essentially but one Besides it 's called a first and second testament scil in order of succession So the former is said to bee faulty comparatively not absolutely In a word in way and manner of dispensation that was different from the covenant now dispensed in respect of ceremony of administration not in the essentialls And this which hath been said may take off divers empty scruples which may make against Gods covenant of old with the Jewes as if not of any force to our purpose 4 Object It was not the same covenant made with them as with Abraham Isaac and Iacob Answ It was a covenant made for ever and the same with that unto Abraham and with that oath unto Isaac and it was that which God remembred for their good and so an Evangelicall covenant yea it was a soveraigne commanding word of grace and certaine Therefore said to bee commanded For which see Psal 105. 8 9 10. And of the phrase of commandment taken for the promise see Psal 119. 54. 66. 92 93. 96. and Psal 94. 19. and 133. 3. meaning of the Law of faith or of the promife Rom. 3. 27. which is mighty to effect notwithstanding other lets Rom. 3. 3. True you will say in respect of Canaan promised there was such a covenant with them Psal 105. 11. Answ That covenant was of another nature then meerely such else not lasting in such sort to 1000. generations verse 8. whereas Matthew noteth but 42. generations from Adam to Christ 5 Object It was a nationall covenant say some Ergo a covenant of workes Answ It followeth not ex natura rei for that Gospell covenant Gal. 3. 8. was of a nationall nature Gen. 12. 2 3. being a promise to Abraham to make a nation of him and not excluding a Church respect of that nation yet did not God make two contrary covenants of workes and grace with him nor if it had beene a covenant of workes which was made with that nation as it had not held them so long together by the strength of it Ier. 13. 11. so neither durst any have pleaded it in the revolted estate of that Church as hee did Ier. 14. 19 20 21. 6 Object It threatned and executed corporall punishments as well as rewards Answ And so doth the Gospel also Iohn 3. 18. 36. Marke 16. 15 16. 2 Thes 1. 8. Rev. 11. 3 4 5 6. Hebr. 2. 1 2 3. 1 Cor. 11. 29. 1 Tim. 4. 8 c. 7 Object That admitted of a fleshly seed and such as proved carnall this onely of a spirituall seed and such as beleeve Answ That as invested with Church covenant admitted none but a Church-seed and Church-members to the fellowship of the covenant externally dispensed And so much and no more is done if rightly done now Againe if the Author take fleshly seed for sâ—…h as came of Abraham Isaac and Iacob so in admitting all it must needs admit the elect seed of Abaham also unlesse any deny that there were any such of that Church Contrary to Rom. 9. 6 7 8 c. And so it did not admit onely of such as proved carnall but as well of beleevers also If he take it in an allegoricall sense as Gal. 4. so also it admitted of others then such And on the other side the covenant now as invested with church-Church-covenant and so most authoritatively administred it admitteth as of children which come of good parents so of carnall hypocrites yea of fleshly legalists which defy ordinances and rest in and trust unto them and to their Church and family and closet duties c. the Galatian Churches had such legalists Gal. 4. 21 22 23. Many are called into covenant fellowship which are not chosen Mat. 22. 13. 8 Object That was in the flesh this in the heart Answ Was that onely in the flesh was not the word of Covenant as well in their heart as Moses judging ecclesiastically avoweth of Israel Deut. 29. 10 11 c. with 30. 11 12 13 14. so Isa 51. 7. Gods covenant now is to write his Law in our hearts Heb. 8. but is not all that included in this I will bee your God whence all is closed up in that phrase ibid. or was not this first made to the Jewes after their returne from captivitie more expresly Ier. 31. as before more implicitely Gen. 17. Yea but God did not actually write such holy dispositions in them Suppose he did not that is the execution of the covenant as for the very berith or covenant it selfe it is the promise hereof dispense to them and this they had both Gen. 17. and Deut. 30. 6. To circumcise the heart to love God is to imprint gratious dispositions to promise the same to them is to covenant to imprint it and so he did covenant with them and theirs ibid. Besides is not Gods covenant now also Sacramentally on our bodies too and in many no further which are onely baptized with water but their soules filthy and chaffie Matth. 3. 11 12. which have barely the washing of the flesh not the heart Answer as some call it 1 Pet. 3. 21. 9 Object That was in their Generations Gen. 7. not so now Answ As that was to Abraham and Isaacs seed in their generations till they actually became obstinate perversely rejecting the covenant-grace and Christ so it is now Rom. 11. from 16. to 24. As In-churched Cain who was of Adams house-Church was then together with his and not till then rejected Gen. 4. 15 16. compared with Gen. 6. 1 2. where his posteritie are called daughters of men as contra-distinct from the children of God or of the Church Then also and not till then was Ishmael together with his rejected scil when hee mockt at both the head Christ and the body the Church in Isaac in whose race it was promised the covenant should bee confirmed and by them carried on see Gen. 17 18 19 20 21. compared with 21. 9 10 11 12. and Gal. 4. And then and not till then was Esau with his rejected Hebr. 12. 15 16 17. 10 Object That was a conditionall covenant this an absolute That had a commandement as the instrumentall meanes or cause of interest in the Covenant and that required onely a male of eight dayes old to interest them in the covenant of their fathers and for that end to bee circumcised c. but now not so Answ If the intent of the objectors be to exclude all conditions surely now the Gospell requireth faith and repentance and so it did then To externall interest personall faith was not required witnesse that Deut. 29. and 30. 6. But to effectuall interest it was in adultis Heb. 4. 2. But it 's false to say the commandement gave right to covenant-interest since covenant-right was first premised and declared to bee the ground of that commanded service of the initiatory seale Gen. 17. 7 8 9 10 11 c. Thou shalt therefore keepe my covenant Hee doth not say you must bee or are circumcised and
This argument supposeth that one cannot bee within the covenant of saving grace externally but they must bee in a saving estate the contrary whereto appeareth Conclus 3. And it 's said of sundry illegitimate Jewish children that they were within the covenant of saving grace namely externally for the author cannot meane other And yet of all such who will say they were all in a saving estate even Esaus birthright was more then right to Isaacs temporall estate as borne of Isaac why else doth the Apostle apply Esaus example of selling his birthright in such sort as Heb. 12. 15 16 17. hee propoundeth his example to deterre the Hebrewes which were in Church estate Heb. 10. 25. and 12. 17 18. from the mischiefe of falling short of the grace of God not of meere temporall blessings nay expresly the thing hee fell short of as his birth heritage as Isaacs first borne is said to bee the blessing indefinitely even Abrahams blessing to his seed the same blessing whereof hee rejecting his externall right Jacob his younger brother came to possesse which was a Church blessing as well as naturall and civill Gen. 28. 3 4. as for temporall blessings he had store of them notwithstanding nor was Isaacs trembling when hee saw how strangely God had ordered the blessing of the first borne to Jacob the younger sonne Gen. 27. occasioned from a bare disappointing him of the externall right to temporalls but withall to spiritualls and ecclesiasticall good also whence the Apostle calleth him for his contempt a prophane person Heb. 12. 3 Object But saith I. S. the covenant of grace being a covenant there must be mutuall agreement betwixt the covenanters and so knowledge and consideration of the termes thereof and restipulation as in mens covenants Hen. Den a little differently maketh a necessitie of the persons entring into covenant with God scil by faith unto covenant right and not meerely Gods entring into covenant with the creature for so hee entred into covenant with the beasts c. Gen. 9. 10. Answ To which I answer the covenant of grace is as well a testament 1 Cor. 11. Heb. 9. Now a testament may bee and useth to bee made in reference to little ones without knowledge nor doe any use to deny a childs right in the testators will because it was taken in amongst other legacies in the bequeathed legacies before it understood the same nor will it bee denyed in the case of the elect seed the choyce parties in Gods covenant Gen. 17. that they many of them dying Infants without actuall knowledge were not therefore children of the promises or that that solemne covenant Deut. 29. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15. and 30. 6 7 8 9 10 c. with that people wherein conditions also were propounded on their parts that therefore the covenant was not made betwixt the little ones there present because they neither understood nor could actually subscribe to the conditions the contrary being there expressed no rather it sufficed that the childrens covenant estate being the parents priviledge whence the incouragement to Abraham to walke with God Gen. 17. 1 c. From that amongst other incouragements that God would become his seeds God also c. vers 7. and so Deut. 29. and 30. amongst other incouragements to the parents that is one vers 6. that God will doe thus for their seed also yea the children being reckoned as in their parents as Levi payd tithes in Abraham c. yea the externall avouching in a covenant way of God being owned as the childrens Deut. 26. 16 17. yea the childrens circumcision being as well the covenant dutie Whence called the covenant or the covenant parties covenant part or dutie as well as the token of Gods covenant Gen. 9. 7. 9 10 11. they restipulate in their parents knowing acceptance of the covenant and professed owning of it upon the covenant termes as well on their childrens part as their owne and they restipulate in a passive reception of the covenant condition and bond to after imitation of their father Abrahams faith and obedience to which purpose I. S. confessed circumcision was annexed to the covenant Yea the bastard children of Iudah and Gilead and others are acknowledged to bee in the covenant of saving grace which yet could not personally restipulate in a way of actuall knowledge or faith or the like 4 Obj. Your doctrine would make God the author of sin partly in causing persons to beleeve untruths partly in promising life to the wicked and so keeping of him from returning I.S. C.B. I.S.C.B. C.B. Besides it will make every beleever an Abraham and make Christs body to consist of dead members and even confound the world and the Church as if one Answ To the first wee require the parents in reference to the Church and covenant estate of their children to make confession of their faith in the covenant of God as made with them and their seed indefinitely according as the termes of the covenant are and being the termes of the covenant it 's no untruth or sinne to beleeve it in foro dei or confesse that faith in foro Ecclesiae which of the beleevers children is elect or saved or not it 's to us a secret and our doctrine requireth them to beleeve revealed things as are those indefinite words of the covenant leaving secrets to the Lord and no other was Moses doctrine having propounded the covenant of God as with parents and children and being yet further to inlarge hee joyneth the former and latter part of his speech with that item that secret things belong to God but things revealed scil touching this his mind of grace indefinitely these are for us and for our children And for further taking off of this cavill together with the second I answer when some say that even bastard children were in the covenant of saving grace and even I. S. which objecteth the same confesseth that God promiseth to bee a God or to fulfill his promises even such as Luke 1. 74 75 c. and gave them circumcision to confirme the same on both seeds requiring them to walke in the footsteps of Abrahams faith c. I demand were the carnall seed saved I. S. will not say so yet God promised and gave circumcision as a seale to that end that hee would bee their God requiring them to beleeve c. did not then God faile in his promise or in requiring them to beleeve an untruth surely no so when they were on that ground according to I. S. to walke in the footsteps of Abrahams obedience and circumcision of heart was required of them did not this rather further then hinder their repentance is it not the Apostles argument to the Jewes to prevaile with them to repent Repent for the promise is to you c. Act. 2. 38 39. Nay doth not our doctrine holding forth the interest at least externall of such in covenant thereby hold forth as well an externall interest in that
they were intended to bee invalid in any such way now and yet God never expressed his minde for repeale of such substantiall branches of his minde of Grace towards his people and Churches there are so far stumbling blocks laid before them to occasion mistakes For who will not take the same for granted which considers the same advisedly as indeed the Churches of old have done before And when was it a fitter time to make exceptions of Infants then when the inchurching of the Gentiles is mentioned Matth. 28. 19 Why should even then the old phrase of nations bee used if no intent at least of the specificall parts of the nations to be inchurched what though circumcision bee left out yet the species of the persons circumcised are plainely included If all nations bee to bee blessed in Christ that sort of persons in the nations scil little ones as well as that of adult persons are included how else come any of either sort to bee blessed in Christ or saved by him so in this case Matth. 28. 19. SECT IX 8. THat the childrens federall interest and right it is firstly the confederating parents priviledge Hence given as an incouragement to Abraham to walke in faith and truth with God Gen. 17. 1. In that God also would bee a God to his seed vers 7. and the like was spoken in way of incouragement also unto those Israelites and proselytes Deut. 30. 6 7 8 9 10 11 c. And the like course is taken by the Apostles after Christs ascension Act. 2. 38 39. Hence the covenant blessing of Jacob pronounced in a propheticall as well as parentall way upon the sonnes of Joseph Ephraim and Manasseh and their children after them scil that the name of Abraham Isaac and Jacob as covenant and Church fathers must bee called on them albeit they had other personall names as of Ephraim c. Now this is yet called Jacobs blessing of Joseph their father Gen. 48. 15. hee blessed Joseph scil in his childrens covenant blessing vers 16. SECT X. 9. THat visibly beleeving and covenanting parents they are injoyned the use of the initiatory covenant and Church seale in reference to their childrens initiatory sealing together with them according as they are outwardly capable thereof As it is their priviledge to have it so so is it their charge and dutie to take wise faithfull and seasonable care that it be so done Abraham alone is not to bee circumcised but his seed also which are naturally capable thereof are to be so initiated sealed unto covenant and Church fellowship It was onely Abraham to whom God then appeared and declared his covenant and mind of grace touching his and his seeds sealing yet Abraham is not spoken to in the one or other respect as to a meere particular man but as to a common and representative person also imbracing and owning a gratious covenant and the generall condition at least of it As on his owne particular behalfe so on the behalfe both of the choyce seed of his loynes in their generations together with the rest of his Church seed by Isaac in their generations as also with generall reference in the essentialls of both covenant and condition of it unto his spirituall seed in their generations after Christs ascension which were to bee of the Gentiles and of the Jewes both before their rejection and upon their re-ingraffing into visible Church estate Hence in mentioning that particular way of initiation by circumcision first pitcht upon plurall phrases are used when Abraham onely is in presence The covenant which yee shall keepe And each manchild amongst you And my covenant shall bee in your flesh And it shall bee a token of the covenant betwixt mee and you vers 10 11 12 13. Abraham must see all this performed and hee did so so farre as it could bee done at present vers 23. Abraham enters into this holy bond and thereby the obligation became of force upon his children which were not then present Hence the parents act of neglect is temporally at least corrected in the little child even as the parents bond was the childs obligation Gen. 7. 14. Hence too that God might further evince it to bee mainly the parents duty even godly Moses the parent is indangered for the neglect of the sealing of his child Exod. 4. 2. 4 5 6. where by the way let it bee noted that albeit upon some ceremoniall grounds the mind of God being that way made knowne their marriages of old with heathens became so farre unlawfull that even their children also were discarded yet was it not morally and of it selfe of that nature even amongst the members of that Church that the children of such Church members begotten upon heathen wives not of the Church were uncleane and not to bee sealed by that initiatory Church seale For God himselfe is angry with Moses here because his sonne by that Aegyptian wife was not circumcised And long after it was counted offensive if the sonne of a Jewish wife even by a Grecian husband were not that way initiated Acts 16. 1 2 3 which is the very controverted case occasionally mentioned 1 Cor. 7. 14. But to returne to the proposition before laid downe From the same ground mentioned it was that when Peter moved his hearers to bee baptized hee groundeth that motion not barely upon their owne interest in the promise but withall upon their childrens joynt interest with them Acts 2. 38 39. Bee baptized for the promise is to you and to your children why putteth hee that groundworke so largely but to shew that the visible initiatory seale of the promise must bee as large as the promise Their childrens baptisme is virtually called upon too as well as their owne The parents are to take care of their baptisme as well as their owne the children being capable of externall baptisme that new way of initiation into covenant fellowship as well as themselves As they were also to carry home as it were the same charge upon the same ground touching repentance urging that upon their children as they should bee capable of it from the same covenant ground as themselves had been urged thereto Noah alone must not bee baptized in that extraordinary and typicall baptisme but his children with him must in like sort bee baptized Gen. 7. 1. with 1 Pet. 1. 3. 21. God will have all these fathers some whereof at that time mentioned were babes yet in respect to after ages were fathers to bee baptized in that extraordinary baptisme in the sea and in the cloud 1 Cor. 10. 1 2. Exod. 12. 44. If a stranger-servant bee circumcised himselfe hee may eate the passeover for hee was not so bound as the Jewes by command to either circumcision or the passeover but hee is to circumcise his males with that reason annexed For no uncircumcised person shall eate thereof What is the meaning hereof Is it thus else none of those his males or male children for they are most
gladly accepting Peters word especially the gladding word of promise which was the joyfullest word hee spake as belonging to them and to their children yea when accepting so gladly that injoyned dutie upon the ground of baptisme surely controversies of farre lesse weight are not passed over in silence witnesse that Acts. 6. 1. and 15. 38 39. and Gal. 2. 11. and 21 22 c. mee thinkes to common reason and rationall heads and hearts as well as gracious It should bee rather concluded as a matter out of question and that no such new distance and difference was put of parents in covenant and Church estate but not now the children as formerly of parents to bee sealed by the initiatory Church and covenant seale unto Church and covenant fellowship but not now their children as formerly SECT IX A Fourth argument followeth scil In that the Infants of covenant inchurched parents which were externally interested in the covenant of grace as invested with the covenant of a politicall visible Church to whom the Seales were appointed they were sealed as they were in bodily respect capable to bee sealed in that initiatory way of circumcising therefore Infants now according to their capacitie in bodily respects of the like initiatory appointed seale are to bee sealed in the initiatory way of baptizing For clearer proceeding in the argument I shall lay downe a few propositions First that the old testament is avowed by the holy Ghost in the new to containe all things necessary for faith and practise for substance and that so fully that a minister of the Gospell ordinary or extraordinary might bee furnished thence with ground-worke and generall rules upon and according to which to proceed in holding forth any thing necessary to bee beleeved or practised Of the Scriptures of the old Testament is that full testimony 2 Tim. 3. 14 15. See Cartwright in locum see Luke 16. 29. 31. Secondly that the Apostles in all other things used to hold forth Gospel services with analogy to legall Types Rites and Sacrifices c. testimonies are plentifull for it Thirdly that it was the Apostles use to hold forth and confirme things of most weight from the old Testament Act. 2. from the 14. to 41. and 3. 22. to the end and 4. 10 11. 24. to 29. and 8. 12. 25. 35 36. compared with Esay 52. 15. and 53. 1 c. So Acts 21. 38 39. old Testament grounds yea from the promise are given them for baptisme it self in the new yea for the dispensation of all the Gospel ordinances unto the Gentiles as thereof capable Acts 13. 46 47 48 c. Either then they had no ground or if any they urged them not which is contrary to those places or if any they urged them from the old Testament then onely extant to establish their practises Fourthly that Christ himselfe gave them patterne in this way of proofe Fiftly that the people with whom they had firstly to doe were beleeving Jewes in that way and they were zealous for the old Testament in the generall Sixtly that the ancients of the primitive Churches have rarely if at all denyed the comming of baptisme in circumcisions stead Seventhly that where a commandement of God doth injoyne any one thing upon such a ground there the command doth require all things wch are of the same nature as helpefull to the same thing as the Commandement Thou shalt not kill forbids anger also as tending to the same end scil to murder and as well forbidding striking rash speaking c. on the same ground as tending to murder yea but Christ expresly forbids it Answer Christ doth not put any thing thus upon the commandement which was not virtually in it before hee urged it but not legislatively as then making a law in such particulars but declaratively as expounding that law and reducing particulars to their generall heads of commandment Yea but there was his sanction thereof in that reducing True but when explained yet so as things in the commands before onely then clearely understood to be so so here looke as God commanding Abraham circumcision in the flesh for that end and on that ground that it might be an initiatory seale or Sacramentall signe of the covenant so also in the same doth hee virtually command baptisme with water as being of the same nature scil such as fulfilleth that end scil initiatorily to seale the covenant therefore albeit circumcision cease yet the commandement thereof reacheth and partly authoriseth that baptisme in the application of it to Infants for that end as of old to those Infants for that end Baptisme is a signe I say of the covenant and therefore either naturall and then any washing uninstituted had sufficed this way but that such washing of water should bee that signe needed an institution and being instituted it is now of the old use to seale initiatorily the covenant to adult or Infant externally initiated in it Yea but Christs institution gave a rise both to the signe that baptisme should bee that and that such and such persons should be signed with it therefore not the command of circumcision gave rise so much as to the application of that signe to such or such persons Answer it followeth not that Christs institution gave warrant therein therefore not the commandment of circumcision since both consent in the maine ground of both scil that wee shall apply our selves to the use of such signes as hee shall appoint and that in both should bee the same moralls or spiritualls signified the Lord knowing that wee needed some solemne externall way of signification of his mind of grace by some signe as well as they did Eighthly as none may adde to so neither may any detract from any words of Gods grace wherein hee hath expressed himselfe unlesse hee himselfe repeale the same hee once would have his covenant of grace to bee to the whole Church and Church seed and once would have it initiatorily sealed on them hee hath repealed the way of sealing but the covenant hee hath not the extent of it to parent and child hee hath not the ordinary dispensation of it in and from and by the visible Church hee hath not the sealing use of an initiatory covenant and Church seale hee hath not the things mainely to bee sealed even covenant and Church right at least externall and the like both of inchurched covenant parents and children hee hath not as in former conclusions hath been shewed SECT X. HItherto that knowne and much controverted place Col. 2. hath reference the Colossian Church and members of it as the Apostle urgeth against the circumcision teachers are as compleat in Christ without circumcision as ever any other Church or the members of it yea as even the best of them were with circumcision that is the proposition hee layeth downe Col. 2. vers 10. if they had objected Abrahams and Isaacs and Jacobs and Davids compleatnesse in covenant respects and Church respects Gentile Churches and members are as
beleeving seed with their children so it 's but the same now thou beleever and thy seed after thee are the same parties as Abraham and his seed yea thou Abraham and thy seed after thee scil in their generations wherein fathers and children begetting and begotten are comprehended And so now Abrahams spirituall seed in their generations are Abraham and his seed thus farre it 's the same yea but what must Abraham and this his seed doe and therefore doe because in covenant they must keepe the covenant But some are Infants there intended in the seed after thee and seed in their generations how can they keepe covenant Yes verily in the sense intended they may scil receive such a covenant and Church initiatory seale as he shall appoint to them according to their outward capacitie else to imagine any other externall way of their keeping of covenant it were vaine Abraham and his adult beleeving seed which so farre forth hee as communis persona did therein represent they may keepe Gods covenant many other wayes but the Infant seed of Abraham and of his beleeving children then or now cannot externally and actually keepe the covenant and externall condition thereof otherwise And let it bee attended that the wise gratious covenanter and Law giver of his Church hee distinctly layeth downe first this generall rule and principle with the ground of it before hee instance in or pitch upon any particular way or branch thereof Wherefore this generall being with greatest wisedome thus laid downe it must have its distinct consideration and weight by and in it selfe absolutè as well as any particular branch thereof may and doth admit of the like or as even this generall may have its consideration also comparatè in reference to any such particular Hee that were to preach of this Text Gen. 17. 9. might and would so handle it and raise distinct observations from it if one were to deale with an adult person a seeker which denyeth all visible Church ordinances c. and onely pleads interest in the promise in Christ and the Spirit and Father spirituall illuminations and consolations and quicknings promised this Scripture ground amongst others might now bee urged Thou shalt therefore even because of the promise and covenant keepe my covenant saith the Lord. Yea suppose it were some Jew that should bee converted and not deny the ordinances of Baptisme but like as many in former times as Constantine Theodosius and divers others did upon unwarrantable grounds hee should deferre his baptisme too long and nelect it too much pleading the fulnesse of the covenant and that all in all ordinances is their and in the branches of it the promises as in the well-springs Esay 12. 3. this Gen. 17. 9. might bee very pertinently urged to him Thou shalt therefore keepe my covenant either then hee must deny this Sacrament to bee any externall condition of the covenant on our parts as well as a visible seale thereof on Gods part which were ridiculous or if it bee yeelded to bee a dutie on mans part externally in covenant then it is manifest indignitie to God yea a breach of covenant to neglect it as receiving the initiatory Sacrament is a speciall branch of keeping Gods covenant so neglect or contempt thereof must bee acknowledged to bee a speciall breach of it and as much might bee urged in respect of neglect or contempt of the initiatory sealing of their seed or children both are equally made Gods covenant to bee kept or the covenant condition and dutie which most immediatly and necessarily and properly doth follow thence Hence this is firstly and principally here included as the keeping of Gods covenant by the persons interested therein according to their outward capacitie of it This royall generall covenant Law was not ceremoniall nor was the ground work of it ceremonial that covenant I will be a God to thee and thy seed was not ceremoniall vanishing but an everlasting if everlasting then an immutable covenant even the same to the worlds end that inference of this covenant duty laying upon such as were externally interested in it as propounded with Church reference Thou shalt therefore keepe my covenant and thy seed after thee this was not ceremoniall That covenant dutie in the generall and the keeping of it I meane an initiatory visible seale of the covenant and the receiving of it was not in the nature of it ceremoniall for then every species of this subalterne genus an initiatory covenant seale had been abolished by Christs comming and so not circumcision onely in the symboll and circumstance of it but in the genericall nature of it as an initiatory seale and sense of the righteousnesse of faith interest in the covenant c. and so baptisme too had never been instituted because it had been then to revive abolished ceremonies c. this generall Law was never repealed or abolished Say then that particular way of initiation first pitched upon on this ground worke namely cutting away of the foreskin of the flesh and that of males of eight dayes old c. were ceremoniall yet this generall covenant Law must not run parallel with it too I conclude then that particular way also of initiation unto covenant and Church fellowship by Baptisme of confederate parents and their seed as it is a covenant duty of which more anon so it depends upon externall covenant interest nor let any here interrupt the proceeding hereof with the old cavill touching covenant females it hath been said their naturall incapacity of that former way of initiation exempted them then and yet not now Nor yet doth that any way invalidate the conclusion propounded no more doth the objecting of Job It 's likely hee had a family Church which was not to abide and was a peculiarity of those times and no ordinary visible politicall Church in reference whereunto wee speake So to what some object about any beleevers in Rome or India c. we say such pearles are not ordinarily looked for in such dunghils nor would any seeke such living ones amongst those dead persons they are not a formed matter of a politicall visible Church but they are as materia informis They are quoad homines actually without and not within any politicall visible Church The covenant of grace nakedly considered giveth a person which is actually in it a remote right to the initiatory seale but it doth not give an immediate right thereto for so the covenant of grace as invested with Church covenant onely giveth this proximate right to that seale God being the God of order will have that his Church seale to bee attained in a way of order as of old strangers might not bee circumcised but with some submission to that Church order explicitly or implicitly and so now the orderly and ordinary dispensation of the seale is committed to the visible Church Matth. 28. 19 20. so that what ever right any have to the seale which are not of any particular visible
of the 4 reasons against such putting away mentioned in the former part of the 14 vers meet it was to strengthen that reason in especiall which so directly met with the bottome scruple as it was in this very clause Else c. but now c. And to imagine this to bee the Apostles inference If you put away husbands or wives you must put away children too c. supposeth an Apostle to reason impertinently and unsoundly since in the case of divorce of spouses it doth not necessarily follow that the children begotten of them bee also put away For 1. even in lawfull divorces for adultery no word of the enjoyning childrens being put away Matth. 19. Chap. 5. nor was it so practiced the husband need not own his wives bastard indeed as his other children but must own those begotten of his own wife before her divorce Deut. 21. 15 16 17. compared with Chap. 24. 1. 2. The children lawfully begot partaking of the believing parent as well as Pagan Reason will plead as strongly with nature and more strongly with grace in the divorcing party putting away the other when desirous to abide verse 12 13. that the children are rather to be detained by the beleeving party as suppose the father c. for higher and holyer ends then by putting them away to hazard their owne childrens soules welfare 3. If there had been any weight in their feare of pollution by retaining the infidell yoke-fellow yet no colour of pretence of pollution of conscience by retaining their little ones whom they might better season with their owne Christianisme then feare being leavened by their paganisme or the like There needed not therefore any such supposed remedy of pollution by removing their children also As for that parallelling of that Ezra 10 44. with this case it is very unsuitable That was a case of persons inchurched having an expresse prohibition to the contrary not to joyne with such as persons betwixt whom and themselves there was a partition wall yet doing it This is a case of persons all of one sort Pagan when first married and under no such prohibition onely after they were married one partie embraceth the faith now to make the intervening of grace as a sole occasion of such breakings of families in pieces were sad and scandalous yet to suppose Pagans to be under such a prohibition as the Jewes to match with Pagans had been to make them wholly prohibited marriage at all 2. Others expound it onely of legitimacy or illegitimacy of the children in reference to the lawfulnesse or unlawfulnesse of the spouses some as I. S. consider the beleeving spouse as such in both effects of the spouse being sanctified unto them and the childrens being holy or lawfull producing Tit. 1. 15. To the pure all things are pure or lawfull use as hee expounds it Others of whom Beza speaketh in his notes upon 1 Cor. 7. extend it to the children of both parents Infidell that they are not spurious but legitimate which he refuteth from the supposition of the Apostle For wherefore saith Beza should hee discourse of bastards or of both spouses Infidell which makes me the more wonder at Beza as quoted by some for matrimoniall sanctitie as here understood if taken of civill sanctitie or lawfulnesse Beza professedly disclaimes it for saith hee the Apostle discourseth not of civill policy but touching conscience And I grant saith he that the marriage of Infidels is civilly lawfull It 's not fornication before God But what is this to Pauls scope discoursing touching conscience and Beza professedly argueth against any supposall that because the beleeving party is not mentioned Vers 14. yet that therefore not understood in the present case as such as some expound this place which yeeld that he speaketh of persons one a beleever the other infidell but say that in this case hee considers not the person as a beleever but as any other lawfull man or wife This Beza by Argument refuteth C. B. hee seemeth to propend to this later exposition that the Apostle considers them not here as one a beleever the other not but meerly as husband and wife As for the conjecture of I. S. it hath already appeared that Tit. 1. 15. intends more then a bare lawfull use common to all Infidels as the opposition sheweth But to the unbeleeving is nothing pure when yet many things are lawfull And so here when the Apostle speakes of persons as such one whereof is a beleever in and to whom the other is sanctified hee intends more then a bare lawfull husband or wife to them and for their children also more then civilly legitimate And it were too absurd in an Apostle to lay that for a cause of legitimacy which is not But Gods ordinance rather not faith Pagans marriages being as lawfull as Christians And it were absurd to reason That unlesse one bee a beleever the children are bastards when the children of each man and wife Pagan or Christian are as Adam and Eve which herein were radically considered in reference to all such like couples such whose children are a seed of God or of his institution in generall approbation as Mal. 2. 15. truly proveth This was unheard of doctrin Heb. 13. 14. and tended rather to destruction in all families where such doctrine should come then to peace And if there had been any ground of scruple in these cases of the Corinthians considered onely as man and wife what need they trouble Apostles with such civill cases or what hath Christ and his Disciples as such to doe in civill matters Luk. 12. 2 Tim. 2. The Apostles would not bee cumbred with Table-service Act. 6. 4. much lesse with the civill law intricacies And whereas Mal. 2. 15. is urged as a proofe by some it proveth that which was not questioned scil legitimacy of children of any lawfull man and wife but disproveth such a Tenet that unlesse the couples bee one or both Inchurched beleevers as were these 1 Cor. 7. 14. their children are not a seed of God a legitimate seed In that God eyed all the sonnes and daughters of Adam and Eve as conjugally united in the same common reference as of duties in common of love care c. in the husband and subjection in the wife and fidelitie in both so in this fruit of such lawfull conjugall fellowship legitimacy of children wherein both parties as lawfull man and wife have equall share without any such peculiar beleeving Covenant and Church respect as any Instrumentall cause thereof whereas the Apostle speaketh of a case of holinesse of children arising from some peculiar consideration of some one parent and not the other or if of both yet not of both in that common way of meere civill lawfulnesse of matrimony but with peculiar reference to an instrumentall cause of an higher nature And so wee come to the other opinion to which answer is made in the sixth and seventh considerations before mentioned as the Apostle speakes of
their children as well Else therein had they not beene so compleat as those formerly which had a covenant made with and externally sealed both to them and theirs yea the sealing of the covenant as wee have shewed by baptizing of such as have children is not so compleat in ordinary dispensations unlesse as occasion is offered the same bee sealed initiatorily on their children according to their outward capacitie of the externall signe The whole covenant is as well sealed on Abrahams seed as on himselfe and not wholly sealed on either without other as not wholly made with the parent but with respect to the other It were else to cut off a great part of Abrahams Church seed so make Church parents more imperfect but especially unto the false teachers argument the answer was not else so full Be it that Christ is the Antitype of circumcision now So hee was to the faith of them of old Bee it that Gentiles are inwardly circumcised so were they of old yea bee it that inchurched parents are externally circumcised in their externall baptisme actually and so circumcision is so far uselesse to that sort of growne persons yet what is this to the other sort of persons which used yea they mostly to bee circumcised and it was their parents dutie to indeavour their circumcision as well as their owne If now there bee no such persons to bee externally circumcised also in baptisme and that their parents are under no tie in that respect then at least circumcision in respect of them may bee usefull and necessary there being no initiatory signe appointed for them To say they have the internall circumcision our opposites will deny and if they have had sundry elect Infants of Abrahams seed of old To say they are antitypically circumcised in Christ our opposites will not affirme of all the Churches chilches children and if onely of some as much was virtually in Christ to come for the elect Jewish babes yea for those parents and children belonging to grace before ever circumcision was of use to say they are externally circumcised in their parents baptisme as much might have been said that way if rightly said of the Jewish children in their parents circumcision yet they were actually circumsed also The Apostle argueth of a compleatnesse in Christ with reference to baptisme which is therefore here named as an outward meane whereby inchurched Gentiles especially come ordinarily to have communion with Christ and to bee compleat in him yea and as an outward way of holding forth manifesting and proving the uselesnesse of circumcision to them for it is an answer to circumcision teachers as Mr. Blackwood rightly hath it unlesse therefore our opposites will exclude them all Church interest contrary to what wee have proved or that they would have beleevers children denied of one initiatory outward meane of communion with Christ whence that of baptizing into his name or covenant followship unlesse also they would have us want one Apostolicall way of arguing to prove the uselesnesse of circumcision to all sorts of persons which used personally to bee circumcised of old or unlesse they will deny that baptisme is of the same spirituall use as circumcision was scil to bee a Sacramentall signe or seale of the covenant and the visible interest of persons in it which Hen. Den denyeth but others doe not and if they doe wee have formerly proved the contrary I see not how the force of Gal. 2. 10 11 12. will bee avoided in this point of Paedobaptisme SECT XI VVHereas therefore divers things are brought to invalidate any binding reference to circumcision if it bee intended of any type to the substantialls of it and in it or any forcible analogy in divers materiall things deduced thence wee deny the cogency of such arguments as when Mr. B. tells us of a many differences betweene baptisme and circumcision and so I. S. the like and Hen. Den the like it will not thence follow ergo in nothing alike still that one as the other is a seale of the covenant that one as the other distinguisheth the visible members of the Church from Pagans and this followeth not and wee assay not to make the proportion runne of foure feet as the proverbe is nor to prove proportion in sundry circumstantialls peculiar to that ordinance It sufficeth us that they agree in their common author Sacramentall nature and end They are both institutions of God Sacramentall initiatory signes in their natures to bee applied to persons of all sorts as they are outwardly capable thereof which are visibly interested in covenant c. albeit in their particular manner of administration and the circumstances of time place sex nation member of the body c. they differ successors are not successors if every way the same if no way different yet I would not create differences as some do which never were As first that the circumcised Babes did eate the Passeover when yet the Law to all that came thither strangers or Israelites was one scil to keepe it to the Lord with spirituall respects to Gods ends and rules as Exod. 12. 48 49. to bee in heart prepared as well as to bee ceremonially cleane 2 Chron. 30. 18 19 20. the children in that family celebration of it asked not what meane wee by this service as if they actually partooke thereof but what meane yee by it Exod. 12. 26. or if such children capable of instruction were admitted as some authors have thought yet not Babes which could not goe up to the Temple Deut. 6. 16 17. Nor doth the mention of the house or congregation which some who will not allow us that latitude of like plea urge as keeping it evince it but is an usuall Synecdoche such rost parched meate and soure hearbes c. Exod. 12. were too harsh to goe downe with such Babes Numb 9. 3. they in the Wildernesse kept the passeover according to all the rites of it yet none will say the uncircumcised males therein for circumcision was not used in the Wildernesse Josh 5. did eate contrary to expresse rule no uncircumcised person shall eate Secondly that circumcision sealed Canaan as if that were all Gods covenant mentioned Gen. 17. 7 8. 11. 13. but of this formerly Or thirdly that reprobates as well as elect were then sealed as if none but elect are now sealed as for Esau and Ishmael in what sense they by extraordinary revelation to this or that person being discovered and yet after sealed how it might bee and was as was that of Judas to Christ administring the Supper and sop a knowne devill yet admitted c. and no crossing of ordinary rule we formerly spake to it Fourthly circumcision bound say some to the law What not I hope in the rigour of it and as the substance of the covenant of workes made with Adam was Abraham and Isaac c. bound thus thereby and not rather to it as to an holy rule of life and so are wee yea by our
of his Law it is all applyed to all indefinitely yet sense and reason tells us that sundry of the children were neither capable then of such observing of all Gods words no nor so much as hearing the words read at that time in such sort as thereby at present to bee stirred up to feare or obey the Lord but some things onely are appliable to the whole assembly wholly other things now mentioned to the whole at present onely in respect of the growne part and to the others no other thâ—n as involved in any such acts of their parents at most so Joel â— 14. â— solemne assembly of all the inhabitants of the land is to 〈◊〉 convented for fasting so chap. 2. 1. againe repeated and ver 15 16 17. instance is given in the sucklings as to bee a part of that assembly for that end and the maine dutie vers 13 14 is laid forth as required of them all which are called to this solemne fast scil not meerely to abstaine from food or to expresse sorrow by rending their garments but to rend their hearts by godly compunction and sorrow c. all will yeeld that such things are not properly applyable to sucklings but to some of the assembly nor yet will any in reason exclude Infants from being of that Church assembly for such Church use according as they were capable of any thing mentioned albeit not capable of all mentioned Jer. 43. 4. 6 7 disobedience to Gods voyce is applied to all the people yet not properly verified in all the children which were of that people and company Deut. 29. 1. All Israel is said to have seene those wonders in Egypt and yet many of them that were then growne it being 40. yeares after their comming out thence vers 5. never saw the same much lesse did the little ones which were a part of that assembly vers 14. yet who will conclude because little ones were not Israel seeing theâ—e wonders that therefore they were not Israel entring into Covenant vers 11 12. and marke the phrase applied to the little ones that they also entred into covenant with God ibid. as well as God is said to make his covenant with them vers 14 15. this was a covenant of grace as hath been proved so that Hen. Dens notion holds not concerning God being in a sense in covenant with Infants but they may not bee said to enter into covenant with him that by the way To returne to that in hand nations baptized Matth. 28. are to bee taught to observe Christs commandements but non sequitur that Infants are no part of the Churches in the nation to bee baptized so here Infants beleeve not actually c. non sequitur ergo not to bee added to the Church in a solemne way of initiation to Church estate inchoatively by externall baptisme Both may stand together and have their truth of the whole in some things wholly wherein they are capable as of Church estate and baptisme in others true of the whole in respect of some part thereof as actuall beleeving To like purpose C. B. argueth weakely in his sixth argument that the whole citie was baptized men and women mentioned not their children too as if therefore excluded I may as well argue from Gen. 14. 11 12. That those Kings tooke all the goods of Sodome and Lot ergo they tooke no people besides contrary to vers 16. or if they did take people and women yet not children too And if Lot were first taken and then redeemed by Abraham with others yet not ergo his children or daughters or if then under the notion of women yet not a word of children wherefore either they were left behind in the Citie without their Parents when they were taken or if taken with the Cities and persons yet not brought backe againe which would bee absurd to affirme Secondly suppose the beleeving Jewes children were not just at that time baptized when their Parents were thus solemnly admitted to that Church of Christians yet non sequitur that they were not baptized afterwards When members are solemnly admitted to compleat and fixed membership in our Churches wee baptize not oft times their little ones the first day of that their admittance yet doe it afterwards as occasion is offered and their desire thereof signified SECT VIII YEa but neither then nor in any other Text in the Acts is it ever mentioned that any children of any beleeving Jewes were baptized A. Non sequitur that therefore they were never baptized Many things of great weight were done by Christ and so by his Apostles which were not recorded yet not therefore never acted by them John 20. 30 31. of which see more before touching consequences of Scripture But doe our opposites indeed conclude that none of the beleeving Jewes children were ever baptized by Apostolicall approbation Is it imaginable that among so many thousand beleeving Jewes at least ecclesiastically such which are so moved and touched in the case of their childrens being not circumcised and sealed that way to the covenant that it would not much more startle them to suppose such a tenet or practise as to deny them to bee sealed any way by initiatory sealing at all as neither by circumcision so not by baptisme Are they so ready to move contentions in that point Acts 22. 21. and upon but a supposed deniall of it and are they no way moved so much as to put the case state the question to be satisfied from the old Testament for no other Scripture was then extant why their Infants which were ever used to bee reckoned in Abrahams covenants so sealed thereto by the seale then only in use but now they are either wholly excluded any Church interest and any covenant interest actually or if owned yet as such yet why denied of that which is now the initiatory seale of such interest in the covenant Yea doth Peter expresly mind them of the interest of their children as well as themselves in the promise wishing them therefore to be baptized and this occasioned no stirring of questions and cases why on the same ground their children must not be also baptized other contentions about other things are mentioned and other differences in points controvertible in those times as Acts 11. 2 3. and 15. 1. 2. c. and 21. 11. and 6. 1 2. and 15. 38 39. and Gal. 2. 11. Surely then either the beleeving Jewes which when worse men had that priviledge of their childrens covenant and Church estate and right to the initiatory seale the case is so soone altered with them that they thinke it no matter of scruple to call the deniall and omission of it into question or to assay to desire satisfaction in it for matter of judgement and practise in the case or if starting it why is not so great a controversie mentioned as started by some at least that could not so wholly forget their childrens good when solicitous about their owne and when so