that therefore in reallity or in my opinion either the Devils may be saved also which rude return is recorded by your selves to be then given and stands for ever before the world as the end of this your argument and of your Disputation also there being to this assertion of mine viz. for ought I know the children or dying infants of Turks and Pagans may be all saved no other answer given by you in the Dispute nor yet since in your Account nor yet ever to be expected But Sirs as great an Extasie as you seem to be in about this position yet I assure you if I had not learn'd it before yet I have learn't it since from your very selves who so strange at it to be a thing not so strange as true viz. that the dying infants of Turks and Pagans may be all saved and that the dying infants in your Christendom are in no better condition then the dying infants of Turks and Pagans for so I said and not as you here misrelate it then Turks and Pagans themselves for if the dying infants of infidels are in no worse condition then your dying infants then surely yours are in no better condition then they and that they are in no worse condition then yours nothing need hinder you more then me for ought I know from a belief thereof unlesse you will refuse to believe your selves who preach no lesse both to me and all men no further off hence then in the next page and the next save one above for do you not say there that unlesse we will violate Christian charity whose rule is praesumere c. to presume every one to be in a good condition till he appears to be in an evil we must believe and hope all thingâ—… of the little children of believers since it cannot appear in infancy that they have barred themselves c. and if so â—…hy not of the infants of Turks Pagans and infidels specially to speak in your own dialect since it cannot appear that these have any more than the other by any actual sin barred themselves or deserved to be exempted from the general state of little children declared in the Scriptures which is this viz. That of such is the Kingdome of heaven You see then how you teach us this precious piece of truth your selves p. 4. 5. therefore I hope you will learn it your selves viz. that we are to hope well of such infants as have not by actual sin barred themselves from Salvation and allow us to teach it too in time though hitherto you seem to be so far from giving way to us to teach the same that when we speak well of infâ—…nts that have not by actual sin deserved exemption and hope well of their salvation so dying you so wretchedly forget it to be the doctrine your selves deliver that with detestation you ptotest against it as abominable as if there were as little hope to be had of the salvation of such dying infants as are not born in Christendome as of the salvation of the very devils
sith tâ—…ey are no longer then while they have it but faith in Christ is according to your selves Habitus ad placitum a deo infufus only not innatus and is in them neither qua sic nor essentially nor universally in all nay but in a few infants by your own confession and you know not which neither for though you do altum sapere so fâ—…r sometimes as to conclude it is in infants of believers yet you do insipere so far sometimes as to undote that again and say the spirit is neither bound nor barred in his working of it in these or those so that till they are at yeares there can be no conclusion made p. 18. therefore me thinks you should blush at this illiterate and indigested assertion viz. that there can be no more concluding against the being of faith in them then their having reasonable souls Secondly if from their non declaring it there can be no more concluding against their having faith then against their reasonable souls then there is no more concluding against the being of faith in one infant more then its being in another or against its being in unbelievers infants than in those of believers for the reasonable soul is in all even in the infants of unbelievers as well as of believers Secondly if their non-declaring it be no ground to conclude against their having faith yet I am sure it is ground enough to bar you from concluding that they have it specially that this infant hath it more then that for though you confess there can be no conclusion made till you see the fruits of their faith yet that is the bold conclusion you undertake to make Fourthly whether we can upon its non appearance conclude against their having faith yea or no yet upon its non appearance we may boldly conclude against their baptism and admittance into the visible Church here on earth into which not an invisible habit of faith gives right but an outward appearance and profession to believe witness not my self only who am of little credit with you but Mr. Cotton also none of the least of your Champions that appear for infant baptism whose very words p. 48. 49. of his Way of the Churches in New England these are viz. It is not the seed of faith nor faith it self that knitteth a man to this or that visible Church but an holy profession of the faith and professed subjection to the Gospell of Christ in their communion Be ashamed therefore of such a monstrous position that persons not appearing to believe in Christ can conclude no more against their faith in Christ then against their reasonable souls Determination The seed of faith sown after discovers it self when the season comes Detection Yet so audacious are you that whilest it is but in the seed at most by your own confession as in infancy to attempt a discovery of it to all the world to be in these infants viz. of believers and not in those viz. of infidels before the season Determination The testimony of Scripture concerning their faith and the proofs taken from thence are equivalent to the best testimony and profession of any man concerning his own faith Detection O Sapientia as if the Scripture did as punctually personally and particularly testify concerning this and that individual infant which you sprinkle that it doth believe and those infants that you deny to sprinkle that they do not believe as men at years do to us by their words and works that they do or do not believe Secondly there is but one testimony of Scripture alledged by your selves where you say it s asserted of infants that they do believe viz. Mat. 18. 6. and that as I have shewed First speaks not of little ones in your sense but of little ones in Christs sense viz. believers indeed and his disciples whom he stiles little ones also a little above Matth. 10. 42. a place where we read not that any infant was among them Secondly that Scripture testifies of those of whomsoever it speaks in actu secundo that they do believe and so to do your selves yield is impossible for infants therefore it cannot be meant of them Thirdly if it did speak of little ones properly so called so as to say they do believe yet that they were believers and not unbelievers infants is a thing which a wise man may fumble himself 55 times over and become a fool before he once find it so to be Fourthly 't were but a Prosopopeia however Determination If it be further askt how faith is bread in them it is answered by the holy spirit whose waies are inscrutable who ties not himself to means works where he will and how quo magistro quam cito discitur quod docet saith Cyprian Detection And yet you scrue so farr into the inscrutable waies of the spirit in this matter as though he works where he will and how both to bind and bar him and to determine both where he doth and must work faith and where he doth not and must not viz. in believers infants not in infants of infidels else why do you refuse to baptize the one upon non-appearance of faith and yet plead for the baptism of the other as in whom it appears to you so clearly that by argument you say you make it more plainly appear to any one that will not deny Scripture and reason that they have faith then the profession of any one particular person that evâ—…r I baptized can make it appear of himself for thus you peremptorily conclude p 5. and then as prettily unconclude it all ore again p. 18. saying unlesse it could be certainly presumed what children have the habit of faith what have not for the working of the spirit is not known to us there can be no conclusion made why also do you say the promise is to believers and all their seed which is as much as to say God is bound upon his word and covenant unto these children not unto others and therefore must be as good as his word for I hope you all agree that God will not lie p. 14. though I confesse p 18. you unsay all this ore again and grant that he is not bound to work it in all the children of Christian parents nor bard from working it in any of the children of infidels O fine whisles Determination If it be inquired how faith can be said to be in them without their consent the answer is as well as originall sin to which they never consented and that Christ is more powerful to salvation then Adam to condemnation Detection That original sin is in infants so far as it is in them without their consent I do not deny it being a matter more imputative as I have shewed above then inhaesive and that Christ is more powerful to salvation then Adam was to condemnation is an undoubted truth which makes me believe otherwise then once I did viz. that whatsoever befel whomsoever meerly by Adams sin
I have sufficiently shewed that birth priviledge and holiness which the Jew had by nature to be abolished in Christ and not derived to the fleshly seed of believing Gentiles Thirdly if it were now both in force and of force to denominate a person to be relatively a disciple of Christ by birth what 's that to the purpose of Mat. 28. 19. and the tenor of all those presidents Mr. Baxter brings out of the New Testament whereby to direct us in baptizing in all which it is both enjoined and exemplified that in order to baptism persons should be first made disciples or discipled really by us i. e. taught and brought to the faith and obedience to the Gospel and not baptized upon account of a meer Relative birth-discipleship for the 3000 Jewes but that is nonsense to call their birth-holiness by such a name as that of Infant discipleship had as much of that Infant discipleship as Mr. Baxter saies falsly Christians children now have yet till better discipled then so i. e. till visibly imbracing the Gospel could not be baptized though pleading we have Abraham to our Father besides to be born disciples if there were any such thing at all as Mr. Baxter dreames there is is one thing and to be made disciples by the teachings of either God or men availing to conversion which is that only we are according to all that precept and president Mr. Baxter himself produces above to baptize persons upon immediately is another to be disciples born and to be made disciples by men are as different as those that are born Eunuchs and those that are made Eunuchs of men now if they were as there is no such thing in Rerum natur â as disciples of Christ by nature nor ever was but by a birth from above such a way of becomming Christs disciples relatively from the womb yet every one of those that were baptized in the primitive times whom Mr. Baxter brings in for our example were discipled by mens teaching according as in the commission Matth. 28. they were enjoyned to be before they were baptized yea even those three thousand Iews themselves who secundum sacerdotem had the relative infant discipleship could not be baptized meerly thereupon till they had attained to a better discipleship by Peters Ministry Babist You see Mr. Baxter does take discipleship in Mr. Tombe's own sense and yours viz. as it signifieth one that doth seriously and understandingly c. professe Christianity laying by at present the consideration of meer Relative infant discipleship for I speak but his own words p. 128. and yet makes it good that your rule of baptizing children of Christians at years is utterly inconsistent with the rule of Christ and that constant example of Scripture wherein baptizing did immediately follow making disciples forasmuch as the true beginning of the discipleship or conversion or sincere profession of faith in men who are born and brought up of Christian parents cannot possibly be discerned it is wrought on by such insensible degrees and consequently they cannot be baptized when first made disciples unless they be baptized in their first infancy Baptist. Unless they be baptized in their infancy why are you so sure of hitting upon the day and hour of their first discipleship or conversion to the faith if you baptize them in the first of their infancy what are all the children of Christians I hope he doth not take Christians in so large a sense as Mr. Blake does for Papists and formall Protestants as well as zealous professors and yet by some passages in his book me thinks he makes the pale of the visible church as wide to the full as the other are all these I trow disciples with him not only relatively but really also i. e. converted truly from their mothers womb or if he mean not this of nominall Christians or the seed of Christians at large which with Mr. Blake at least are born Christians but of the children of true converts sincere believers such as are Christians indeed what is it evident that all or at least the most as Mr. Baxter saies of the children of real disciples are as real disciples as their parents so soon as they are born are the seed of true believers true converts mostly by birth how then do so many of them as well of the seed of meer nominal Christians prove wretches and ungracious a great while till God workes on them and many of them to the grief of their parents even to their dying day and yet thus it should seem they are in Mr. Baxters opinion so that if they be baptized in their first infancy under the notion of such they are in all likelyhood baptized when they are first made disciples even immediately upon the point and period of their conversion and besides if they may so safely be supposed all or most of them to be truly converted and upon that account baptized in their first iefancy as he saies then how doth this square a squint with what he saies also to go round again in the same chapter p. 128 viz. That men are usually who are born and brought up of Christian parents wrought to this meaning to conversion and true discipleship by such insensible degrees that the true beginning cannot be discerned 1. by others 2. no not themselves And p. 139. Now if it be the sincerity that is looked after who knoweth what day or year the child began tobe sincere in his profession for my own part I aver from my heart that I neither know the day nor year when I begun to be sincere nor the time when I first began to be a Christian how then should others know it and when Mr. Tombes would have baptized me I cannot tell and as large experience as I have had in my Ministry of the State of Souls and the way of conversion I dare say I have met not with one of very many that would say they knew the time of their Conversion and of those that would say so by reason that they then felt some more remarkable change yet they discovered such stirrings and workings before that many I had cause to think were themselves mistaken and that I may not tell men only of mine own experience and those of my acquaintance I was once at a meeting of very many Christians most eminent for zeal and holinesse of most in the land of whom diverse were Ministers and some at this day as famous and as much followed as any I know in England and it was there desired that every one should give in the manner of their conversion that it might be observed what is Gods ordinary way and there was but one that I remember of them all that could conjecture at the time of their conversion but all gave in that it was by degrees and in long time now when would Mr. Tombs have baptized any of these All this Mr. Baxter saies in proof out that the time of the first
so grossly as you as touching the genuine sense of the Agostle in that 1 Cor. 7. 14. When he saith to parents of two religions in one civil relation that their children are holy and to own a certain meer reputative holiness as there meant which is not to other children yet denying altogether that he held any such thing as that thereupon these children should be baptized for that is a fictitious conclusion of your own which follows not if such a reputative holiness as you wot of were there meant nor doth Tertullian so much as hint it in that place which Mr. Marshal is so brag off that he supposes he wounds us shrewdly by setting it down in words at length and not in figures which place will for all that never scare in any wise any wise man of our way though it be set down by Dr. Holmes in words at more length and not in figures i. e. in plain English and not as Mr. Marshal doth in unergâ—…hed Latine for what if some men think as for reasons above rendred I surely never shall from that place that the Apostle is willing to give way to faithful parents to hope well of their children and to count upon them till they see either that or the contrary as more hopefully then others holy and happy ones tam ex seminis prarogaâ—…v â quam ex institutionis disciplina as having some prerogative above others in being the seed of such who have prayed for them before they were born as well as in being more likely to be dis cipled into the way of holinesse and life by their godly education of them is there an necessity of their thinking consequently they must baptize them out of hand unlesse tbere were more command from Christ for so sudden administration of that ordinance to them then there is I trow not for a man may look upon his child as some way priviledged by being his seed viz. as a child of more prayers and hopes and future happinesse and advantages and present holinesse too then many others being ignorantly conceited as you are that some infants in very infancy are eithâ—…r really oâ—… reputatively more holy then some from that place viz. 1 Cor. 7. 14. and not think them fit as yet to be baptized or else if he do yet not find good ground in Scripture for that thought by beating the best brains his head piece holds either about that place or any other yea verily I my self who hold not that high birth priviledge of some infants above others as you do who by your mouth I mean Mr. Blake declare some by nature now as of old to be Children of God and Saints and some dogs and swine some holy i. e. in your sense in Covenant as the Iew of old and some unâ—…ean i. e. in your sense out of Covenant with God and sinners of the Gentiles which distinction is â—…ow destroyed much lesse that such prerogative of seed is intended by the Apostle in that text even I my self I say do look on all infants as holy in some sense as I have shewed before i. e. negâ—…ve as far as meer innocency and freedom from iniquity may denominate holy not couâ—…ing them to be in Adam and so impure but recounting them in Christ till by actual sin and a wicked life they take me off from that account and on some children also viz. those of Christian parents as having in some sense a prerogative of seed so far as they may be a seed of prayers more then othess and in some sense too not yours a holinesse above others i. e. as they may be sanctified to their parents as blessings as every thing else may be by their prayers whether good or evill in it self if yet what is blest to us may be properly denominated holy as every creature is said to be sanctified to the Saint 1 Tim. 4. and yet for my life dare I not baptize any at all and as for Tertullian though he mistaking Pauls meaning holds such are holy by a kind of prerogative of seed as Mr. Marshall speaks yet t is very questionable to me whether it be that so transcendent kind of birth holiness and prerogative you expound him of and howbeit Dr. Holmes and Mr. Marshall would fain fetch that father in by force of forged construction to witnesse as a God-father to their federal holinesse yet I cannot easily believe by his words that he hath respect to any more then a bare recounting and reputing these to be holy in a sense abstract from any reallity of their being holy by natural birth and in their childhood as the Doctor vainly descants on Tertullians phrase wherein he mentions them to be holy or till such time as they are holy indeed by that new birth from above and Mr. Marshal takes my part against the Doctor in this too saying they are in Tertullians sense designati sanctitatis i. e. as these words are expounded by the following witnesse the Doctor himself counted holy but not Sancti i. e. not holy till they be born of water and the spirit p. 36. much lesse can I ever believe that he counted them holy and priviledged above others so far as thereupon to assert them or so much as to allow them to be baptized for that 's an utter in consequence of your own from Pauls text 1 Cor. 7. 14. and from Tertullians text to who though he take Pauls speech of such childrens holinesse a little the wrong way yet wrests them not so far out of the way to the proof of such a popish practise as you do yea there is not a little in Tertullians testimony you so talk of that tends at all to testifie the truth of infant baptism indeed had the Epithet given by Tertullian sidelium filiis been so as that instead of that phrase wherein he saies they ought to be designati sanctitatis et salutis i. e. reputatively holy and happy ones he had said they should be signati sanctitatis salutis i. e. signed in your own phrase sealed ones of holinesse and happinesse there had been some hint towards baptism but as t is there is none at all of such a matter The Dr. draws neck and heels together to make Tertullian speak to his mind but t will appear he was of another mind then he as to the baptism of any infants when all is done for saith he Babist Tertullian shews childrens capacity of grace and salvation Baptist. And what then yea what if we grant you that they are capable of salvation yea the Scripture asserts it and we do not deny it therefore you need not trouble Tertullian for this testimony but what follows upon it what then Babist What then why consequently they are capable of the seal for the deeds and their seales follow the right of the inheritance Baptist. This is your inference Mr. Dr. from which inference of yours now we talk of inferring I le infer two things by
therefore O thou most miserably be wildred Priesthood of the Nations and understand for so thou shalt if thou return from out of that thick wood of Authors Polemical Tracts Schoolmen Casuists Tomes Volumes of Fathers Councels Commentators Treatises Systemes of Theology framed forms of old and New Creeds long and short Catechismes confessions of Churches c. in which thou hast wandred and lost thy self from the truth to the unfeigned study of that little book of Scriptures which alone if thou wilt be admonished by it is able to make thee and them that hear thee wise enough unto salvation Thou speakest what thou hast seen of thy fathers we speak what we have seen of our Fathers what thine teach in their books we regard not quâ ipsi dixerint unless quâ dictum prius by our Fathers if they teach no other then what our Fathers teach in theirs it is no more then what thou having the same Scripture the same liberty to search the same promise of the same spirit to guide the same accesse to God in prayer for it mayest learn not at second hand from them but at first hand from thence as easily as themselves but when they go aside from that and thou with them and thine with thee a venture this seems no other to me then Ignis fatuus with a false flash going before and Ignoramus fatuus with his false faith and a number of ignorants following after Thou tellest us of thy novel antiquity of Counsels National Oecumenicall of Churches Greek and Latin of Fathes Austin Gregory c. and yet confessest thy self that particular Churches have erred and may erre and if all particulars then why the universal which consists of all particulars cannot thou canst not prove and that generall councels which the School-men term the representative Church are subject to error and have sometimes decreed heresie and falshood for truth thou confessest by Dr. Featley p. 17. of his figment And that none of the fathers nor yet the joint consent of many is a competent judge for faith to hang upon concerning the right of things is confest by Mr. Blake p. 58. of his to Mr. Blackwood and yet to go round again thou ventest thy self out of the mouthes of others as if their verdict were enough to warrant and canonize all that for verity that is vented by them Tell us therefore no more as Dr. Featley doth of Gregory nor yet of Gregory the great whose testimonies if they were for thee but now I think on t they are not for in the place cited by Dr. Featley himself in the very forehead of his book in the next page of all before the first t is evident that Greg. Nazianzen was for infants baptism but in case of danger onely i. e. if they were likely to die in infancy otherwise saith he for so Mr. Den cites Gregories words more fully in the place which the Doctor docks and custs off in the midst p. 49. of his answer to Dr. Featley otherwise let them stay still they be capable to hear and to answer and no more to your purpose speaks Pope Gregory the great whose words are cited out of Mr. Fox by Mr. Cornwell and out of Mr. Cornwell by Dr. Featley p. 63. 64. in way of resolution to Austin the monk are no other then the same viz. that in case of necessity infants might be baptized as soon as they were born yet were their testimonies any more for thee then they are against thee they could make nothing for thee as to evince the equity of thy cause As for our way of baptism if it were our way onely we trust we should be against it our selves but sith it is the onely way of that word by which all works must be tried and all persons judged whose authority alone being absolutely divine if it were of any esteem with the adversaries thereof were enough to silence their disputes against it it will stand though never so many Councels and things which thou callest Churches and a 1000 Gregories were against it By this time you may see O ye Ashford Synodians how little ground you would have gotten by it if the Authorities of the Church of God from the beginning and the fathers of both that and after ages had been used by you to the advantage of your disputation when as not onely the primitive fathers of all i. e. the Apostles and the Church in their daies whose authorities you rebell against are wholly against you but also the prime of those postern fathers and the Church in their daies whose authoritie you so stand upon are nothing for you But if by fathers and Church you should chance to mean either the universall C C Clergy and their C C Christendom or the Christned Emperors Kings and civil governâ—…rs that have thrown down their crowns to the Clergy and according to the C C Clergies cruel sense and wicked will have been hitherto nursing fathers to the Christen Nations which they have reigned over both of which the Clergy hath reigned ore and nursed alias nusled in ignorance to this day Rev. 17. then indeed as Caiaphas did in an another case you speak truer then you are aware of for their authority alone I mean so far forth as it hath acted it self in a way of meer might besides rightâ—… if it were of any esteem with such as chuse to obey God rather then man were enough to silence all disputes against infant-baptism indeed at least to lay the itch and quench the heat of them when not onely the Popes paternal precepts and decretals in the latin Church witnesse that of Innocentius the third who Decret Greg. l. 3. as cited by Mr. Cornwel enacted that the baptism of infants should succeed circumcision but also the imperial lawes and constitutions as well as Synodicall cannons required infant baptism in the Greek Church and that so strictly too as Mr. Marshall himself alledges out of Photius p. 33. 34. to Mr. Tombes that whatsoever baptized persons would not bring their children and wiues too that 's more whereby you may note the goodnesse of those rimes and Churches when a baptizd husband was forct to bring his wife as well as his seed to baptism should be punished and who ever denied baptism to a new born infant should be Anathematized or cursâ—…d with a most bitter curse when also as Dr. Featley boasts out of Gastius p. 68. of his book At Zurick after many disputations between Zwinglius and the gainsayers of infant baptism the Senate made an act that if any presumed to rebaptizâ—… â—…lià s baptized such as were falsely supposed to be baptized before should be drowned and at Vienna many meerly for baptizing such were so tied together in chaines that one drew the other after him into the river wherein they were all suffocated and at Ropolstein the Lords of that place decreed that such should be burnt with an hot Iron and bear the base brands of those Lords in whose
their fleshly seed quá tales unless they also believe when they come to years for if they be taken away in infancy both they and all other infants of whom I find not where God requires faith so dying may be saved without it and are too though it cross your cruel conceit of heathen infancy this promise I say was made by Peter to unbelievers and their children yea and is in very deed to all men in the world and their children Jewes or Gentiles neer or far off whether in time or place yea to every Creature that then was hath been since now is or ever shall be to the worlds end is the promise made Mark 16. 15 16. by Christ himself who is the purchaser of eternal salvation for all men though actually the eternal saviour of none of those to whom his Gospel is preached save only such as obey him Heb. 5. 9. yet none of all this warrants your sprinkling believers infants onely in their infancy any more then it warrants your sprinkling of so many hundreds of unbelievers infants as you do still as sâ—…riet as you lace up baptism to believers infants onely in the state of your question for to say no more then the truth that 's another of your Hâ—…us pocus's which when your customers come to find out they will be ashamd of you you of your selves if you be not past it you I say yea specially you of the strict Presâ—…ytery who cry out upon your parish people as for the most part profane and ignorant impenitent and unbelieving in such a wretched condition that except they bâ—… converted they will perish nor dare you admit them to the Supper least they eat and drink their own damnation and yet their children are the seed of believers with you still to whom belong the promises and right to the seals for their sakes Yea O ye several parishes where these men preach not in the city only but in the Countreys of Kent Sussox and other places let me Apostrophize a little to you least your Clergy should not heed it if I speak onely to them have you not heard your teachers thundring you as Malignants for the most part tâ—…reatthreatning you to come in and to be reconciled to God as those that are yet enemies to him and his people meaning those few that are better friends to them then the major part oâ—… you are calling to you as crucifiers of Christ and preaching Peters doctrine Act. 2. by the halves saying repent repent for how beit they should say somewhat more to such sinners as you seem to be in their eyes viz. repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Christ for remission of sins yet they put themselves out of all capacity of preaching and you of practising thus whilest they make you believe you are aforehand in the business of baptism because of something like or rather very unlike it which was dispensed to you in infancy called sprinkling which they have sprinkled into the name of baptism yea have not some of them kept the Lords Supper wholly from you all for as many years together as they have lived among you and the rest kept back many hundreds of you as wicked and unworthy from that ordinance communicating in it with two or three score upon such like pretence of Scripture viz. what communion what part hath light with darknsss Christ with Belial the Temple of God and Idolators believers and infidells for what else can they pretend for if you were all believers and all walking in the light as God is in the light ye might have fellowship one with another therin the blood of Christ his son cleansing you from all sin as to the Supper therfore you are unbelievers yet are you not all or at least the most of you believers when you have children to be sprinkled you are unbelievers when your Minister is in the Pulpit and at the â—…able but owned all as believers while he stands at the Font or Bason whose persons for want of faith repentance and better behavior they will not admit to the Supper do you not see how you are nosed and gulled and Priest-ridden whilest with them you are ungodly persons and yet godly parents Church-members and belivers at one time and yet neither this nor that at another one while sheep specially at washing and sharing time whose little ones are lambs that must be bosom'd and brought to Christ and baptized as those to whom the Kingdome of heaven and priviledges of it are intailed and belong by right of generation and birth of Christian professors and many such good morrowes another while viz. at next Communion that entail is cut off again you being unbelievers and perhaps to go round again at next child you have to christen its tack on again so that when they are pleased or rather profitted by that title you are the flock of God purchased with his own blood over which the holy Ghost hath made them overseers both to feed and feed on and when they please to improve the power and turn the key of the kingdome upon you they shut in with an hand ful of their own leaven as the true Turtle choise Church spiritual Spouse Synagogue of Saints and lock twenty to one of you out from feasting with them as a company of Carrion Crowes of Carnal Christians hateful haâ—…gbyes Servants of Satan as a heard of Wolves and Goats and Dogs and Swine Again some of you say Paedobaptism is a tradition of the Church as Dr. Gouge who used such an assertion to Mr. Barber as an Argument to him to take the oath ex officio and therefore belike being like to offend his fellowes if he did he would not at any hand deliver his opinion pro or con in answer to Dr. Chamberlain whether the sprinkling of infants were of God or man also Mr. Daniel Rogers who saith it is as reverend a Tradition of the Church as any but confesses himself unconvinced by any demonstration of Scripture for it others say it is an Apostolicall Tradition and institution of Christ and among these some say there is neither expresse nor positive command or example for it in the New Testament as Mr. Hunton yet good consequence for all that from the Old to prove it Christs Ordinance yea as good from the New as there is for women to eat the Supper as Mr. Marshall though the best consequence that I find the wisest of you make is to me as far fetcht as Peter had the keyes given to him therefore the Pope may sell pardons for money and save as many souls as he pleases and that 's a ground or conseqence as far short as an improbabillity yea as an impossibility is to a certainty in respect of that which is for womens fellowship in the supper for there 's as much president and precept too for that as there is for mens if either women may be disciples believers and Church
so far from conceiving much more expressing any such thing that where I speak in publique of that point of baptism in prevention of that prejudice and opinion of our harshness which your publike balling at us begeâ—…s in your heareâ—…s I commonly deliver my self to the contrary But now Sirs as for your selves who so falsely father this doctrine upon me as mine and that with such abhorrency of both it and me for it and with such patheticall expressions of your zeal against it as that you even set your teeth an edge as it were and whet the spirits of all men to abhor us for it if they had nothing in all the world against us in point of doctrine but that not to let their souls intermeddle with our secrets whose rage is so fierce and whose wrath is so cruel what if I go no further then your own Account of the Disputation at Ashford to prove that your selves are the men that hold this doctrine that though persons believe yet if they be not baprized they must be damned and not we are you not then condemned out of your own mouths to perpetual abhorring now therefore Quid rides de te fabula narratur thou O Accountant art the man of whom this tale may be told more truly then of us who hast plotted so well as to plat a whip here for thy own back yea I appeal to the whole world of wise men â—…o judge whether I do not bring proof out of your own paper if your true Account be yours and be as true an Account of your judgements as t is pretended to be of your disputation that it is your own judgement and not mine that baptism is so necessary to salvation that even such as believe and yet are denyed to be baptized notwithstanding that very belief of theirs shall be damned go bur back with me therefore to the 7th page of your Pamphlet and compare it with what you say in the third and fourth pages concerning childrens believing and see what an Account you have there given of your own minds in this matter In the fourth you conclude from the like in the children of the Iewes that the children of believing parents have faith in the third page you conclude from Mat. 18. 6. that little ones do believe now look but in the seventh page and let all the world judge whether you do not there say of these same persons viz. of the infants of believing parents of whom you asserted before they were believers that if they may not be baptized and that 's none of the childrens fault neither as the neglect of baptism is in men it destroies the hope that the parents can have of their salvation for it leaves them in no better condition say you then Turks and Pagans and their children the salvation of whom is with you as hopeless for ought I see as of the Devills which things let that or any judicious Gentleman spel and put together and see if it be not tantamount to such a testimony as this viz that those that believe and are not baptized shall be damned for to be damned and not saved are all one and as for children of Turks and Pagans dying in infancy you record it it as a monstrous thing that I should say that for ought I knew they might be saved yea by the reply that was made to that speech of mine by one who said perhaps I thought the devills might be saved it appears that your party thinks it as possible that the devils may be saved as soon as the dying infants of Turks and Pagans and yet of the children of believing parents who in your opinion do also believe themselves you say the opinion of the Anabaptists which denyeth baptism to little children puts the parents out of hopes of their salvation und makes them to be in no better condition then Turks and Pagans yea you say believing parents may say of their children that dy without baptism what hopes of our child who is in no better condition then the children of infidels and really they say true if the state of infidels dying infants be so damnable as you saie it is is it you or we Sirs whose doctrine damnes believers if they be not baptized I le conclude this matter with you much what in your own words and form of speech Christ shuts out only unbelievers from heaven whosoever believeth not shall and be damned this doctrine of yours that little infants are believers and yet out of all hopes of being saved if not baptized shuts out believers if they be not baptized i e. if they be not rantiz'd for that is the best baptism you use and by consequence if your doctrine which you delivered in this Account â—…s judiâ—…ious Gentlemen that read i will affirm be true that even believers not baptized shall be damned you had need baptize your believing infants indeed i. e. to do more then criâ—…rosse two or three drops of water on their faces or else for all your plea for their baptizing on pain of their damnation they l be damnâ—…d if they be no more then sprinkled for want of true baptism when all is done for that is not so much as the Ceremony it self in truth which you are so hot for without the substance yet would I not have you be an abhorring for all this but pittyed and prayed for rather that you may in time for this and all other your follies and false accusations of others of things whereof you are more guilty your selves abhor your selves in dust and ashes that you may not be an abhorring as he is more then half blind that doth not see who will be once amongst both God and men Rev. 17. 16. Rev. 19. 2. And thus I have done with your first Argument Review The second is this little Children under the law received the Seal of the Gospel covenant for circumcision was the seal of the righteousness of faith which is the Gospel-Covenant The Law saith Do this and live the Gospel only believe in the Lord Iesus Christ and therefore God calls it an everlasting covenant and the Apostle saith the Law that came 430 years could not disannull it Gal. 3. 17 and he saith expresly the Gospel was preached to Abraham ibid. ver 8. nay more the carnall seed of Abraham Ishmael and Esau men branded for Reprobates in Scripture yet because they were born in Abrahams house received that seal by Gods appointment Why then should not children under the Gospel receive baptism which the Adversaries confess to be the Seal of the Gospel-Covenant Re-Review This poor forlorn wretched Argument hath been handled and laid sprawling once or twice before where both its consequence is denyed and good reason gien of the senselessness of such syllogizing as is here from the Law to the Gospel therefore it is but needless to defend our selves any further against it it being a demi-dead man that is disabled from being dreadful to us already
nevertheless sith he hath strengthens himself again what he can and comes up recruted and attended with a company of scambling and for the most part very unsound sentences at his heels t wil not be amisse to enter the lists a little with him and these his Auxiliaries First then Sirs whereas you come in again with that crooked consequence viz. infâ—…nts must be baptized under the Gospel because circumcisied under the law we might more pertinently set up a shout at your shameful folly in this particular then set upon the shewing of it any more it is so palpable for verily as is proved sufficiently above these two viz. the Covenant of the law and the Gospel from the Identity of which you infer an Identity in the subject of the ordinances and administrations of both and by way of analogy would evince them both to belong to the same persons I must tell you these are two Testaments or wills of God concerning men in those two different times viz. before Christ and since and these two so specifically distinct that they not onely run upon different strains and require different terms as your selves here confesse the law saying do this and live the Gospell onely believe but also stand upon different promises whereof the Gospels being of the heavenly Canaan are better then the laws which were but of an earthly one and these also pertaining to two different seeds viz. the legal to the natural children of Abraham i. e. Isaac and his posterity by generation the Evangelical to the spiritual seed of Abraham i. e. such as are of Christ by faith and regeneration and they had also different dispensations the one circumcision the other another thing viz. dipping a thing no way like it and different subjects also for those different dispensations so that if men and their ministers were not all turned Momes they could not but must manifestly perceive it the old Testament admitting to circumcision onely males and these onely on the eighth day in case they were in the house so young and all the males in the house whether sons or servants whether born in the house or bought with money of any stranger and all this without respect to either faith or repentance in the persons to whom dispenst or any prae-preaching to them by the person dispensing the new Testament taking in to baptism as no servants upon the masters faith so all persons in the world both males and females upon their own and that upon any day and not the eighth onely wherein after they have been preacht to they professe to repent and believe Mat. 3. Act 2. Act. 8. Act. 18. The proof of which real specifical diversity of these two Covenants is yet farre more evident First because the spirit denominates them so to be in Scripture calling them expressely the two Covenants Gal. 4. 24. and also very osten in plurali the Covenants the covenants of promise Secondly by that contradistinction of speech which the spirit useth when he speaks of them and those oppposite Epithets by which he diversifies them calling one the Law the other the Gospel and the law by the name of the first testament or will of Cod the Gospel the second the law the old testament the Gospel the new the law which bound to circumcision and to the observation of which in all other things circumcision bound its subjects when they came to years not of faith though faith then was too in a few and also from the beginning as to the eternal inheritance but of flesh rather and the time before faith came Gal. 3. 11. 12. 13. also a law of a carnall commandement a faulty and a blameable testament of weak and beggerly rudiments in respect of Christ who is the end of them standing in imperfect and onely flesh-purifying precepts and on meerly terrene inferiour and flesh-pleasing promises as Canaan and Ierusalem here below also the Letter in ink in 〈◊〉 of stone the ministration of death and condemnation the Covenant gendering to bondage the hatred the hand writing of ordinances that was against us yet thus farre not against but subservient to the promises as t was the similitude of heavenly things the figure and shadow of the good things to come and a schoolmaster to bring to Christ Eph. 2. 14. Col. 2. 14. The Gospel contrariwise the time of faith Gal. 3. 25. for after faith came c. the power of an endless life Heb. 7. 16. a better Testament standing in lesse painful ordinances more plain and soul purifying precepts and on better and more precious and foul saving promises a Canaan a Ierusalem from above Heb. 8. 6. Also the ministration of the spirit in fleshly tables of the heart of righteousnesse of life liberty love grace reconciliation the very Image and truth it self of which the law was but the shadow Thus you find the Scripture opposing one of these two to the other so farre is it from signifying them to be one and the self same Covenant as you frivolously fain them to be that you may build your infant-baptism thereupon Now whether we shall believe the holy spirit which stiles these two expressely two Covenants or your selves who will have them to be but one judge ye Moreover how two Covenants or testaments can be plurally pointed out and called two and opposed respectively ad se invicem by the names of the first and second the old and new the type and the truth a better and a worse c. yea and contradictorily predicated too as the law and the Gospel are of which it s said the one is of faith i. e. ever for so the Gospel ever was saying believe and live and the â—…ust must live by faith the other not of faith i. e. never for the law never was of faith but the man that doth them shall live in them was the teâ—… thereof and yet all this while be but one and the same Covenant and Testament iâ—… no lesse then a mystery to me sith t is an undeniable rule among Logicians that oppositio semper subinfert pluralitatem also that contradictio est oppositionum perfectissima pugnacissima et Eternaeâ—…d â—…unctionis opposition specially contradiction which is the greatest of oppositions doth suppose a plurality so that t is impossible that one thing should be two contradictory things at once or that contradictories should eodem tempore cadere in idem i. e. be truely spoken both of the same thing at the same time Babist The one is called the first and the old Testament meerly because it went before and is now vanisht away and alienated the other is called the second and the new one meerly because it comes after that and is now in being not because it is really another Testament another Covenant as you contend but two parts rather or periods of one and the same Covenant of grace which was from the beginning of the world Baptist. I confesse that the Gospel Covenant was in the
manner of it different from that which is now then I wonder what pattern you can pick from that manner of administration whereby to steer your cause now and to direct your selves about the true manner of this for will any wise man in any wâ—…rk action or administration he is about to perform take his example by another work action or administration which himself confesses is quite different from it and not after the same manner as that is to be done in which he hath now in hand to do yet thus do you whilest contending that the outward administration of the covenant among the Jews was not in the same manner as the outward administration of it is to be now you yet contend to have our baptism as much as may be after the manner of their circumcision you must and you must not it seems and these both at once walk after those customes and do things now after the manner of Moses If any man then ask me this question viz. sith the Gospel covenant is everlastingly the same for substance and little children under the law received circumsion the seal as you call it of the Gospel covenant why then should not little children under the Gospel receive baptism the seal so I hear you say of the Gospel covenant and why should not this administration of the covenant in outward ordinances be after the manner of that of old I answer him out of Mr. Marshalls own mouth thus because though for substance the Gospel Covenant be ever one and the same yet the manner of external administration thereof is not the same with us as t was with them and therefore we are not to take example in our Dispensations and administrations by them nor regard to do after the manner of them the Priest-hood being changed of necessity there is a change also of the Law for the administrators are not the same with us as with them nor the administrations the same in matter not the manner of administration to them the same nor the subjects to whom these administrations belong the same for those were to all the holy Jewes though never so unholy and unbelieving but these to Jewes and Gentiles as they believe and no otherwise least of all is the subject of circumcision and baptism the same for that above all the rest was limitted to all males and those only at eight daies old this extending to males and females and those only when they professe to be believers Babist Circumcision was a more Evangelical administration then the rest as being given when the Gospel was preached to Abraham 430 years before the Law therefore we may give the more heed to that sith it is of the Fathers and more then to the other ordinances which by institution were more immediately of Moses Baptist. Though it were in being so long before Moses yet was it as directly belonging to his law as any other administration what-ever for howbeit it was before him yet it is said to be of him as all the Sacrifices also were which were of old before circumcision because he gave them all anew and plainer promulgation and was Mediator of all that old Testament service which ended in Christ and was even from the very beginning Moreover Though the Gospel Covenant was preached in a type to Abraham in Gen. 17. where circumcision was also first appointed yet that in reference to which Circumcision of the flesh was there instituted was immediately that first and old covenant of the Law which was in some parcels and pieces of it before Abraham and now was propounded a little more fully in the promise of that land to his fleshly seed and the express appointment of that one more special precept thereof i. e. Circumcision though the fulnesse of it came not till four hundred and thirty years after yea he that hath but half an eye in his head must needs see that to be the covenant viz. that which was made in a type I grant of another yet really with the seed of Abrahams body whereof that circumcision was the token which covenant and circumcision were so neer kin that Stephen calls that Acts 7. the Couenant of circumcision which also I have spoken to so sufficiently above that howbeit you here give me the occasion de novo yet I le trouble you no further with it here Review 1. These are the seed of Abraham Semen fidei Gal. 3. 7. so Zacheus by believing was made a son of Abraham nay the spiritual seed 2. The promise is to believers and their seed Act. 2. 39. 3. The Gospel is a better Covenant Heb. 8. 6. and it would be far worse if the children of believers under the Gospel should not be counted within the covenant nor have right to the seal nor be esteemeed members of the visible church as well as the Iewes children nay accorâ—…ing to the Anabaptists valued but as Turks and Pagans Re-Review Here to inforce this Argument a fresh least the front should faile you come up three a breast and leâ—… fly at us thick and threefold with a first second and third report First you tell us that these i. e. believers fleshly seed are the seed of Abraham nay the faithful seed or seed of faith and that in such manner too as Zacheus was made the son or seed of Abraham and how was that viz. by believing nay the spiritual seed quid ni they cannot chuse I warrant buâ—… ipso facto be believers i. e. born again by faith for such only are of faith yea and the spiritual seed too i. e. born of the spirit for such only are a spiritual seed and that so well as Zacheus himself if once barely born of the bodies of the flesh of such spiritual parents as do believe alias live in Christendome at least in reformed Christendome for if all papists be not a spiritual body of believers with you as they are with the Pope all protestants are taken by you so to be I mean to be such whose fleshly seed are of faith and the spiritual seed of Abraham and so to be baptized O fy Sirs O fy O fy Babist Our meaning is not that these are or are to be counted in the spirit or of the faith as Abraham was but only to be accounted under the Gospell and reckoned all to Abraham as his children in an outward sense so far as to a being in his family i. e. the visible Church Baptist. 1. Me thinks any mans own motherwit should tell him that God never appointed things to be accounted by us otherwise then they are or at least appear much less otherwise then they can be 2. Appeal and lay close siege Sirs to your own consciences search and see whether they will tell you that the place you quote viz. Gall. 3. 7. be at all for you or be not much rather against you mean which of these two waies you will For if you mean in as plain English as you speak it
of his faith and such high heirs thereby as have right to the heavenly Canaan Abrahams faith it seems doth not priviledge his own natural seed so far as to be his seed in a spiritual relation but the faith of every Gentile priviledges his natural seed so far as to be spiritually the seed of Abraham but Sirs me thinks if any fleshly descent in the world could dignify the seed so descended with the high name of the spiritual seed of Abraham and heirs with him according to the heavenly promise a fleshly descent from Abraham Isaac and Iacob should do it ye teven that meâ—…rly without more makes the seed no more then the na tural seed of Abraham and heirs with him of only the earthly promise Yea Sirs that Abrahams seed is shut out from all â—…piritual kindred to their own faithful father Abraham notwithstanding the faith of that their Father unlesse they believe also themselves and yet our seed who are but Gentiles after the flesh are so specially so spiritually a kin to Abraham by the faith of us their fathers without their own is not only to equallize our seed with Abrahams which is the utmost you pretend to but rather to reckon it as a higher race then that of Abrahams a matter which the most capacious brain pan of you all is no way capable clearly to conjecture To the fourth that circumcision was not voided by the Jewes after infidelity for t was not set on supposition they had faith neither was it after voided by their proving Reprobates for it was not set to signify them to be Gods elect they being not so at all as Jewes I mean as to eternal life but only to that earthly life in Canaan for had it been set to have supposed believers onely and elect ones then it must not have been set to Ishmael and Esau for they were not at all known to be but rather foreknown not to be the elected heirs of either Canaan viz. the typical or the true for God who foresaw how in time they would deserve it the one by scoffing the other by â—…elling both the birth-right and the blessing had to Abraham Gen. 17. 19 20 21. and to Rebecca Gen. 25. 23. either plainly or figuratively foretold their rejection from both yet both these were circumcised and that neither of them in vain sith being males in the house Gods command was fulfilled in circumcising them as well as otheâ—…s but baptism which is lawful to be set to none buâ—… taugh persons Mat. 28. professed believers in token of remission of sins Act. 2. is ever voided and abuâ—…ed when dispensed to infants not onely because there is no command for such a thing but also because there is no use of such a thing to such as those for before they are made guilty of commission of sins they neither do can nor need believe remission and when having committed sins they believe them to be râ—…mitted their infant-baptism being transient and not permanent as circumcision was doth no way become visibly evident to them it self much lâ—…ss can it be a visible evidence to them of the other Review The reâ—…son of these objections against paedobaptism is this because they understand not the nature of baptism it is Gods seal â—…e sets it they that receive it are passive in that he appoints it to be set to whomsoever he hath made the promise and with whom he hath entered into covenant A seal of an estate made to infants in their cradles is firm so is God's Now here must be a sealing on the other side for both parties must seal in a Covenant we seal when we believe John 3. 33. The Covenant is sealed on both sides when faith comes God may set to his seal as he did to many of the Iewes and the seed made void to them through unbelief The End of Gods setting it to such as he fore-saw would have no benefit of it is the same with the making of his promises and sending of his Sonne to let them know how he would have received them how sure his mercies should have been unto them but they would not Re-Review The reason of all your Objectations against our way of baptism and pleas for Pâ—…do-Rantism which you practise is this you understand not the nature of baptism it is not Gods seal which he sets which you sillily suppose for that is his spirit only as I shewed you plainly enough above but Gods sign which man seâ—…s which they that receive aright are not altogether passive in but voluntary and very active i. e. confessing their sins calling on the name of the Lord desiring to be baptized professing faith in order thereunto going down inâ—…o the water with the dispenser and there setting their senses and understandings on work upon the sign and things thereby signified submitting their bodies freely to the dispensation Neither doth God appoint it to be set to whomsoever he hath barely made the promise for in the word preached he makes it to every Creature Mark 16. 15. 16. but to such as professedly believe in that promise he hath made and visibly verily for ought we can judge have entered into covenant with him to become obedient such only so far as it is possible for us to know are those with whom he hath entred into Covenant for say you there must be a sealing on the other side and both parties must seal in a Covenant we seal when and not before we believe neither is the Covenant sealed on both sides so that it can be said these two parties are now entertained into covenant each with other till faith come and that is not in infancy but after And this your manner of speech viz. when â—…aith comes here implies to be your own opinion as well as ours though else where as p. 3. 4. 8. 9. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. you strenuously contend it yea and to say the truth t is well nigh the whole businese of your book to assert and assay to prove it that faith comes to infants in their infancy and to make it appear to us as well as you can by contradiction that infants do believe Moreover if ever men were troubled with the simples I think you are is baptism Gods seal of an estate i. e. the heavenly inheritance made over to infants in their cradels and is that seal of his firm to i. e so sure that it cannot fail then I wonder how that seal for so you still stile circumcision and baptism is made void and infirm to so many Iews and Christian people as it is for not all yea few of many do obtain that estate at last and that most lose it for all that seal you tell us by their unbelief but I had thought you had been of the mind when you wrote your 4th page that children of Iews and of believing parents did believe all without any exception for asserting it there positively that the Iews children did believe and
universalis eidem etiam totum universale adimi necesse est whoever is not a part of some part or other i. e. of some particular visible church cannot be a part of the whole i. e. the universal visible this I say is the Logick and Theology which was wont to passe for currant among your selves but Mr. Ba. learnes men a new kind of Logick viz. that all the parts put together are not so big as the whole that the universall visible church is larger then all the particular visible churches in the world of which yet it consists so that there is room enough for a person to stand a member in the universal visible church though he be of no particular visible church at all I ever understood yet that he who is removed and cast out of all the particular visible churches of the Saints is consequently cast out of the universal visible church but he tells me a tale that to be removed out of every particular visible church is consistent still with a standing in the universal visible so that excomunication out of all the particular visible churches in the world is not excomunication out of the whole visible church with him Another thing worth noting though worth nothing is this he tells us there that Keturahs children when they left the family of Abraham that they continued members of the universal visible church still which compared with the clause above where he tells us that it is a far higher priviledge to stand in the universal visible church then to stand in any particular whatsoever amounts to thus much viz. that the Midianites for they were some of Keturahs children had far higher priviledges then those that the Israelites had by being members of that particular visible church of Israel which if it were so then we may say what advantage hath the Iew indeed and what profit by circumcision and by Gods commission of his oracles unto them yea what necessity of circumcision of themselves and their males at all for any strangers or of joining themselves to that particular church of the Jewes sith they might have had as high priviledges if they had joined themselves to the seed of Abraham by Keturah of whose posterity circumcision nor the strict law it bound to was not required and so consequently what need of baptism if persons might be of the uniuersal visible which is the greater though not of the particular visible church of the Iews without circumcision and keeping the law But it is a question with Mr. Bax. whether Keturahs children must leave their seed uncircumcisied p. 60. yet I tell him it is out of question that unlesse it were in order to joining and inchurching themselves with that individual Church of of the Iewes to which pertained peculiarly the adoption and glory and covenants and law and promises and which was all the visible church that I know God had then upon the earth circumcision was not enjoined to any other of Abrahams own posterity not the Ishmalites nor Midianites but those onely that came of Sarah by Isaac and Iacob for the covenant of which circumcision was a sign was establisht with none of them but with Isaac onely and with Iacob and his seed after him and so many as should join themselves unto them Many more odd conceits about this universal visible church Mr. Ba. broaches but I spare him and hasten to what followes His 16. plain Scripture-lesse proof for infants church-membership and baptism is from a clause in the second commandâ—…ment viz. I will shew mercy to 1000s of them that love me and keep my commandements a phrase out of which a man may as easily prove the Pope to be head of the church as prove either of those points in proof of which he doth produce it Yet oh the miserable muddy wretched ragged crooked cloudy piece of disputation for infant baptism which this man makes from that place For my part I mean not to wander after him in that wildernesse of worthlesse discourse that he vents about mercy Church covenant promises nor am I so wise as to wot what he means nor so foolish as to believe he knows well what he means himself by much of that he there utters or else he would never say that wicked men in the church are within the covenant and so have this mercy spoken of in the second commandement stated on them by promise as if wicked men in the church were in some special wise beloved of God when yet they are more hateful to him by far then heathens It is enough to serve my present purpose that what proof Mr. Baxter pens in the head of this argumentation his own pen dashes it all out again in the taile of it For first after a great deal of wiestling to make the mercy here promised to thousands of them that love God necessarily to include church-membership he confesses at last that it lies doubtful in the text what mercy in particular is there meant which if he do then t is not necessary that church-membership be implied in it for there may be much mercy yea special yea eternal saving mercy shewed to persons to whom the mercy of membership in the visible church and baptism is not vouchsafed or else what becomes of such infants as notwithstanding your timely admittance do yet dy without both membership and baptism are they shut out of the kingdom of heaven Secondly he confesses it is doubtfull in the text to how many generations God shewes mercy to the children of parents tâ—…at love him whether it be to the remote or neerest progeny onely and though he passe his judgement that it is onely to immediate children of godly parents that the promise in the commandment is made yet thereby he contradicts his own sense of the place and overthrowâ—…s all that he contends for in that if the words were as he would have them read viz. I shew mercy to a thousand Generations or to the thousandth generation of them that love me it were evident that he meant not the nexâ—… generation only for that to a thousand generation should signifie no more then one generation to come is most irrational and plain brutish to imagine and if he say t is to a thousand generations if such children succeed their parents in godlynesse that sense excludes infants quite from the mercy here promised and extends it to such children oâ—…ely as are at years and that on condition of being godly themselves and on that condition of being godly themselves God shewes mercy to the immediate seed of the very wickedest parents as well as of the Godliest parents in the world But in very deed to put him out of all his doubts at once about this place viz. whether God mean the remote or immediate children I desire Mr. Baxter to consider that this promise is not made to any mans posterity at all but only to all such individual persons as love him and keep his commandements for
Priesthoods divine kind of Doctrine does damn them I mean any of them so dying any more then one of them First as for sin which onely damnes I know none they have of their own and to say that any infant dyes eternally for theiniquity of his father only makes the word of God which is truth it self no better then a flat falsehood to me who read in Ieremy 31. 29. 30. Ezek. 18. 3. 4. 19. 20. Deut. 24. 16. 2 Kings 14. 16. that the waies of God who requires it strictly of man not to put the children to death for the sins of the father but every man only for his own sin are so equal for all the false accusation of him by the wicked Jewes that seeing he both saies and also swears it that men shall never have occasion to say the childs teeth are edged by the grapes the father only hath eaten and in way of complaint for injustice doth not the son bear the iniquity of the Father but that every soul that dies shall dy for his own iniquity onely and that individual soul onely that sinneth shall dy i. e. eternally for temporally t is true we all dy in Adam as far as a to temporal death God may and often doth visit the sins of the Father on the children to the third and fourth generation of such as hate him not onely when children inherit so as to imitate their fathers hatred of God in which case only t is a punishment to those children but also on infants so as to take them out of the world with the fathers as in the case of ' Dathan and Abiram Amaleck Hittites Amorites c. yea Sodom and Gomorrah and the old world on which for ensamples sake to them that in after times should live ungodly the flood and the fire fell not onely temporal but eternal to the adult ones that gave themselves over to fornication and followed strange flesh though but temporal only to infants who neither lived ungodly nor gave themselves over to fornication as the other did and therefore though passing hence with the rest to a temporal death by that fire yet are not set forth as an ensample with the rest to all that should live ungodly by suffering the vengeance of eternal fire 2 Pet. 2. 6. Iude 7. But the same temporal death that may be in fury to one as t is a passage to worse may be a mercy to another and so to those infants a passage from worse to better as good Iosiah was slain in battell as well as wicked Ahab and that for going on his own head to war as well he yet was it in respect of that eternall state that followed as well for him as ill for Ahab Sith therefore it s said so plainly the son shall not die for the iniquity of the father and yet temporally they may be taken away with the father it must needs be meant that eternally none die nor lye for ever under wrath for no more then meerly the fathers fault whereupon all dying infants having no trangression of their own cannot be damned for their own nor yet for their father Adams transgression and so are all as well as those of believers in a visible state of salvation and while they live infants unlesse hereafter they reject it as Esau did the land of Canaan in visible right to so dying to the heavenly Canaan Yea many thanks to my Ashford opposites for that clause of their pamphlet which is assistant to me almost at all assaies Christian charity it self which doth presumere unumquemque bonum nisi constet de malo constrains us to hope all things believe all things concerning the salvation of dying infants and of all infants as well as some specially since these more then those i. e. the infants of unbelievers more then of believers have not committed any actual sin wherby to deserve to be exempted from the general state of little infants declared in Scripture viz. that of such is the Kingdome of heaven Secondly as for righteousnesse there 's enough in Christ to take away it being imputed what ever unrighteousnesse is imputed for Adams sin and why that righteousnesse should not be imputed if the Scripture had not said it so plainly as it does Rom. 5. 2 Cor. 5. 19. 21. 1 Cor. 15. 22. to all poor dying innocent infants as well as some I cannot imagine unlesse you say not God the fathers love to all but man the fathers faith is that thing that must save some of those infants of believers that are savd by interessing that fruit of his body in the righteousnesse of Christ as well as himself for the taking away the sin of his soul which faith a father wanting the child shall perish for ever in default out and yet be in no fault in the world about it Alas poor infants indeed that descend from such parents as believe not if it be so that that the fathers faith onely does interest the infant in Christ their forefather the first Adam by his sin unawares to them damned them say they and say I if it did there 's righteousnesse enough in the heavenly father and the second Adam to save them but because not they themselves for they have no more ability so to do then a new born infant hath to dresse its naked body but their fathers put it not on by faith for themselves and theirs which if the dying infants might live to years as Christ said of Sodom they happily would do therefore millions of these poor innocents must perish so then belike it is thus and this is the covenant of the Gospel the fathers faith saves him and all his dying infants and the fathers sin of unbelief damnes for ever not himself onely but all his dying infants also All infants that are damned then are damned through the fault of two unhappy fathers a remote father for sinning and and immediate father for not believing between which two the love of the heavenly father cannot come at them a wise man may spend all he hath with looking but never find such as this in all the Scripture earthly inheritances are oft stated and removed to and from posterity for fathers faith and faults as all Abrahams posterity by Isaac and Iacob did enjoy Canaan and Esaus lost it but the eternal inheritance is neither won nor lost by the children through the faith or unbelief of the parents and besides if Adams sin though a remote parent doth so damnifie all infants that the righteousnesse of Christ cannot save them without the fathers faith me thinks he being their great grand father Adams faith should recover him and all his at least from that guilt his sin brought upon them by interessing them in Christs righteousnesse as well as his single unbelief at first destroyed them if any fathers saith shall entitle his infants to salvation or else God seems not to be so prone to mercy as severity yea indeed he that