they were broken off by unbeliefe which necessarily implyes that either they had not been cut off if they had beleeved and so were not types or else if types they should have been cut off though they had beleeved Two Objections he raises First Were they not under unbeliefe before and he answereth yes no doubt Secondly Why were they not broken off before and why then He answereth because till Christ came they were in the Covenant and a true Church typically by being circumcised and observing the ceremonies of the Law This is his answer I reply to both First They were in unbeliefe before Secondly most of them were broken off many hundred yeares before as the ten Tribes in Hezekiahs dayes And God said Lo-ammi no peaple Hos 1.6.8 And Lo-ruhamah no mercy I will no more have mercy upon them but will utterly take them away But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah these ceased before Christ was come and therefore are not a type and so that no reason of their continuance But thirdly The Scriptures give us a true reason besides the former Rom. 11. why any of them continued till Christ came and were not cut off before First Because a remnant of them were to be saved Isa 1.9 Mat. 24.22 Secondly Because Christ was to come of them according to the flesh and borne under the Law Gal. 4. which he could not have been if the Church estate had been disanulled Thirdly Because they were to be rejected for casting off Christ Zach. 11.10 to 15. Mat. 21.33 to the end and 22.1 At last he comes to his inference from all this discourse and concludeth the Covenant then and now is not the same that was typicall in the fleshly seed and this of spirituall seed and not typicall To this I have replyed enough Secondly The standing of them in that Church and Covenant was by Circumcision and observing the rites of the Law the standing in this Covenant and Church is by faith and Baptisme and so upon different grounds I reply First Circumcision and observing of Rites being not the Covenant but additions to the Covenant and profession of Faith and Baptisme also being not the Covenant but additions the Covenant may be the same though the circumstances differ As the covenant made with Abraham till Moses and after to Moses and the people though to the latter were many additions which were not in the former Secondly their standing then and our standing now is the same in substance though much differing in circumstances viz. faith in Gods covenant this is cleare Rom. 11.20 they were cut off by unbeliefe thou standest by faith if they continue not in unbeliefe they shall be ingraffed again v. 23. We stand by faith and so should they have done if they had beleeved and shall stand again when they shall beleeve They were cut off for unbeleefe and we shall be cut off for unbeleefe if we give way to it their falling and ours from Gods covenant and the Church estate our standing and theirs in the covenant and the Church-estate is not upon different but the same grounds Thirdly if the covenant under Christ be the same with that before Christ then by the same right Abraham and his posterity possessed the Church estate then and circumcision by the same right they might possesse the Church estate and Baptisme now But they could not possesse the Church estate Baptisme now by the same right they possessed it Ergo. I answer they might and that right was and is partly the grace of God offered and partly their acceptance of that grace by faith working by love though I might deny the consequence for that the covenant may be the same and yet in some respect the right to be a member in the one and in the other might not be the same But I have said enough before to cleare my Argument and to make it good notwithstanding any thing in his answer against it In his further proceeding in this Argnment he granteth two things First the covenant of God makes a Church then and now a Church being nothing else but a people in covenant with God and that as the covenant whereby a Church is made differs so the Church differs which is made by that Covenant but the covenant then and the covenant now differs therefore the Church differs for the covenant which made them a Church was Gods taking them being circumcised to participate of all those outward meanes which leads to Christ who was to come That covenant which makes a Church now is Gods admitting men to be baptized making profession of faith in Christ I reply in one word I consent that the Church then and now is made by a covenant Secondly I say that circumcision was not baptisme is not the covenant but signes and seals of the covenant circumcision then baptisme now Thirdly that the covenant then was God would bee their God justifying and sanctifying them through his Sonne whom he would send if they would beleeve in him and the same is the covenant now Fourthly the signe and the seale of it then was circumcision whereby God confirmed hee would circumcise their hearts in his Sonne by cutting away their sinnes in justifying and sanctifying the signe and seale of it now is washing with water c. whereby God confirmes he will wash away their guilt and stain of sinne Fifthly the people then that were of years did restipulate and make profession of faith in Christ before circumcised And let any one shew me any one of Abrahams family or one Proselyte ever after that was admitted into the Church estate without some restipulation which is necessary in the nature of a covenant and subjection to God his righteousnes so circumcised without it In a word then as the covenant differs the Church made by it differs if the covenant differ essentially then the Church differs essentially but if the covenant differ but circumstantially then the Church differs circumstantially and not essentially And so much is cleare as I said unto which also himselfe consenteth in the next passage granting it as that Christ is and ever was the Mediator and meanes of salvation both before and since Christs coming dispensed by the covenant of God Christ being called the Covenant Isai 42.6 In whom also the promises are Yea Amen 2 Cor. 11.18 It is true that he saith that the outward meanes of making Christ known doth depend differently upon his being yet to come and upon his being come the one being more dark and carnall the other more plain and spirituall and therefore the participation of these means doe make the state of the participants to differ but this difference is not in regard of the thing it selfe but in regard of the manner of the thing more darke and more cleare doe not change the thing or make it diverse but onely circumstantially the substance is the same the circumstances differ And thus much all his eight differences
so absolutely Last of all to this consectary which I added that there was nothing then in the state of persons to interest Infants in the covenant more then now hee giveth this answer Though there was nothing in the state of persons yet there was something in things and order of times Christ being yet to come and here hee concludeth two things First that the whole fleshly seed of Abraham separated by ceremoniall holinesse was a type of Christ to come and therefore Infants then in the covenant and but ceremonially holy Secondly that Christ the thing typified being come all that typicall state is utterly abolished c. Infants now not to be in it Reply First I deny that the fleshly seed of Abraham was a type of Christ and have spoken to it before and do conceive it a very erroneous conceit and full of absurdities Secondly wee must then exclude grown men also upon the same ground from the covenant and Baptisme now for if they were a type therefore children then in covenant and circumcised but now not in covenant and baptized men also being a part of the type must now not be in covenant nor be baptized or else Infants may Thirdly all proselytes could not be a type of Christ because not of the fleshly seed of Abraham nor Abraham and his family with all those succeeding till Moses time because the ceremoniall ordinances were not yet instituted nor doth the circumstance of things and time put any essentiall difference between them and us it being the same Christ then by those things and in that time dispensed that is now by these things and in this time not any other nor any thing else but I have said enough for this in some Reply before and so much to his answer to my second Reason A third Reason whereby I proved Infants to be in the covenant now as they were then was this as he hath set it down for I cannot remember that I used it here Abraham being the root and Jews and Gentiles the branches as when the Jews were broken off as well Infants as men of yeers were broken off so the Gentiles being planted in their stead they must be Infants as well as men of yeers And so the Jews when they shall be again implanted as well infants as men of yeers shall be so To this hee answereth First hee conceives Christ to be the root here meant Reply Then they were in Christ with of and from Infants also without actuall faith or unbelief Again that Christ is the root of Abraham himself and all else I question not but that Christ is not meant here Rom. 11.4 I am confident and no man will affirm that reades the Chapter with understanding Rom. 11.28 they are said to be beloved for the Fathers sake not that Abraham or Christ are equally a root or at all in the same respect and sense but in a diverse Christ the reall and efficient root Abraham but foederally and in regard of Gods covenant made with him as a father of many nations but I shall say no more hereto because himself admits it and answereth Secondly the Gentiles are not branches in a naturall relation nor the Jews branches in a spirituall relation but by personall faith To make Jews and Gentiles equally branches therefore of the root of Abraham wee must make the relation spirituall which is proper to them both Reply First he contradicteth himself in these words saying the Jews are not branches by a spirituall relation and yet they and the Gentiles cannot be equally branches but by a spirituall relation Further if he mean by faith personall habituall as well as actuall and excludes not habituall I consent for Infants may have habituall that cannot have actuall while Infants and many men may seem to have actuall saving faith that have not true saving habituall faith Secondly if he mean by spirituall relation foederall I also grant what he saith but if he mean by personall faith actuall and by spirituall saving faith I reply all the Jews had not actuall faith then nor Gentiles now who yet professe actuall faith then and now nor had Infants their actuall faith no more then they can have now and yet they were branches of the Olive then which hee concludes cannot be but by personall faith it being not by naturall relation which now Gentiles Infants may have as well as they had or whatsoever else those Infants had whereby those Infants were branohes of their own Olive tree To that I say that when the Jewes were broken off as well Infants as men of yeeres were broken off hee answereth it is true because the naturall relation in the covenant ceased when Christ the promised seed came and now there is no relation in the covenant with Abraham but by faith in Christ Reply First this contradicteth that which in the foregoing answer he seemed to set down that there must be such a spirituall relation as is possible to them both and that is faith for no otherwise can the Jewes and Gentiles suit nor could they have been broken off by unbeliefe which maketh not the Jews cease to have a naturall relation to Abraham unlesse faith was required of them and yet here he saith they were in covenant by naturall relation Secondly the Jewes were not in covenant by naturall relation and as a type of Christ which hee said before and I have disproved but Abraham was the father of Jewes and Gentiles as hee believed and they his children as believing and no otherwise as is cleer Rom. 4.9.14 the Apostle shewing that hee was heir of the world not through the Law but the righteousnesse of faith to the Gentiles though uncircumcised and not to the Jewes though circumcised but as they walked in the steps of that faith of Abraham which he had being yet uncircumcised besides if they had been in the covenant by naturall relation how could those many hundreds in Abrahams family be in the covenant who were not of Abrahams flesh or how could Ishmael or Esau cease to be in the covenant being Abrahams naturall seed Whereas I said when the Jewes be again implanted as well Infants of such as believe as men of yeeres shall be implanted He answereth as unbelief did break them off so faith only must graffe them in but that Infants of the Jews being members of that Church before Christs coming shall be planted so as to be members of a Christian Church without manifestation of faith lawfully can no way be proved but is an absolute error Reply Dictator-like but first Why may not Infants be now implanted without manifestation of faith and so be of a Christian Church as then they were of that Church without such manifestation of faith Secondly such a faith may graffe Infants in again as is opposite to the unbeliefe that cut them off that faith therefore or whatsoever it was that made them branches of that root and for want whereof they were cut off the same may
prove that it is the form of a church now Reply He denies not what I affirmed to wit that they could not stand in a right and pure church estate without renewall of their covenant hee denies that they could not stand in a church state without it and great difference there is between a church and no church a pure and impure church he saith nothing therefore to what I said and proved yet I am willing to heare what he saith First they were a church before and I say so too but much degenerated and much transgressing the covenant Secondly he saith they did no more then they were bound to doe by their circumcision Reply I have answered that Gal. 5. before that it did not engage them to keep the whole Law it being the seale of the righteousnesse of Faith nor did the seale bind them to any thing but as in relation to the covenant which onely bound them Hence Levit. 26. where God threatned to send a sword to avenge thequarrell of his covenant he did not plead with them about circumcision but for not beleeving circumcision of the heart as Jerem. 9. last and testifying their faith by obedience and so they did now mend this by attending to the covenant and thereby setting themselves visibly in a right church state again which therefore proves that the forme of the church was a visible covenant for that which makes a church impure to be pure according to the right constitution that is it which gives it the constitution but the renewall of the covenant maketh an impure church pure according to the right constitution Ergo the covenant giveth it a constitution Again if failing in the covenant causeth a true church to bee otherwise then according to constitution then the covenant gives her her constitution But the first is true Ergo the latter and circumcision the seal remains the same without any alteration As in mens covenants the seale annexed remains the same though the covenant to which it is adjoyned may in many things be violated My fourth and last particular to prove a covenant acted by them as beleevers was the forme of the Jewish church was this That which being taken away made that church cease to bee a church that was the form of that church But the dissolving of their covenant made that church cease to be a church Ergo. The first Proposition he meddles not with and I raise it on this ground That nothing can cease to be that hath a being but by annihilating the matter and form of its being nor can any thing cease to be that it is but by taking away that form of it whereby it is such a thing rather then another And therefore if any thing cease to be that it was it must be by taking away the form of it The second Proposition that the dissolving of their covenant made that church cease to be a church which I cleared from Zach. 11.10 14. take a view and you may see it clearly the chapter declares the rejection of the Jewes from being a church no man can deny it and that at Christs time and for rejecting of him and upon their rejection they ceased to be a visible church and Gods people as they had been First therefore it is to be observed how God will effect this that they shall be no church nor his people and that is by breaking his covenant with them vers 10. That I may break my covenant which I had made with this people Secondly this covenant had two branches one the staffe of Beauty and this is the covenant between God and them mutually called Beauty because God making a covenant with them did adorne them with all excellencie and comelinesse whereby they became beautifull above other people Ezek. 16.8 c. yea in the eyes of the Heathen v. 14. which could not be circumcision nor any invisible covenant but outward and visible The other branch of the covenant is called Bonds and that is the covenant on their parts one with another whereby they joyned together in a brotherhood to worship God called Bonds because they were thereby knit and bound together to be a compact body and brotherhood Ecclesiasticall Thirdly that God by breaking these two staves did break his covenant with them and thereby they ceased to be his visible people and a brotherhood amongst themselves all these are evidently foretold in the Text and accomplished after our Saviour his death when they were wholly rejected of God and never since enjoyed that estate From whence it followeth plainly that their constitution in that Church estate was by that covenant which being disanulled their Church estate and constitution is altogether annihilated Now let us see what hee answers to this reason First hee saith the covenant of Gods grace is eternall the Kingdome or Church state that comes by it cannot be shaken Heb. 12.28 baptisme the fruit of it a church constituted by it remaines eternally John 11.26 He that beleeves in Christ shall never die Reply First I grant that the covenant of grace is eternall and that as well in the time before Christ as since but I speak of it as it is made with men in which respect though it bee eternall in it selfe yet it is not eternall to all that it is made with but may and doth cease to this or that man to this or that Church Secondly the Kingdome shaken and that cannot be shaken is not the covenant of grace applied to the Jews or Gentiles but the manner of administration of one and the same covenant in it selfe but from the divers administration of it one way to them the old Testament another way to us now the new Testament the former is shaken and removed and changed into this that cannot be shaken or changed but shall remain till Christs coming 1 Cor. 15. yet this or that church may be shaken out of it and many have been and that this shaking is meant of the former manner of administration only is evident by the Scripture it self and not of the covenant else the covenant with them was not the eternall covenant of grace but a covenant of another nature this particular church therefore may be disanulled yet the covenant remains eternall and unshaken Again the kingdome of Heaven is taken two wayes in Scripture First as before for the manner of administration of the covenant and so it may be and hath been shaken and of this Heb. 12. Secondly for the church-estate and the covenant of grace by laying hold whereon a people became a church This can never be shaken so as that there should not be a visible church visibly in covenant with God and of this Matth. 21.43 which may be taken from one company and given to another as from the Jewes to the Gentiles but never cease to be with one people or other hells gate being not able to prevail against it Matth. 16. Thirdly baptisme the fruit of it or church-estate by partaking
and church-estate when they die if it cease not before Secondly this or that true visible church may die and none succeed them and then the visible church ceaseth for ever the outward covenant also and baptisme the seal of it ceaseth and that not only to the outward view but to our faith also For I suppose none have so much faith as to believe that a company of dead men and ceasing to be are a visible church in covenant and baptized that they were such may be believed but that they are such and hold their relation still with the visible church by their baptisme as members thereof is but his dream as any that are dead and saved may be accounted a part of a church it is of the church predestinate from all ages from the beginning to the end a part whereof are in heaven triumphant and a part on earth militant and otherwise to make them in heaven a part of any church or of this or that visible church is but a devised thing Nor doth it follow that this or that visible church ceasing and none surviving Ergo the visible Church of Christ ceaseth so this his exception might have been spared Nor doth his answer cleer his Proposition from it but it is wholly overthrown thereby A second exception is this persons may seem to be true members of a visible church and yet not be so and may shew themselves not to be afterwards and so the church may cease He answereth that when such do manifest themselves what they are they declare thereby that they never were in covenant nor church at all nor baptized So the church thereby cease not to be by being dissolved but they are discovered never to have been in that covenant nor church and so never were baptized 1 Joh. 2.19 Reply This exception savoureth of himself but briefly where hypocrites discover themselves to be such they thereby declare they never were of the number of Gods elect and so not in the covenanted visible church and baptized as the elect of God but that they were not truly members of that visible church to which they belonged in the covenant and truly baptized is not true but crosse to Scriptures affirming such to be branches in the Vine Joh. 15. or else now cut off and members of the church as in the Epistles to the churches in Asia c. And if such an hypocrite after his discovery should repent and be truly converted then he must be joyned to the church not by restoring but by a new covenant and be new baptized having no covenant baptisme or membership before for that place 1 John 2.19 it doth not say they went out from us because they were not with us for how could they have gone out from them if not with them and really with them or else they seemingly went out from them but because they were not of us that they might be made manifest that they were not of us the Text therefore doth not deny them to be truly members with them visibly but they were not true members of them so that all hee hath said doth not wave the exception From all which it doth appeare that baptisme even of God himself cannot be the form of a church but only it is a seal of the covenant by which the church is constituted it is constituted by participation and visibly by visible participation and that is only by visible and outward acting to subjection in the covenant the continuance also in a church is by the continuance of the manifestation of the same participation possessed their visilbe profession of subjection to the covenant therefore baptisme of believers is not the constitution of church visible but a covenant acted as from all these four particulars I argued gathered up into this summe If a covenant acted by believers was the form of the visible church before Christ then it is the form of visible churches since Christ but the first is true as will appeare by all these four particulars therefore also the latter This he answereth by denying both Antecedent and Consequent his Reason against the Antecedent is because if God himself was not the form of the church of the old Testament much lesse can it be said that an outward covenant acted by the people of Israel was the form of the church as is manifested by what is above said his Reason of denying the Consequent is least of all nor doth it prove such a thing to form the churches now Reply This Reason of denying the Antecedent is not reasonable for what was the covenant of God himselfe but an outward covenant acted between God and the people of Israel I know no other covenant of God but that which he made with Abraham between Abraham and his seed and himselfe which was also continued to his posterity and that covenant was acted between God and them and one with another and so the form of that Church is evident from the former four particulars considered together notwithstanding all that he hath said to the contrary The covenant God made with Abraham his family and seed was an outward acted covenant the renewall of which by them in the plains of Moab was such so was that in Asa's Josiah's Nehemiah's dayes all these were outward and visible covenants acted outwardly Of this covenant under which the Jewes stood doth Zacharias speak Zach. 11.10.14 This Zachary shewes how it was in two branches the staffe of Beauty acted betwixt God and them and the staffe of Bonds acted between themselves to be a brotherhood by which title a Christian Church is frequently stiled in the new Testament by all which it appeares that it was such a covenant spoken off by which they were Gods people and church and by the dissolution whereof they were no Church Besides there was a visible Church from Adams restitution till Abrahams time by their profession of faith in Gods righteousnesse and neither circumcision nor baptisme yet a true constituted visible Church out of which Cain was ejected and cast out The consequent from hence is this That a covenant outwardly acted by beleevers with God and one another is the form of the visible Churches in the new Testament because it was the form of the Church before Christ and there can bee but one form of one and the same thing as a man grown and a child is but the same man and hath the same form that makes him a man now when he is grown that he had when he was a child Even so the church before Christ is compared to a child under age and churches since Christ to grown men Gal. 4.1 c. Further to prove that we have the same Church-estate not in number but in kind I alledged Matth. 21.43 where it is said The Kingdome of Heaven shall be taken from them and given to another Nation that Church estate was not dissolved but taken away from them Heb. 12. speakes not of the covenant as Church estate but
more or lesse and therefore it is false for Rome to challenge the conversion of the English nation and no lesse absurd and injurious for us to draw and derive our succession from them As the Gospel was received there so it hath not been without fruit as also in other places but under the tyrannie of Ethnick Emperors and apostafie of Antichristian Bishops many there have witnessed unto the truth of Christ and suffered for the testimony of Jesus nor hath it been at any time nor is now ineffectuall there but the Lord hath been pleased to blesse those means of his notwithstanding persecution or corruptions with conversion of many thousand soules from Satan to himself yea hee hath not only reserved successively even in England unto himself thousands that have not bowed their knees unto Baal but amongst others some of the most famous lights that he vouchsafed to raise up in the time of that horrid darknesse overspreading the world have been of English Christians as Mr. Wickliffe Pastor of Lutterworth though corruptly called in part in Lincolnshire It cannot be denyed that as in all other places of the Western world wheresoever Christianity setled the whole world went after the Beast and all churches I know not one excepted with that apostafie were corrupted and the courts of the Temple were not measured and the holy city was given to be troden under foot of the Gentiles Antichristian 42. moneths yet all this time the holy city remains a holy city and after too unlesse God himself rejecteth her In the same condition amongst others were the churches in England corrupted as the rest with false doctrine Idolatry c. and usurped upon by Antichrist against which God even there also had his two witnesses some few prophesying in sackcloth At last it pleased God more fully to cleer up the light and caused his truth to prevail so as many thousands were redeemed from amongst men Antichristian and they were the first fruits unto God and the Lamb nor was the church-estate altered essentially all this time nor are these first fruites unto God new constituted churches but members of some churches cleering themselves from corruption and by reformation recovering themselves out of a desperate diseased condition into a more healthfull and sound estate In which course the Lord went on mightily in many places especially after Luthers time yea even in England something by Henry the 8th more by Edward the 6th and Queen Elizabeth who did not constitute new churches but reformed the churches as Geneva Scotland c. in a further degree deeply degenerated from the first constitution and the pure state thereof as they did the like in the state of Judah often sometimes better and more fully and sometimes not so fully in the dayes of Judges David Asa Jehosaphat Hezekiah Josiah Ezra and Nehemiah To conclude this as I believe firmly Christs visible Church hath continued in the world from his time to this day though not alwayes in one estate nor ever in like purity So I know not how it may be better cleared in the generall or any thing more be said for any other church or churches then I have here set down for the continuance of the visible church-estate in England in particular if any can I think they shall do well and that which is necessary especially in these times and therefore as I said afore unlesse they that deny true ministry in England can shew that there never was church-estate in England nor constituted churches or that God hath given them a bill of divorce I shall desire all that will not be satisfied herewith that they will be content not to disquiet themselves with disturbance to others I come now to propound some things about the ministry there in particular To this purpose wee know all that no man can have a lawfull Calling but of God and that in one of these two wayes Immediately by himself without concurrence of man or mediately by men using them as instruments other way of calling I know not any according to the Word accounting all callings or way of calling not set down in the Word to be humane and Idolatrous Concerning the way of calling by men for of the other I know not any but the Apostles that ever were or are to be called two things I desire to speak to First who hath the power of applying a calling to a man Secondly how it is applyed 1. Who hath the power of applying a ministeriall calling to a man some say the Pope some stand for in mediate revelation both which I conceive to be alike contrary to the Word some say the Christian Magistrate quà Magistrate at least approbation but I see no warrant for this neither some say the Church but by Chuch they understand a Presbyterie or Classis a company of Presbyters of severall churches or Councell but of these wee have no cleer evidence in Scriptures to evince such a church or such a practice For though there be mention of laying on of the hands of Presbyters yet that was not the actuall calling of a man but a ceremony of confirmation as I shall shew afterward By church therefore I judge is meant a company of Saints joyned together in profession and successively standing up in the same estate and this company hath power to apply the office to such a man as may be according to Gods Word Thus I judge partly from Scriptures partly from reason the Scriptures are these in the old Testament the Jewes chose their own officers Deut. 1.13 16.18 In the new Testament Act. 1.26 The word signifies hee was incorporated into the societie of the eleven by common suffrages In the context I note two things First the whole company did choose two from out of themselves and set them before the Lord because the applying of that kinde of calling depended only on God yet they bring it thus far as to single out two Secondly God having chosen one of the two they subscribe to it by joynt suffrages nor did any other thing concur in that mans calling no imposition of hands which if it had been necessary certainly should have been especially there being eleven Apostles present and inferiour persons in a case imposed hands on Paul and Barnabas Acts 13. Again Acts 6.3 5. The multitude that is the church and it seems without the assistance of the Apostles did look out by examination and triall and choose seven men amongst themselves and then set them before the Apostles who prayed and laid their hands on them Acts 14.23 They set no Elders in every church by lifting up of hands that is they assisted the churches in ordaining Elders who were chosen by peoples suffrages manifested by their lifting up their hands and 2 Cor. 8.19 he whose praise is in the Gospel was chosen by the churches testifying their suffrages by lifting up their hands from which Scriptures I judge that the power of choosing and setting apart a person for
my self towards him I leave to him to manifest or to be revealed when all secrets shall be made known The issue was that he had nothing to say only for his better consideration he desired that I would pen down those arguments that had passed betwixt us on my part I willingly not suspecting such an event yeelded and in a piece of paper sent them unto him expecting that he would have attended a further conference with mee about the matter but having got my paper and transcribed it he communicated it to some that were contrary to my apprehension in these points and either himself or some other by his means sent them into England whether to this confuter or who else I know not but this I am certain it hath been thus divulged and not written with my own hand nor subscribed by my name so far as I can remember And concerning the Propositions themselves and arguments here exprest I cannot say that here is all I writ or that I wrote all that is here having not the writing I gave him nor a copy thereof that I can find with me only so far as I shall question any thing I will give notice thereof as I shall meet with it And having premised thus much I come to the Book and therein pasfing by the title page First to the Epistle prefixed and secondly to the Discourse it self Concerning the Epistle I observe these things First the means of Gods glory and mans happinesse Secondly the order how these means are o be improved and dispensed Thirdly the grounds of his writing this Book with the conclusion Touching the first the means of Gods glory and mans happinesse these things are noted first it is Religion secondly that mens care and study should be principally how they should exercise themselves in Religion that they may attain that end Thirdly that this Religion must be pure and true Religion otherwise men may not only misse the right end but effect a quite contrary Fourthly that this true Religion is only to be Gods appointment in his Word Lastly that the Word sets forth Christ the Mediator as principall and all other subordinate unto him for the attainment of the end Gods glory in mens happinesse from all which in the generall and according to that sense they seem to bear I see no reason to dissent Nor from the intimation of Satan and his ministers policy to corrupt true Religion and counterfeit a false Religion under pretence of the true to cousen cheat and deceive poor souls with chaffe instead of wheat c. It being a certain truth as the Scriptures and experience of all ages and of this wherein wee live do too wofully manifest And I wish him self were none of the number as heartily as I pray for my self From this Discourse hee deduceth nine Conclusions to which I can subscribe under these Considerations To the first taking Religion and pleasing of God in a strict and peculiar sense otherwise I do not see a ground of difference between sins and duties materially To the second and third the bond of obedience lieth upon all men who therefore are to be taught in the law that they may become dead to the law through the law and so glad to flie to Christ for righteousnesse and life To the fourth the word Commission added to the rest seemed to make all actions of Religion common to all as to preach baptize c. or to restrain acts of Religion to them in office only To the ninth If hee intend by these words no man ought to perform any act of Religion unlesse Christ be all in all in that action that therefore no man may or must pray c. be exhorted thereunto c. I agree not with him And so I come to the second thing in the Epistle The order how this Religion is to be wrought in mens hearts and this is set down thus First preaching the Gospel to convert men from sin to grace and then to baptize men converted professing their Faith and not before by which as the end of baptisme they may be distinguished as by a badge or livery to belong to the Church of Christ To this in a word I say thus much that there is a distinction to be made between a company to be converted and to be constituted and a Church now constituted in a company to be converted and to be constituted that which is said is true the Gospel must first be preached and by faith received and professed and then they are to be sealed and not before but in a Church now constituted the like is not required but the Churches are propagated by continuall succession till God out them off Thus was it with Abraham and his family the Gospel was preached to him and his he and his believed and were circumcised and after they did not believe before they were circumcised but were propagated and continued a Church till Christs time and so when the Gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles they were not to be baptized till they believed but believing they were joyned to the Church and then baptized and that Church continued by succession till God cut them off again But because this is the point in difference I shall spare farther speech till I come to reply unto the answer in the Book And touching the complaint is made again of Satan and his Ministers Policy and Malice to set up a false religion I joyn in it only I dare not account that to be any part of humane religion or of Satan the baptizing of Infants and I hope I shall prove it is no humane device for any thing wee cannot prove to be divine in the administrations in England I suppose our former practice and present state doth fully acquit us from giving our allowance therto but I shall have occasion to speak something likewise about this afterward And in a word concerning the occasions of his writing this Treatise he expresseth amongst others the miserable witchery and delusion of Satan which he had spoken of before and intends to wrap up my self and all other Gods servants and Saints in old England and here in new with all our way of religion and worship wherein we desire to glorifie the Lord To all which I shall spare to answer leaving any that desire satisfaction in the case as it concerns us here or them there to a Discourse I have written about that matter in justification of Infants baptisme with the calling of Ministers here and there and their adminstrations and leave him to the Lord who shall judge us all only I wish him to consider his own words that if it be without cause that hee thus traduceth and powres out his distaste against us he hurts himself more then hee doth us and will be found to kick against the pricks and it may be he shall not find it so easie a matter to answer all that hee hath here at randome written and in his Confutation
Infants baptisme Next he proceeds to shew what this covenant made with Abraham was and he saith that it was Gods command of circumcision upon Abrahams posterity in the flesh whereby hee did separate consecrate and distinguish them to be by his favour possessed of the land of Canaan and divers priviledges therein which he particularly describeth and thus hee saith hee declareth what it is I reply first he shutteth out Abraham Isaac Jacob and all his posterity many hundred thousands that never were possessed of the land of Canaan nor any of those priviledges mentioned they being not brought into the land nor any of those priviledges instituted or revealed till four hundred yeers after this covenant made with Abraham and what was Gods covenant with all these all the time or was it disanulled as soon as it was made Secondly hee seems to confound the covenant and circumcision the sign of it as if there were no other covenant but circumcision in the flesh God calls it indeed his covenant but it 's sacramentally the signe for the thing signified for the Lambe is called the Lords Passeover which was but the signe of it so the bread and the wine are called the body and blood of Christ being but the sign of the Testament and of communion of his body and blood so likewise the Lord himself Gen. 17.11 calls circumcision the token and the signe of the covenant betwixt him and them and so the Apostle calleth it Rom. 4.11 Circumcision is asign and a seal c. Thirdly the covenant was that God would send his Son in the flesh and by his righteousnesse called the righteousnesse of faith justifie all that would believe it and receive him and his righteousnesse This God preached to Abraham hee believed and injoyed Christ and righteousnesse by him and was justified thereby Rom. 4. Gal. 3.8 God preached this to all the posterity of Abraham in the wildernesse in the land of Canaan till Christ came all that believed and received Gods offer were justified as Abraham all that did not believe and were not justified should have been justified if they had believed and were not justified because they believed not the Gospel being preached unto them and God promising hee would justifie them if they would believe but it profited them not because it was not mixed with faith in those that heard it Rom. 9.31 Gal. 3.18 Heb. 3 c. 4.2 Joh. 1.11 12. And all these particulars which hee expresseth were added by Moses from God to typisie and lead them to Christ which was to come so that it was Christ and his righteousnesse which was held out unto them and offered and that properly and principally God intending not the sacrifices and the rest for themselves but Christ by them and circumcision first and last was the sign and seal hereof on Gods part administred whereby he signified unto them and confirmed his gracious readinesse to justifie them and sanctifie them in and through his Son so that all that hee saith in this case though in some sense it is true yet it is but a part of the truth and so he cometh to the third conclusion which is this That wee have now no such covenant since Christs coming in the flesh concerning a fleshly seed as was that of Abraham This he laboureth to prove by a pretty large discourse the summe whereof is gathered into these Propositions First that the fleshly seed of Abraham was a type of Christ to come which he proveth from Gal. 3.16 19. where hee saith by seed there is meant Christ and therefore spoken in the singular number Seed as of one that is Christ and not Seeds as to many and shewes that the word Seed may bee interpreted of Christ two wayes mystically for true beleevers in Christ 1 Cor. 12.12 or typically or ceremonially for the fleshly seed not beleeving as the Lamb c. were types of Christ To this I reply First the fleshly seed was not a type of Christ what was instituted by God are to be acknowledged but God never instituted the naturall and fleshly seed of Abraham to bee a type of Christ to come Some of that naturall seed did typifie Christ as Aaron and his sonnes but not as naturall seed Not as naturall seed but as Officers in their offices and administrations But neither they nor the rest were ceremonially Christ and types of him it is a doctrine of mans invention Gal. 3.16 will prove no such thing First by seed we are to understand Christ individually and not collectively for by him alone individually we have the blessings of God upon us it cannot be communicated unto mysticall Christ and to make the members of Christ sharers in the worke of blessing of us Secondly interpreting the seed to be Christ either mystically or typically he excludes all true beleevers that were mystically Christ beleeving now being no otherwise but mystically from being a type of Christ though Abrahams fleshly seed Thirdly in saying the not beleeving posterity of Abraham by fleshly relation was a type of Christ he concludes it of Esau and all after him in all their idolatries witchcrafts c. to bee types of Christ throughout their whole state till he came which cannot be true of them before Moses till when there was no institution of types of Christ nor yet safely nor honourably propounded The second Proposition is This fleshly seed not beleeving were in the Covenant and a true Church till Christs time and death the absence of the thing typified necessarily requiring the presence of the type Reply First as I said before they were not a type of Christ and therefore in that respect were not necessarily to be in Covenant and a Church till Christ came Secondly If the fleshly seed not beleeving as such were in the Covenant and of the true Church then Abraham Isaac and Jacob with all beleeving Jews were not in the same Covenant and parts of the same Church being not homogeneall parts i. of the same but of a diverse kinde Thirdly If the fleshly seed were typically Christ and a true Church then either those many hundreds in Abrahams family Isaacs servants and all Proselytes after being circumcised were not of the Church or else should typifie Christ with the Jewes and yet not Abrahams fleshly seed so as the conclusion of Abrahams fleshly seed being ceremonially Christ is not right The third Proposition That when Christ came and died then they were no longer in the Covenant nor a Church but were broken off by unbeliefe and he makes this to be the reason in answer to a second objection he makes why then the presence of the thing typified necessarily requiring the absence of the type Reply This is no reason of their breaking off they being no types of Christ and the Apostle gives a certaine and a sure reason Rom. 11.11 19. c. That salvation might come to the Gentiles for to provoke the Jews to jealousie c. 2. Himself confesseth
following which he sets forth to be between those two states agree to also they being not substantiall but accidentall differences yet so as they are not to be distinctly limited to one time in respect of the substance and things themselves and the effects thereof for all that he saith belongs to the new Testament were communicated unto many of them under the Old as Moses Aaron and all the elect of God and none of them are made good to many in the New But on the contrary all that is spoken by him of the Old may bee verified of men in the New as experience witnesseth the Scriptures affirm Gal. 4.29 The fault why all did not enjoy all these priviledges in the new Testament dispensed under shadowes in the Old being in themselves 2 Cor. 3.13.14 Heb. 3.7.8.22.4.2 8.8 and many now deprive themselves of these priviledges Heb. 4.1 and attaine to no more then they in the Old to establish their owne righteousnesse onely Rom. 10.3 And therefore as none are to be admitted to the priviledges of the new Testament or Gospel now but such as are sutable though many prove otherwise So none ought to have been admitted nor were in the Old Testament the same Gospel preached unto them and the new Testament shadowed under the old to enjoy the priviledges of the Old shadowing the priviledges of the New but such as were sutable even such as are required in the New though few of them proved such with this difference they were to beleeve in Christ to come to whom the Law and shadowes directed them we are to beleeve in Christ already come to whom the Ordinances doe direct us And therefore what he further repeateth having said the same all before that whosoever circumcised themselves and their Males and observed the Rites of the Law they and their children though Proselytes were the seed fleshly seed too for so he saith all this time and in that covenant and of that Church But now onely such as beleeve in Christ and be thereby regenerated are the seed and in this covenant and of the Church might well have been spared and have been answered before yet seeing hee addeth six other reasons to prove this latter clearly proving as he saith I shall bee willing to follow him And he saith First beleevers regenerate onely are in this Covenant and of this Church because none of the naturall seed of Abraham are in this Covenant by vertue of naturall relation though they remained in the Jewish Churches till Christs death But their being in the Churches by naturall relation then ceased as the Church ceased I reply First I have shewed that their standing in that Covenant and Church was not by fleshly relation but by spirituall who were counted for the seed Rom. 9.8 2dly Those few that were added to the Gospel Church were not cut off as the rest but remained naturall branches still in their owne Olive tree and what naturall relation they had they put not off and when the rest be added the Apostle saith the naturall branches shall bee ingraffed into their own stock For if the root be holy the branches will be so too Rom. 11.16 17.24 3dly The Scriptures by him quoted prove not the thing he alledgeth them for Acts 10.28 Rom. 9.8 Gal. 3.7 9 28 29. 4.28 His second Reason The Gentiles have no naturall relation to become his seed by and therefore their infants cannot become the seed of Abraham by being the seed of a beleever but must beleeve themselves otherwise they cannot be partakers in the Covenant made with Abraham Reply First there needs no such relation naturall nor were the Jewes as naturall seed onely without faith counted for the seed Rom. 9.8 Secondly the Gentiles Proselytes need not that naturall relation before to be in the covenant then but were ingraffed into the body by faith and therby their Infants Thirdly all now are not children of promise but many alwayes are deceivers and deceived as many then but not all only this may be noted that he yeeldeth that Believers now are partakers of the covenant of Abraham and therefore that then and now is the same And yet in the next and his third Reason hee denies the covenant under Christ to be the same with that which was made with Abraham because the three thousand converts Acts 2. when they were baptized did not baptize their Infants this he saith is plain Acts 2.41 and 8.12 where it is they that gladly received the Word were baptized they and they only which the Infants could not do Reply In the old Testament they that submitted themselves to the Jewish covenant and would take their God to be theirs were circumcised but Infants could not do that yet they were circumcised Secondly it is not said they were baptized and then it is not a perfect relation Reply It followeth not for all is not written that was done they might be baptized though it is not said they were For were not Christs Apostles baptized yet it is not written where when or who baptized them it is no argument to say it was not done because it is not set down but take it for granted their Infants were not baptized then which yet I will not grant for some considerations I shall afterward set down in another place doth this difference make that the covenant with Abraham and now is not the same It is not the same in this respect as all can be concluded which is but a circumstantiall difference The fourth Reason followeth if Paul and others writing to the visible Churches calls them Saints faithfull Brethren the Sons of God by adoption Rom. 16 c. and the Prophets notwithstanding they were led by the same Spirit were wont to speake otherwise of the visible Church of the Jewes as Isa 1.16 Jer. 1.2 Ezek. 3.4.4.12 Chap. 16.48.51 then naturall Infants were not in the covenant and of the Churches which the Apostles wrote unto as they were in that covenant and of that Church the Prophets spake to But Paul calls them Saints and the Prophets the other sinners yea grievous sinners and bids them wash themselves c. therefore naturall Infants were not in the Churches which the Apostle wrote unto as they were in the Jewes Reply I deny the consequence in the Reason as no way following and the proofe of it as invalid For as the Apostles do call the Churches Saints c. and the Prophets the Jewes sinners in the places alledged yet in other places the Scriptures call those sinners Saints Believers Brethren adopted c. as in many places may be made evident one or two may be enough Exod. 19.6 A kingdome of Priests a holy nation Deut. 33.2 3. Psal 22.22 and 122.8 Rom. 9.3 4. c. And the Apostle 2 Thes 2. calls them sinners carnall bids them repent c. to whom they wrote unto as Saints as Galat. Corinth where were many grosse things and sinfully amisse and most of the
body of the Jewish nation were the posterity of Abraham according to the flesh were commanded to be circumcised as so in the covenant and otherwise could not have been of the Jewish Church They were not to bring their sacrifices to the Temple nor eat the Passeover therefore these were legally in the covenant though but the posterity of Abraham according to the flesh yet none of the uncircumsion might before Christs time partake of those priviledges though they did believe The difference therefore was very great Reply That the Jewish Nation was Abrahams posterity according to the flesh who knowes not yet that they were thereby of the Church is not true and that they were in covenant before and Church-members is certain though he affirm the contrary never so often without any proof at all for circumcision followes the covenant at Church state being a sign of it doth not go before it as is evident in Abrahams case and his families as also in Isaacs case and all following him who were not circumcised at the 8th day but as in the covenant before and how could a Jew being uncircumcised be cut off from his people and despise Gods covenant if he had not interest in that estate before And were not those many hundred in Abrahams family and all proselytes after in the covenant and of the Church though not of Abrahams posterity in the flesh This is not required therefore to make them of the Jewish Church nor was it sufficient to be Abrahams posterity and circumcised to make them in the covenant and in the Church and no more required as in Esau's case and the rest of Abrahams children by Ketura where hee saith they were legally in the covenant though but Abrahams posterity I reply More was required of them to be in the covenant then to be Abrahams posterity in the flesh even to be the Lords to have Abrahams faith wrought in them without which they could not be or continue in the covenant If he mean by legally in the covenant they were in a legall covenant a covenant of works it is contrary to the Scriptures Galat. 3.17 18. Now was there any such covenant dispensed unto them by God But if he mean they were in the same covenant we have but legally being perverted by them contrary to the doctrine of God he grants what I said and contradicts himselfe Further he saith none uncircumcised before Christs time may partake in those priviledges though they did beleeve Reply It is not true For Enoch Noah Melchisedec and many others were partakers of some of them before circumcision was instituted and all they in the wildernesse during the fourty years travell there Though therefore the difference was very great in many circumstances yet it was the same in substance which is that I said A third consideration he hath is this No Gentiles are Abrahams seed at all but by beleeving the righteousnesse of faith although he be the child of beleeving parents Reply First I deny it For the infants of beleeving Gentiles in covenant are Abrahams seed though they doe not actually beleeve as the infants of Proselytes Gentiles before Christ were Abrahams seed with their beleeving parents Secondly none of the Jewish parents or children were Abrahams seed but by actually beleeving the righteousnesse of faith or under the promise of God to work it in them Rom. 9.6 8. But what is this to the disproof of my Argument That the covenant with Abraham then and now is the same I see not a word to that purpose A fourth consideration he thus sets downe None of the Jewes themselves Abrahams naturall seed and partakers of all the orders of the Old Testament by vertue of that naturall relation could bee admitted to be baptized but upon manifestation of faith Therefore the covenant before and this since is not the same Reply First all Abrahams naturall seed were not partakers of all ordinances of the old Testament by vertue of that relation as Esaus posterity nor was that relation necessary for then no Proselyte could have enjoyed them Secondly the natural posterity of Abraham did partake of those ordinances by vertue of the covenant or their actuall faith and therefore enjoyed them no longer then their covenant and faith continued Thirdly it followeth not that the covenant now and then is not the same because the Jewes of yeares were not baptized without manifestation of their faith for the difference onely is circumstantiall viz. the manifestation of their faith in Christ the Messiah now come which before they beleeved should come nor will he ever prove that the infants of those Jewes beleeving and baptized were not also baptized with their parents And this of his considerations to my second Reason my third Reason followeth The standing of the Jewes and of us Gentiles in the grace of God is the same with Abrahams therefore the Covenant is the same To this he answereth First distinguishing of the word Grace which is taken saith he particularly for the covenant of life generally for any effect of Gods goodnesse whereby he freely communicateth any benefits unto the sonnes of men which must needs be by grace seeing no man deserveth any thing Secondly he applieth this distinction and saith that if grace be taken in the first sense and particularly for the covenant of everlasting life unto free justification hee denieth that the Jewes were required to manifest their interest therein before they could be admitted to stand members of the Jewish visible Church state as all both Jews and Gentiles must now since the death of Christ and yet none saved but by grace in this first sense But if grace be taken in the latter and more generall sense for some effect of Gods goodnesse communicated freely to any in any kinde of benefit then he granteth that the Iewes stood under the same grace of God with Abraham and had circumcision and other ordinances to lead them to Christ to come yea to be born of their seed according to the flesh And in these respects the Jewes standing was the same with Abrahams and these respects are spoken of by Mary Luke 1.54 55. and Zachary Luke 1.72 73 Rep. First the distinction is not necessary for though in a general sense any thing from God may be called a grace as it is a free gift of God to them them that never deserve it yet in this discourse and usually in the Scriptures it is not used in this larger sense Secondly to make those priviledges of the Jewes to be but effects of common grace he wrongeth the grace of God as dispensing nothing more of particular favour to the Jewes then to the Gentiles though they had more and larger matters then the Gentiles Yet being from common grace it alters not the state of them under Gods grace from the Heathens whom in this case God leaveth not without witnesse of himself Thirdly in that he saith the Jewes had circumcision and other Ordinances leading them to Christ and
away the Scriptures affirming no understanding Christian denying it Heb. 6.4 c. 3ly He answereth then the being under the everlasting covenant of grace and peace with God by Christ should be conveyed by naturall descent and not by the Gospel which is absurd and contrary to many Scriptures Rom. 1.16 17. and 10.17 Gal. 3.2 2 Joh. 3. 5 c. These Scritpures saith he shews first that the Gospel is the power of God to save every one that believeth Secondly that faith cometh by hearing the Word preached by which conversion is wrought whereby wee become sons of God by adoption and grace But the Position saith that some are partakers thereof by vertue of their parents by generation directly contrary yea to the whole Gospel of Christ Rom. 4.14 where if they of the Law naturally descended and circumcised only be heirs the promise the whole Gospel and covenant of grace is made of none effect Reply First they were all under the everlasting covenant of Gods grace equally on Gods part dispensed offering unto them thereby all the Gospel to peace and life Secondly this offer was not made unto them for any naturall respect but freely of Gods grace The naturall generation though many Gentiles also were taken into covenant and had the grace thereof offered unto them and to be bestowed upon them but not out of any respect to them naturall civill or religious Deut. 17.7 8. 9.5 but meerely out of his good will and faithfulnesse Thirdly the Gospel was preached unto all the posterity of Abraham all along to Christ and his time by himself and Apostles preaching no other thing then Moses and the Prophets had preached before them to all that then believed it was the power of God to save them Act. 15.11 all ought to have believed it and if they had it would have been the power of God to their salvation also and they that did not believe it was not the power of God to their salvation because they believed not Heb. 4.12 and it was their sin and will be to their punishment Now it is the power of God not to salvation of all though Church-members to whom it is preached but many came short through unbeliefe All the Scriptures therefore by him alledged are hereby answered nor is there any footing for his distinction in regard of Gods part dispensing but from them who received not what God offered but refused it Hee proceedeth thus If by grace I mean that favour of God whereby hee made the Jewes partakers of circumcision and ordinances as the fleshly seed of Abraham leading them to Christ above other nations then he grants that Ishmael and such were partakers of that grace Reply First this is not all they were partakers of but of the former also and of this from the former nor were they partakers of this or any thing else as they were Abrahams seed barely but from his grace to their fathers and therein taking them above others to he his peculiar people Secondly they were partakers of these ordinances as leading to Christ therefore not of ordinances barely but Christ offered unto them by these ordinances and of these ordinances for Christs sake given unto them I would ask whether they were to believe in Christ or no and so to be saved If so as certain it is how then can he make good this distinction or deny that they were under the everlasting covenant of Gods grace and by these ordinances to be partakers of But granting this unto them hee saith But this was taken away when Christ came all which I have spoken to before more then once Secondly he saith that the Apostles purpose is not to conclude those children spoken of 1 Cor. 7. within the limits of such a distinction because the Lord there in that state did count children borne of one believer unclean and polluted and to be put away with their mothers being Infidels Ezra 9.2 and 11.3 Therefore that state even while it lasted did not allow children to be of that state when one of the parents were forreiner to the Church much lesse hath it any force now to conclude it should be so when that the state it self is disanulled Reply First it is the Apostles meaning to conclude such Infants under the covenant with their believing parents whereby they were foederally holy nor can there be any other holinesse here intended as we shal see afterward And the reason which he giveth to disprove it is not sufficient because it is of an instance of a diverse nature from this of the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. though he would confound them whether willingly or no I leave others to judge His Reason is this That state did not allow of children born of one believing parent but accounted them unclean and required them to be put away with their mother Reply That of Ezra speaketh of a believing Jew married to an Infidel Heathen this of the Apostle speaketh not of a believing Christian marrying an Infidell but of one who being married when they were both Infidels the one being converted after marriage the other remaining unconverted That in Ezra was an unlawfull marriage first or last this in Corinth was a lawfull marriage Secondly that in Ezra therefore being unlawfull was not to be continued but the wife and children to be put away but this in Corinth is not so the Infidel here may be continued if contented to dwell with the believer nor are the children unclean but both the instances being of two cases so different thence is no ground for this reason and so that hee grounded on that reason falls with it A third Reason that he gives against that I said ¶ 3 that the Apostle speaketh of a holinesse which the Infants of a believer hath with their believing Parent standing under the same state of grace is this First that a Proselyte in the time of the Law by circumcision was made a member of the Jewish state as one born in the land Secondly hee was to circumcise all his males and thereby they were admitted and with the males wife females children there being no other Sacrament of entrance for them and unlesse he did circumcise himself and all his males though neither hee nor they believed hee could not be a member of that state Thirdly no president can be that ever one parent coming to be of the Jewish state and leave their married yoke-mates out did possesse their seed of the same state and therefore now in this state whereof men are partakers by faith only and thereupon a believer admitted and the unbelieving yoke-mate left out the Infants cannot be admitted into this state no more then the wife which in that state was brought in by the care of the husband being a proselyte and in this left out till shee believed Reply First a proselyte was not made a member of the Jewish Church by circumcision but by accepting the God of Israel to be his God and submitting himself to
they had not circumcised in forty yeers ever since they came out of Egypt nor did they circumcise any now nor afterward till Moses was dead and Joshua had brought them through Jordan into the land Joshua 5. To this he answereth divers things First that this was but a renewall of the covenant made with Abraham Isaac and Jacob before which they entred into with God in behalf of them and their children by being circumcised and therefore they being before did not now begin to be a church and therefore this doth not prove that a covenant acted by a company of believers should be it that did constitute them a church now Reply First I grant this was but a renewall of the covenant made with Abraham c. and upon his grant inferre that this was a spirituall covenant and not carnall and the same with Abrahams and ours which before he opposed mee in Secondly hee saith they entred into the covenant by circumcision Reply It is false Abraham and his were not circumcised till fourteen yeers after and now few of them in yeers were circumcised before nor any now Thirdly they did not now begin to be a church being one before It 's true but the renewall of their church estate here after many provocations of God and many declarations against them of Gods anger whereby they might feare that God would own them no more being by a covenant acted formally and outwardly between God and them as is cleerly expressed in the Text doth fully shew that both now and then they were found Gods people as believers acting a covenant betwixt God and them and one another and seeing hee grants this to be the same with that of Abraham c. that was also thus acted is out of question as this here though therefore a covenant acted now did not constitute them a church yet a covenant is acted now and is for the renewing of their church estate therefore much more was it so in the first constitution every thing decayed in the true forme of it being made the same it was by renewing the same form and otherwise cannot be the same Nor did circumcision here concurre nor any thing else and yet perfectly stated a church and so called Acts 7.1 Secondly hee answereth whereas I say circumcision was no ingredient here having not circumcised during the forty yeers nor now Hee conceives notwithstanding that circumcision was an ingredient in their parents who thereby entred into covenant for themselves and these their children as the covenant here expressed did comprehend the posterity to come Reply First howsoever they stood intire in the covenant and church-estate without personall circumcision for except Moses Caleb and Joshua there was not a man of those 600000. that came out of Egypt alive and all born in the wildernesse during the forty yeers were uncircumcised and at the time of this covenant making not one was circumcised and so the church consisted of a company of men personally uncircumcised and performed services to God and each other which ought to have been done by circumcised persons only In like manner men and women believing the Word of God and doing as these did may become thereby a true visible church though they were not baptized before nor are baptized at present covenanting and perform services to God and each other Secondly if they injoyed their perfect church-estate being not personally circumcised by vertue of their parents circumcision before them then certainly as much may be granted now that by vertue of a parents believing and being baptized their Infants may be counted and really are in the covenant before they be baptized If it be said these were grown men and expressed their faith in God I answer All were not grown men many were Infants yea posterity for and with whom this covenant was made were not yet born and for the rest what faith the most of them had may be seen Deut. 29.4 Thirdly hee answereth it was an extraordinary case and they had miraculous sacraments in stead of circumcision and the Passeover c. Reply To all this I have spoken before yet a word or two First hee calleth them miraculous sacraments here and before but he found fault with me for calling them ordinances which is all one sacraments they were therefore though extraordinary nor did the sea continue with them all this time being a transient act and many hundred thousands never past through the sea nor did the cloud baptize them all till circumcision was administred to them all Josh 5. The cloud ceased on the other side Jordan and continued not till they came into the land therefore all the members were not personally constituted members by that miraculous sacrament of baptisme which gives them hee saith their imitation Further he saith that the acting of a covenant by a company of believers was not the same of that church then but the communication of Gods covenant by circumcision ordinarily with the whole nation believers and Infidels and whosoever of any nation that would be circumcised and joyn with them to worship much lesse hath it any consequence to prove it so now Reply First I have proved that a covenant acted by them as beleevers did make them to be the people of God and circumcision was ordinarily added as a signe and seale thereof But in that hee saith the whole Nation beleevers and infidels it is an unchristian speech nor ever will he prove that any of the nation were infidels nor any of any nation joyning with them though many of them did not beleeve as they should yet beleevers they all were and God manifested it in accepting their sacrifices pardoning their sins and making an atonement for them by the Priests administrations It is therefore injurious to the grace of God so to speak and justly to be blamed Nextly he comes to my third particular by which I conceived the form of the Jewish church state outwardly was by a covenant acted by a company of beleevers c. which is from the renewall of their estate after some apostasie 2 Chron. 15.12 13 16. 34. chap. 30 31. Nehem. 9.3 10.1 from whence I collected that without which they could not stand in a right church estate visibly that was the forme of that church but without the renewall of their covenant they could not stand in a right or pure church estate but without renewall of circumcision they might Ergo. His answer hereto is First he grants they made a covenant and did well in so doing but secondly that they could not be in a church estate without so doing nor have I proved it and he will prove the contrary first because they were a church before secondly this covenant was but an animating them to doe that which they were engaged to doe before by their circumcision Gal. 5.3 Ergo. As the renewall of their covenant is not by me proved to bee the form of the church then much lesse hath it any consequence to
thereof not by baptisme but by the covenant is eternall to all the elect and so hee that believeth in Christ shall never die but these are not eternall to any else at all for reprobate members dying remain not members c. so that here is nothing in this answer that proveth the Jewes were not a church-estate by an acted covenant Secondly he answereth the covenant is a ground of a churches being a visible church that the visible participation in the covenant is by some visible thing which was circumcision then is baptisme now other visible participations there was not nor is any therefore by circumcision then and baptisme now they are a visible church And as the taking away of the covenant causeth the church to cease so it causeth their circumcision and baptisme to cease also whereby they had visible participation in the covenant and church Reply First he saith a covenant is the ground of a visible for the question saith he speaks of a visible church and so say I and a visible ground of any mans being circumcised then or baptized now if it be a ground of a visible church then a church cannot be a church without it and so constituted a visible church by it Secondly there must be some visible thing whereby a man may have visible participation in the covenant I grant it but saith he there is no other visible thing whereby any are partakers of the covenant but circumcision then and baptisme now I deny it and affirm there is some visible thing preceding circumcision then baptisme now For when they baptize a man do they baptize him as out of covenant or in it If in covenant then it is as hee is invisibly in it or visibly not invisibly that they cannot know therefore visibly by something they can discern and know and upon that baptize him and that is the profession of his faith in the covenant which as it must go before baptisme so it makes him partaker visibly of the covenant before he be baptized or circumcised therefore circumcision then baptisme now is not the only visible participation in the covenant nor indeed any participation at all but a visible sign and seal of his visible participation and this appeareth further from the description of a Sacrament an outward and visible sign of an inward and spirituall grace which must be there or the outward is not to be applied but it cannot be concluded to be there but by some outward evidence therefore something visible and thereby visible participation in the covenant must go before visible baptisme As then the covenant must be taken away before the church cease to be a church and not circumcision nor baptisme which cannot cease untill the church ceaseth all which himself granteth so as long as any continue visible profession of faith so long the covenant continueth and visible profession must cease before the covenant ceaseth in respect of men Ergo by visible profession of faith in the covenant is obtained and declared visible participation in the covenant and so is the church-estate constituted thereby Further hee saith the covenant before Christ did ceremonially lead to Christ and in that respect is dissolved and circumcision by which they had participation in that covenant is dissolved and therfore the visible church ceased as was prophesied Zach. 11. and accomplished at the death of Christ the partition wall being broken down Ephes 2.13 c. the covenant since Christ ratified by the death of the testator cannot be dissolved as I affirm in my third Proposition and fourth poriod and so baptisme by which they have true visible being in the covenant cannot be removed nor the visible church-state Reply Here is nothing said that hath not been said before again and again and so answered yet in a word First hee confoundeth covenant and testament there is but one covenant but yet two Testaments and the covenant was dispensed to Abraham before there was any testament instituted and the Scriptures that speake of abolishing the old and establishing the new are not to be understood of two covenants there being but one but of two Testaments as I shewed in my third Proposition and fourth period and he much mistakes himself abuseth his Reader and cannot but know that he speakes not truly in saying I affirmed the new covenant cannot be removed when as I said the new Testament cannot be removed Secondly the covenant before Christ did not ceremonially lead to Christ for the covenant alwayes from Adam held forth Christ the same yesterday to day and for ever but the old Testament before Christ did ceremonially lead to Christ and was abolished at Christs coming that the new confirmed by his blood might be established Thirdly the covenant and visible church-state thereby did not cease at Christs coming in it self but was taken away from the Jews and given to the Gentiles and that not because the covenant and church-estate typified Christ but because they believed not for had they believed they should have injoyed the covenant and church-state still though the old Testament should have ceased and the new be put in the room and now it shall be taken from such Gentiles so oft as any of them cease to believe as is already fallen out to many churches Yet without any prejudice to the covenant of God or visible church-estate which ever remain Last of all I have shewed before that circumcision did not give them a visible being in that covenant and church-estate nor baptisme us but outward profession of subjection to the covenant gave them and gives us a being in the covenant and visible church-state circumcision then and baptisme now being but signes and seals of it Further against his conclusion that the true visible church in respect of the ground of it cannot be removed or dissolved he putteth two exceptions and seeks to cleer it from them The first is this The true Church may possibly die and none survive them in that estate Ergo the true Church may cease to be His answer to this is the true Chrch ceaseth to be but only to our outward view for to our faith it is no more ceased then their relation to the covenant ceaseth which doth not cease to the faithfull when they die but it remains as the covenant it self which is as firm as God that made it Secondly as their outward view to the church ceaseth so their relation to the church by baptisme ceaseth by which they had visible participation with the body of Christ therefore the exception hinders not but that the true visible Church remains undissolved Reply Whether this were mine or no I cannot say as also many other things the which hee puts forth in my name a word or two First he changeth the State of the Question speaking of a visible state whereas he speaketh of an invisible state and of the elect only whereas himself will confesse that many may be in a visible with whom the covenant ceaseth
unto him is not truer baptisme now then it was before it proves only unto him more profitable But I go on further where he saith the covenant before Christ might be and was dissolved shaken and removed this covenant since Christ cannot be dissolved shaken or removed All may easily see that either wilfully or ignorantly hee confoundeth covenant and testament which are divers things for the kingdome before Christ spoken of Heb. 12. is not the covenant but manner of administration that before Christ the old Testament to be shaken and removed this since Christ the new Testament established and never to be shaken nor removed and this kingdome shaken was not taken away from the Jewes and given to the Gentiles but utterly abolished and a new kingdome given and set up that shall not be abolished nor end till Christ shall give it up to the Father 1 Cor. 15. Last of all the covenant before Christ was the eternall covenant of God and remains the same for ever and cannot be shaken this covenant God made with Abraham continued to the Jewes till Christs time and this also is called the kingdome of God Matth. 27.34 which cannot be altered nor was it disanulled nor abolished then but only taken away from the Jewes whereas kingdome in the other sense was utterly abolished and given to the Gentiles and a new or another but the same and therefore though the Jewish people were cut off yet the covenant and church-state remained and was given to the Gentiles yet so as that many of the Gentile churches have been cut off and may be and shall be cut off for the same cause that the Jewes were cut off viz. if they continue not in faith Rom. 11. His second answer is this the removing of the candlesticks and unchurching of them is only by discovery or manifestation of a people to be void of any participation in the covenant which formerly they professed were esteemed and had a name to have 1 John 2.19 Rev. 3.1 and not dissolving or taking away of covenant which once they had and enjoyed much lesse is it a dissolving of an outward covenant acted by believers such a covenant is will-worship and the churches constituted thereby meerly Antichristian the dissolving of such a covenant cannot be the unchurching of any true churches Jesus Christ having no true visible church so constituted Reply All hath been said and answered before that here hee speaks yet a word here If the removing of the candlestick and unchurching of such be nothing but only a discovery that they were in no covenant before then the Jewes before Christ were in no covenant but only seemed to be so c. Ephesus and the rest were in no covenant but had a name only to be in it who are long ago rejected nor were the Saints in Rome graffed branches into the true Olive but only were esteemed so to be and the cutting breaking off dissolving of all those and the like is but a declaration and manifest discovery that they were never in covenant and what great punishment is it for these and the like to have that taken away from them which they never had But I doubt not but that all that have any judgement to discerne of things aright will easily see as the unsoundnesse so the unreasonablenesse of what hee faith Secondly the places alledged by him are not to his purpose the first not speaking of their membership and state in the covenant which they had and departed from but of the soundnesse of their state therein and of saving grace from the Father election in Christ which they had not and hereby manifested that they had not in that they departed from the fellowship of faith The other place Rev. 3. speaks not of them as having a name to be a church for that they were and Christ so called them and would not have so acknowledged them had they not so been but it speaks of the condition they were in in this church-estate as having a name to be alive in faith and holinesse but indeed were in this respect dead and yet not quite dead but almost and therefore are bidden to strengthen the things that are ready to die these places therefore do not at all speak of their being in covenant or church-estate but only of the unsoundnesse of their estate in faith and godlinesse Thirdly whereas he opposeth a covenant and a covenant acted by believers as divers things or contrary if hee understood himself hee should have done well to expresse himself what he meant by them both that others might understand him For can there be a covenant and not outwardly acted Is not a covenant between two parties Or is it a covenant unlesse all parties agree there is no covenant of God but it is outwardly manifested to men and by visible means made known to such as hee would have to be in it nor is that a covenant made with them but as they outwardly receive it and by some visible act answer the Lord therein and so make themselves partakers thereof and visibly by visible participation which cannot be but by acting or passing consent to the covenant whereby God and they become one anothers and they visibly Gods people which being once done they remain a church and Gods people as long as this state continues and when it ceaseth then they cease to be Gods people forsaking each other again mutually which also is further evident in that God useth this expression to note out his dissolution giving them a bill of divorcement and so dissolving that marriage covenant which they were joyned together in Jerem. 13. I cannot but therefore conclude that hee doth speak unchristianly in saying an outward covenant acted by a company of believers is will-worship and churches so constituted are Antichristian or the dissolving of such a covenant cannot be the unchurching of any true churches because Jesus Christ hath no other true visible churches but those only that are so constituted A Discourse of the Verity and Validity of Infants Baptisme in it selfe considered As also it hath been administred in the Church of ENGLAND WHEREIN Besides the Arguments duly propounded and clearly explained for the proofe thereof occasionally The calling of the Ministers in England and here administring that ordinance Likewise the manner of administring it by sprinkling and not dipping is handled and justified AS it hath ever been the fruit of Satans malice to pervert the right wayes of the Lord and if not utterly to abolish yet greatly to corrupt the worship and ordinances of God So there have never wanted men of evill minds who give themselves to promote his sinfull designes A proofe whereof beyond exception is that man of Sin with all that Apostasie wherein the prevailing efficacie of Satan is not so much to be wondred at as the severe judgement of God is to bee adored who thereby punisheth the wanton spirits of men giving them up to make and beleeve lies because they