Gal. 3.25 26 27. the Apostle speaks thus But after faith is come we are no longer under a Schoolmaster meaning Circumcision c. For we are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ which Text is apparently answerable to Col. 2.8 9 10 11 12. And again Rom. 6.3 4 5. Know you not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death therefore are we buried with him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by baptisme into death that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father even so we also should walk in newnesse of life For if we have been planted together in the likenesse of his death we shall be also in the likenesse of his resurrection In which places you may easily perceive that by putting on Christ we come to be exempted from the Schoolmaster that is the Law and so from Circumcision that being planted into Christ we walk in newnesse of life that is as Rom. 7.6 that now we are delivered from the Law that being dead wherein we were held that we should serve in newnesse of spirit and not in the oldnesse of the letter and that the means hereof is by Baptisme by which we put on Christ and are baptized into his death and by faith whereby we are no longer children under age but sons come to their inheritance Thus have I at last waded through your third Conclusion and the Text Col. 2.11 12. the misunderstanding of which hath been the ignis fatuus foolish fire which hath led men out of the way in this matter into bogs YOur fourth Conclusion followes That by Gods own expresse order Infants as well as grown men were in the time of the Jews to be initiated and sealed with the signe of Circumcision whether Jews by nature or Proselytes of the Gentiles one Law was for them all if they receive thâ— Covenant they and their children were circumcised It is true this was Gods expresse order and it is as certain that this expresse order of God is now revoked or repealed Acts 15.10.20.26 Gal. 5.1 2 3. as belonging to that administration which was before Christ came That which you adde of the females virtuall circumcision in the males hath been examined before I passe on to that which followes And whereas some who see which way the strength of this Conclusion tendeth do alledge that though Circumcision was to be applyed to their Infants yet it was not as a seal of the spirituall part of the Covenant of Grace but as a nationall badge a seal of some temporall and earthly blessings and priviledges as of their right to the Land of Canaan c. And that Ishmael though he was circumâ—ised for some temporall respects yet he was not thereby brought under the Covenant of Grace which was expresly said to be made with Abraham in relation to Isaac and his seed They that thus object speak that which is truth only whereas you make the objectors say That it was not a seal of the spirituall part of the covenant of Grace I would say to all that were circumcised and when you say but as a nationall badge c. that Ishmael was circumcised for some temporall respects I would leave out those words and say because God commanded it Thus did I expresse my self in my Latin paper affirming that not right to Euangelicall promises I now adde nor right to any other benefit by the Covenant made with Abraham was the proper and adequate reason why these or those were circumcised but Gods Precept For as much as persons were to be circumcised who had no right either to the Euangelicall promises or any other in that Covenant which was confirmed by circumcision and I named Ishmael concerning whom though God heard Abraham in giving him some blessing upon Abrahams prayer when he understood the promise was not intended for Ishmael but to Isaac Gen. 17.19 20. yet he expresly added his determination to hold vers 21. that he would establish his Covenant with Isaac not with Ishmael and on the other side all the females in the Covenant were uncircumcised though some of them had right to all the promises in the Covenant and the Text expresly makes the reason of what Abraham did to be Gods appointment v. 23. and no other Wherefore those that say that Circumcision did not seal the spirituall part of the Covenant of Grace to all and that Ishmael was not by circumcision brought under the Covenant of Grace say no more then what the Apostle saith Rom. 9.6 7 8. Gal. 4.28 29. and your self pag. 13. where you say only true believers are made partakers of the spirituall part of the Covenant Now the end of this objection is to prove that it followes not because a person was appointed to be circumcised therefore he was within the Covenant of Grace or that because persons were within the Covenant of Grace therefore they were to be circumcised Let us now see what you answer to this You say I answer there is nothing plainer then that the Covenant whereof Circumcision was a signe was the Covenant of Grace It is granted that the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. was the Covenant of Grace though not a pure Covenant but a mixt covenant But what then Doth it follow that every one that was circumcised was in the Covenant of Grace It is true the sacrifices did confirm the Covenant in Christs blood but it doth not follow that all that did offer sacrifices were partakers of the Covenant The like may be said of Baptisme the Lords Supper Manna c. which they that did partake of yet were not all of them in the Covenant as the Apostle shews 1 Cor. 10.5 Heb. 3.18 19. It is one thing to be under the outward administration another thing to be in the covenant of Grace This is proper only to elect persons the other is common to Elect and Reprobate and depends meerly on Gods appointment without any other consideration You go on Abraham received circumcision a signe of the righteousnesse of Faith Very true and the Apostle expoundeth this when he saith which he had yet being uncircumcised that he might be the father of all them that believe though they be not circumcised that righteousnesse might be imputed to them also Rom. 4.11 So that the Apostle makes Circumcision a seal of righteousnesse but not to all or only circumcised persons but to all believers whether Jews or Gentiles so that according to the Apostles doctrine Circumcision in as much as it sealed to Abraham the righteousnesse of faith which he had being yet uncircumcised iâ— a seal to the Gentiles that believe of the righteousnesse of faith though they be never circumcised So that it is so far from being true that persons have the promise therefore they must have the seal in their persons that it followes persons
you thus expresse ANother you shall finde Mat. 28. where our Saviour bids them goe and teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost Where you have two things first what they were to doe Secondly to whom they were to doe it they were to preach and teach all things which he had Commanded them that is they were to Preach the whole Gospel Mark 16.15 The whole Covenant of grace containing all the promises whereof this is one viz. That God will be the God of Believers and of their seed that the seed of Believers are taken into Covenant with their Parents this is a part of the Gospel preached to Abraham The Gospel which was preached to Abraham is delivered Galat. 3.8 9. And the Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the heathen through faith preached before the Gospel to Abraham saying In thee shall all Nations be blessed so then they which be of faith are blessed with faithfull Abraham And Rom. 1.16 17. I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ for it is the power of God to salvation to every one that beleeveth to the Jew first and also to the Greeke For therein is the righteousnesse of God revealed from faith to faith as it is written the just shall live by faith The like may be proved out of Rom. 10. and elsewhere but it is no wrong to say it that it is a new Gospel to affirme that this is one of the Promises of the Covenant of grace that God will be the God of Believers and of their seed that the seed of Believers are taken into Covenant with their Parents I cannot derive it's pedegree higher then Zuinglius But you goe on And they were to baptize them that is to administer Baptisme as a seale of the Covenant to all who received the Covenant this is a dark Paraphrase you expresse it clearer pag. 35. Expresse Command is there that they should teach the heathen and the Jewes and make them Disciples and then baptize them If your meaning be the same in both places I am content you should Comment on your own words you goe on Secondly Wee have the persons to whom they were to do this all Nations whereas before the Church was tyed to one Nation one Nation onely were Disciples now their Commission was extended to make all Nations Disciples every Nation which should receive the faith should be to him now as the peculiar Nation of the Jewes had been in time past In a word Nations here are opposed to the one Nation before I grant that Nations are opposed to one Nation and that thâ— Commission was extended to all Nations which you expresse well pag. 44. Whereas before they were to goe to the lost sheepe of the house of Isâ—ael now they were to goe unto all the world But what sense those woâ—ds may carry Every Nation which should receive the faith should be to him now as the peculiar Nation of the Jewes had been in time past is doubtfull For either it may have this sense Every Nation that receives the faith that is Believers of every Nation shall be to mee a peculiar people as the Jewes were in the sense that Peter speaks 1 Pet. 2.9 and so the sense is good or thus When a Nation shall receive the faith that is a great or eminent part the Governours and chief Cities representative body shall receive the faith that Nation shall in like manner have all their little ones capable of Baptisme and counted visible members of the Church as the posteritie of the Jewes were in the time of that Church administration This I guesse is the businesse that is now upon the anvill by observing â—undry passages in latter Writers with whom your Sermon agrees as if it came out of the same forge Mr Blake pag. 20. hath these words In the same sense and latitude as Nation was taken in respect of the Covenant of God when the Covenant and Covenant-initiating-Sacrament was restrained to that one onely Nation where their Commission was first limited in the same sense it is to be taken unlesse the Text expresse the contrary now this Commission is enlarged This cannot be denied of any that will have the Apostles able to know Christs meaning by his words in this enlarged Commission But Nation then as is confessed did comprehend all in the Nation in respect of the Covenant and nothing is expressed in the Text to the contrary therefore it is to be taken in that latitude to comprehend Infants Mr Rutherfurd in his peaceable and temperate plea Ch. 12. Concl. 1. Arg. 7. hath these words Seeing God hath chosen the race and nation of the Gentiles and is become a God to us and to our seede the seede must be holy with holinesse of the chosen Nation and holinesse externall of the Covenant notwithstâ—â—â—ing the father and mother were as wicked as the Jewes who slew the Lord of glory And indeed those Paedobaptists are forced to say so who justifie the practise of baptizing foundlings infants of Papists excommunicate persons Apostates if they be borne within their Parish thereby directly crossing their own tenent That this is the priviledge of a believer from the Covenant of grace I will be the God of a believer and his seed And the Apostles words 1 Cor. 7.14 according to their own exposition which is that the children whereof one of the parents is not sanctified by the faith of the other are federally uncleane nor considering that this practise of baptizing all in the Parish arose not from any conceit of the federall holinesse of a Nation but from the conceit of Cyprian with his 66 Bishops that the grace of God is to be denied to none that are borne of men upon which ground and the necessitie of baptisme to save a childe from perishing as of old so still among the common people and officiating Priests children are baptized without any relation to Covenant-holinesse particular or nationall But I leave this to the Independents to agitate who have in this point the advantage and returne to the Text Mat. 28.19 Concerning which the question is what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or them refers to in our Saviours words whether all Nations must be the substantive to it without any other circumscription or the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men and women as the Author of infants baptizing proved lawfull by Scriptures or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disciples included in the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may be translated make Disciples That Author denies not but that the verbe may signifie to make Disciples yet by the subject matter which it is here taken and used to expresse it must be taken for to teach and not to make Disciples because to mâ—ke Disciples was not in the power of the Apostles upon whom the command lay it being the peculiar of God to frame the heart to submit unto and embrace the Apostles teaching and to
them to him by his Spirit forgiving them their birth-sin through Christs obedience â—lthough they be not baptized As corrupt as the Schoolmen were they could say Gratia Dei non alligatur Sacramentis The grace of God is not tyed to Sacraments If most of the Anabaptists hold universall grace and free-will there may be as much said of most of the paedobaptists taking in a great part of the Papists almost all the Lutherans and Arminians and if they denyed originall sin it is their dangerous error but it is not consequent on their denying Paedobaptisme But the late confession of faith made â—n the name of 7. Churches of them in London Art 4 5 21 22 23 24 26. will abundantly answer for them in this point of Pelagianisme The third is Or that although they be tainted with originall corruption and so need a Saviour Christ doth pro bene placito save some of the infants of Turks and Indians dying in their infancy as well as some of the infants of Christians and so carry salvation by Christ out of the Church beyond the Covenant of grace where God never made any promise Nor doth this follow for it may be said all that dye in their infancy are not damned nor all saved because they have no birth-sin nor some of the Indians saved For the some that may be saved may be the infants of believers to whom God may forgive their birth-sin without baptisme Thus you may perceive how the push of all the horns of your horned Syllogisme may be avoyded But you conceive it a great absurdity to say That Christ doth pro bene placito save some of the infants of Indians it is true it is a bold saying to say he doth save them but â—is as bad to say that God may not save them pro bene placito according to his good pleasure He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy Buâ— then salvation by Christ is carried out of the Church where he hath made no promise if you mean by the Church the invisible Church of the elect the Church of the first-born that are written in heaven of which Protestant Divines as Morton de Ecclesia and others against Bellarmine understand that saying Extra Ecclesiam non est salus without the Church is no salvation then it follows noâ— that if the infants of Indians be saved salvation is carryed without the Church for they may be of the invisible Church of the elect to whom belongs the promise made to Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy seed But if you mean it of the visible though I disclaim Zuinglius his opinion who was a stiffe assertor of Paedobaptisme and I think the founder of the new way of maintaining it by the new addition to the Covenant of grace that Hercules Arist des Socrates Numa and such like heathens are now in heaven yet I cannot say no persons without the communion of the visiblâ— Church are saved He that could call Abraham in Vr of Chaldea Job in the land of Vz and Rahab in Jericho may save some amongst Turks and Indians out of the visible Church You will not call Rome a true visible Church nor will you I think say that all are damned that are in Rome You adde That God hath made a promise to be the God of believers and of their seed we all know If you know it yet I professe my ignorance of such a promise I reade indeed of a promise made to Abraham That he would be his God and the God of his seed and I reade That they that are of the faith of Abraham are the children of Abraham Gal. 3.7.29 Rom. 4.11 12 13 16. But I am yet to seek for that promise you speake of to be the God of believers and their seed You say But where the promise is to be found that he will be thâ— God of the seed of such Parents who live and die his enemies and theâ—â— seed not so much as called by the preaching of the Gospel I know not Nor do I. Only I know this I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion Rom. 9.15 which is the Apostles answer in this very case Thus have I entred your out-works I shall now try the strength of your walls I mean the third part of your Sermon Infant-baptisme cannot be deduced from holy Scripture PART III. Concerning the Arguments from Scripture for Infant-baptism YOu say My first argument to â—his The Infants of believing parents are foederati therefore they must be signati They are within the Covenant of Grace belonging to Christs body Kingdome Family therefore are to partake of the seal of his covenant or the distinguishing badge between them who are under the Covenant of grace and them who are not The ordinary answer to this argument is by denying that Infants are under the Covenant of grace only some few deny the consequence that although they were within the Covenant yet it follows not that they must be sealed because say they the women among the Jews were under the covenant yet received not circumcision which was the seal of the Covenant They that deny the consequence of your argument do it justly for the consequence must be proved by this universall All that are foederati must be signati all that are in the covenant of Grace must be sealed which is not true If it were true it must be so either by reason of some necessary connexion between the termes which is none for it is but a common accident to a man that hath a promise or a covenant made to him that he should have a speciall sign it may adesse vel abesse a subjecto it may be present or absent from the subject God made a speciall promise to Joshuah that he should bring Israel into the Land of Canaan to Phineas a covenant of an everlasting Priesthood without any speciall sign or seal distinct from the Covenant or else it must be so by reason of Gods will declared concerning the covenant of Grace but that is not true The promise made to Adam which you confesse was the same in substance with the covenant of Grace had no speciall sign or seal annexed to it Noah Abel were within the covenant of Grace yet no speciall sign appointed them therefore it is not Gods will that all that are foederati in the Covenant must be signati Sealed if they had been signati though they were foederati it had been will-worship God not appointing it to them But you will say all that are foederati should be signati since the solemn Covenant with Abraham But neither is this certain sith we finde no such thing concerning Melchizedeck and Lot that lived in Abrahams time nor concerning Job that it 's conceived lived after his time You will say but it is true of all the foederati in Abrahams family but neither is that true for male children before
to account Infants of believers by an act of opinion according to a rule of prudence by which the Sacraments are to be administred to belong to God in facie Ecclâ—siae visibilis in respect of outward profession as the Catechumeni or participation of baptisme and the Lords Supper as compleat Christians And as for being accounted by an act of opinion according to a rule of charity to belong to God it hath no place in this matter For judging of mens present estate by a rule of charity is when men judge of others the best that their words and works may be interpreted to signifie according to that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 13.7 Charity believes all things But infants do not shew any thing by words or works that may signifie their thoughts and therefore in respect of them whether they be good or bad we can have no judgement but must only suspend our act of judging them But if by judgement of chariry be meant as some expresse it conceiving a thing to be so because we know nothing to the contrary then are we to conceive all infants to belong to God yea almost all men in the world by the judgement of charity because for ought we know to the contrary all may be elected Wherefore I must either here stop or else gather your meaning by your expressions in other parts of your Sermon and the expressions of those with whom I conceive you concurre in opinion and therefore if I should not exactly light on your meaning you are to thank your selfe but not to blame me This is then that which I conceive you meane That in the promise which God made to Abraham That he would be his God and the God of his seed as this promise comprehends Evangelicall blessings the infants of believers are comprehended and therefore they are foederati taken into Covenant with their Parents And yet I am at a stand whether when you say they are taken into Covenant with their Parents and that the promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed belongs to them in respect of Evangelicall blessings you mean it in respect of saving graces or the priviledge of outward Ordinances though the latter is no more true then the former yet it is lesse dangerous and sometimes your expressions incline me to think you mean no more especially that which you say pag. 13. Secondly All true believers are Abrahams seed Gal. 3.29 These only are made partakers of the spirituall part of the Covenant neverthelesse because the most of your expressions carry it thus that you conceive that God hath promised according to the Covenant with Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy seed to be the God of the naturall seed of believers in respect of the saving benefits of the Covenant of grace in Christ and your proofes tend that way I shall oppose that assertion But that I may not be thought to wrong you or cum larvis luctari to fight with a vizour the reasons why I conceive you mean or at least your readers are likely to take your meaning so are these you say pa. 8. My first argument is They are within the Covenant of grace belonging to Christs body kingdome family therefore are to partake of the seal of his Covenant or the distinguishing badge between them who are under the Covenant of grace and them who are not Pag. 9. You expresse your second conclusion thus God will have the Infants of such as enter into Covenant with him to be accounted his as well as their Parents You set downe the substance of the Covenant of Grace pag. 10. to consist in those benefits and then you often say The children are in the Covenant of grace with their believing Parents and pag. 31. You reject the asserting to the Infants of believers priviledges peculiar to some and assert the priviledges belonging to the Covenant of grace which all that are in Covenant may claime which you say God made to Abraham and all his seed Besides your Texts you produce tend to prove that as Acts 2.39 c. and you say pag. 15. They shall be made free of Gods City according to Abrahams Copy I will bee thy God and the God of thy seed which in respect of us Gentiles can have no other meaning then in respect of justification sanctification and salvation p. 16. speaking of Zacheus you say Let him professe the faith of Christ and the Covenant of salvation comes to his house for now he is made a son of Abraham that is Abrahams promise now reacheth him And pag. 26. The proving of the two first conclusions gains the whole cause if the Covenant bâ— the same and children belong to it then they are to be owned as Covâ—nanters pag. 37. The whole Covenant of grace containing all the promises whereof this is one viz. That God will be the God of believers and of their seed that the seed of believers are taken into Covenant with their parents This is a part of the Gospel preached unto Abraham and the Apostles were to baptize them that is to administer baptisme as a seal of the Covenant to all those who received the Covenant And Master Vines in his Sermon pag. 19. cals them confederates with their believing parents and Mr. Blake pag. 16. God promisâ—s to be a God in Covenant to his and their seed which people in Covenant have also a promise from him of the Spirit Nor do I doubt but that your meaning is agreeable to the Directory which directs the Minister at Baptisme to teach That the promise is made to believers and their seed which promiâ—e what it is appears by the words following make this baptisme to the infant a seal of adoption remission of sins regeneration and eternall life and of all other promises of tht Covenant of grace And the truth is although in some passages especially Mr. Blake you speak more warily as if you would avow onlâ— a Covenant for outward priviledges as when Mr. Blake saith pag. 14. This birth-right intitles only to outward priviledges yet in applying thosâ— Texts Gâ—n 17.7 Act. 2.39 Mat. 19.14 and others you are inforced to expresse your selves as if you meant the Covenant whereby salvation is promised by Christ as knowing that those Texts you produce do otherwise speak nothing to the purpose bring plâ—inly meant of saving grâ—câ—s and the Covenant now of the Gospel is not of outward priviledges as the mixt Covenant made with Abraham waâ— and therefore if there be not a promise of saving graces to Infants they are not now under an Evangelicall Covenant of free grace and that baptism seals only the promise of saving grace remission of sins c. and therefore if there be not a promise of saving grace to infants in vain are they baptized the seal is put to a blank as some use to speak And if that there be no covenant of saving grace to no end is so much weight laid on
foedus dei inituÌ„ cum Abrahamo non omnes Abrahae posteros fimbria sua comprehendere sic simpliciter instituenduÌ„ esse censemus Esavus Jacobus erant ex posteris Abrahae at horuÌ„ utâ—uÌ„que non coÌ„plexus est Deus foedere suo cum Abrahamo inito ergo non omnes posteros Abrahami Probatur autem Deum non complexuÌ„ fuisse utruÌ„que foedere gratiae quiae non complexus est EsavuÌ„ majoreÌ„ sed JacobuÌ„ minoreÌ„ Bain on Eph. 1.5 p. 138. He answereth the assumption of the latter Syllogism by distinguishing of Israel children denying that al Israelites are that Israel to which Gods word belongeth or that all Abrahams seed are those children whoÌ„ God adopted to himselfe v. 7. but such only who were like Isaac first begotten by a word of promise and partakers of the heavenly calling The reason is to be conceived in this manner the rejecting of such who are not the true Israel nor belong not to the number of Gods adopted children cannot shake Gods word spoken to Israel and Abrahams seed but many of the Israelites and Abrahams seed aâ—e such to whom the word of God belonged not ergo the word of God is firm though they be rejected Pag. 139. A childe of the flâ—sh being such a one who descendeth from Abraham according to the flesh For it is most plaine that these did make them thinke thâ—mselves within the compâ—sse of the word because thâ—y were Israelites and the seed of Abraham in regard of bodily generation propagated from him and Arminius doth decline that in objecting and answering which this discourse consisteth Beside that though the sons of the flesh may signifie such who carnally not spiritually conceive of the Law yet the seed of Abraham without any adjoyned is never so taken The assumption which is to be proved is this That many of Abrahams seed are such to whom the word belongeth not The word which belonged not to Ishmael and Esau but to Isaac and Jacob only and such as were like to them that word belonged not to many of those who are the seed of Abraham and Israelites But the word shewing Gods love choice adoption blessing of Israel and Abrahams seed belonged not to Esau Ishmael and such as they were but to Isaac and Jacob. Amesius Animadv in Remonstr citat scripta Synod de Praeâ—estin cap. 8. § 6. thus expresseth the Apostles scope Multi sunt ex semine Abrahami ad quos verbum promissionis non spectat ut Ismael Ismaelitae si autem multi sunt ex semine Abrahami ad quos verbum promissionis non spectat tum rejectio multorum Judaeorum qui sunt ex semine Abrahami non irritum facit verbum promissionis Out of all which I gather if the naturall posterity of Abraham were not within the Covenant of grace by vertue of that promise Gen. 17.7 then much lesse are our naturall posterity but the former is true Rom. 9.6 7 8 9 10 11 12. therefore the latter is true and the contrary delivered in that which I conceive your â—ssertion false A second reason is this The Apostles Exposition of the promise shews us best what is the meaning of it but the Apostle when he expounds the promise of God to Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy seed as it was a promise of saving grace to wit justification and life expounds it as belonging to Abraham not as a naturall Father but as Father of the faithfull whether of the Jews or the Gentiles and his seed not his naturall but his spiriâ—uall seed Christ and believers Rom. 4.11 12 13 14 15 16 17. Gal. 3.7.16.29 Whence George Downham of Justification lib. 6. cap. 6. § 4. speakes thus The other promises concerning his seed are two The former concerning the multiplication of his seed that he should be a father of a multitude of Nations namely in Christ and that he would be a God to him and his seed he doth not say to seeds as of many but as of one to thy seed which is Christ Gal. 3.16 that is Christ mysticall 1 Cor. 12.12 Containing the multitude of the faithfull in all Nations both Jews and Gentiles This promise therefore implyeth the former that in Christ the promised seed Abraham himselfe and his seed that is the faithfull of all Nations should be blessed And in confirmation of this promise he was called Abraham because he was to be a Father of many Nations that is of the faithfull of all Nations for none but they are accounted Abrahams seed Rom. 9.7.8 Gal. 3.7.29 Thus he opens the Apostles meaning and thus frequently do Protestant Divines in their writings Now if only believers are in that promise as it was a promise of saving grace then it is not made to the naturall posterity as such of any believer much lesse of us Gentiles My third reason is this The Covenant of grace is the Gospel and so you call it pag. 37. when you say This is a part of the Gospel preached unto Abraham Now the Gospel preached to Abraham the Apostle thus expresseth Gal. 3.8 9. And the Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the heathen through faith preached before the Gospel unto Abraham saying in thee shall all Nations be blessed so then they which be of faith are blessed with faithfull Abraham and ver 11. But that no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God it is evident for the just shall live by Faith it is Hab. 2.4 By his faith And generally when Divines distinguish of the Covenant of grace and of workes they say the condition of the Covenant of grace is faith They then that say the Covenant of grace belongs not only to believers but also to their naturall children whether believing or not these adde to the Gospel and the Apostle saith of such Gal. 1.8 9. Let him be accursed Fourthly I thus argue If God have made a Covenant of grace in Christ not only to believers but also to their seed or naturall children then it is either conditionally or absolutely if conditionally the condition is either of works and then grace should be of works conâ—rary to the Apostle Rom. 11.8 or of Faith and then the sense is God hath promised grace to bâ—lievers and to their seed if believers that is to believers and believers which is nugatory If this Covenant of grace to believers seed be absolute then either God keeps it or not if he do not keep it then he breaks his word which is blasphemy if he do keep it then it follows that all the posterity of believers are saved contrary to Rom. 9.13 or if some are not saved though they be in the Covenant of grace there may bee Apostasie of persons in the Covenant of grace by which the Arguments brought by Mr. Prynne in his Perpetuity and others for perseverance in grace are evacuated and Bertius his Hymenaeus desertor justified The truth is generally to be in the Covenant
father into his covenant he takes the children in with him If he reject the parents out of covenant the children are cast out with them If you mean this taking in and casting out in respect of election and reprobation it is not true neither if you mean it of the Covenant of grace for that is congruous to election and reprobation Nor is it true in respect of outward Ordinances the father may be baptized heare the Word and not the child and on the contrary the father may be deprived and the child may enjoy them Nor is it true in respect of Ecclesiasticall censures the father may be excommunicated and the sonne in the Church and on the contrary And about that which you say there is no certainty in the Paedobaptists determination Rutherford The due right of Presbyterie p. 259. saith The children of Papists and excommunicate Protestants which are borne within our visible Church are baptized if their forefathers have been sound in the faith But others will deny it But it is true as well of Paedobaptists as of Anabaptists that like waves of the Sea they beat one agninst another You tell us That it was without question in the time of the Iews Gen. 17.9 And when any of any other Nation though a Canaanite or Hittite acknowledged Abrahams God to be their God they and their children came into covenant together That when Parents were circumcised the Children were to be circumcised is without questioâ— Gods command is manifest Whether this make any thing for baptizing Infants is to be considered in its place But that which you say It was in the time of the Iews if God did reject the parents out of the covenant the children were cast out with them is not true Parents might be Idolaters Apostates from Judaisme draw up the fore-skin again and yet the children were to be circumcised But in all this there is no Argument THe first Text you dwell upon is that Act. 2.38 39. and thus you speak And so it continues still though the Anabaptists boldly deny it Acts 2.38.39 When Peter exhorted his hearers who were pricked in their hearts to repent and to be baptized for the remission of sins he useth an argument to perswade them taken from the benefit which should come to their posterity For the promise saith he is to you and to your children and to all that are afar off even as many as the Lord our God shall call if once they obey the call of God as Abraham did the promise was made to them and their children VVhether they who obey this call were the present Jews to whom he spake or were afar off whether by afar off you will mean the Gentiles who as yet worshipped afar off or the Jews or any who were yet unborn and so were afar off in time or whether they dwelt in the remotest parts of the world and so were afar off in place The argument holds good to the end of the world Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost for the promise is made to you and your children they shall be made free of Gods city according to Abrahams copy I will be thy God and the God of thy seed It is a very irksome thing to Readers and especially to Answerers when they that handle a controversie give a text for their assertion and make a paraphrase of it but shew not how they conclude from it by which meanes the enemy is more hardly found then vanquished I wish if ever you write any more in this kind you would distinctly expound and then frame your arguments out of the text you produce for the present I shall devorare taedium swallow downe the tediousnes of this defect as well as I can You do not distinctly tell us what that promise was onely I gather it is that which you after expresse calling it Abrahams copy I will be thy God and the God of thy seed But then you do not distinctly tell us under which part you comprehend the promise to them whether under the first part I will be thy God or under the second I will be the God of thy seed It may seem you thus parallel'd them I will be thy God with the promise is unto you and the God of thy seed with that the promise is to your children But I must see better proofe then yet I have seen afore I assent to this construction I wil be thy God that is of every believer though the Author or infants bâ—pâ—izing proved lawfull by scriptures page 4. sâ—ith It is plaine and manifest by the Gramaticall construction of this promise I professe that I neither know rule in Grammar Logicke or Divinity for that interpretation and yet I thinke all the strength of your proofe lies in this imagined parallelisme Nor doe you tell us of what thing this promise was which you parallel with Abrahams copy I will be thy God and the God of thy seed whether it was a promise of saving graces or outward priviledges Onely that which you bring in of Zaccheus to interpret it let him professe the faith of Christ and the covenant of salvation comes to his house seemes to import that you conceive the meaning thus if you once obey the call of God as Abraham did the promise of salvation is to you and your children and sith you answer the second objection which you call a shift by rejecting the limiting of to you and your children with those words as many as the Lord shall call the sense must be this The promise of salvation is to you and your children whether the Lord our God call them or not But this proposition I know you will not stand to though as you handle the matter this is made the Apostles assertion But it may be you mean otherwise thus If you once obey the call of God as Abraham did the promise of outward church-priviledges that is to be members of the visible Church partakers of Baptism c. is to you and your children Now what an uncouth reason is by this made in the Apostles speech that if they did repent and were baptized the promise should be made good to them and to their children I use your own words expressing what you conceive the strength of the argument lies in that you they shal be members of the visible church partakers of baptism c. So that the Apostle is made to say thus If you will repent and be baptized the promise is to you and your children that you they shal be baptized What I conceive is the meaning I will shew afterwards in the mean time because though on the by you alleage that Text which Mr. Tho. Goodwin also at Bow in Cheapside urged and insisted on for this purpose I shall by the way examine what you say You say Let Zaccheus the Publican once receive Christ himself be he a Gentile as some think he was be he
but a derivative holines a holines derived to them froÌ„ their ancestors the first fruit is holy the lump holy the root holy the branches holy that is the fathers holy accepted in covenant with God the children beloved for their fathers sake and when the vail of unbelief shall be taken away the children and their posterity shal be taken in again because beloved for their fathers sakes Now then if our graffing in be answerable to theirs in all or any of these three particulars we and our children are graffed in together Your argument needs a swimmer of Delos to bring it out of the deep I will dive as deep as I can to fetch it up the thing it seems you would prove is that we and our children are grâ—ffed in together but the words are Metaphoricall and therefore obscure they may be true in a sense and yet not for your purpose The insition you speak of may be either into the visible or invsible church the graffing in may be either by faith or by profession of faith or by some outward ordinance Children may be either grown men or infants the graffing in may be either certain or probable certain either by reason of election covenant of grace made by them or naturall birth being children of believers probable as being likely either because frâ—quently or for the the most part it happens so though not necessary so not certain The thing that is to be proved is that all the infants of every believer are in the covenant of free grace in Christ by vertue thereof to be baptized into the communion of the vâ—sible church now it may be granted that infants of believers are frequently or for the most part under the election covenant of gracâ— whâ—ch whether it be so or not no meere man can tâ—l and so in the visible chuâ—ch yet it not follow that every infant of a believer in asmuch as he is tâ—e child of a beliâ—ver is under the covenant of grace therefore by baptisme is to be admitted into the visible church now let it be never so probâ—ble that God continues his election in the posterity of bâ—lievers accordingly hath promised to be thâ—ir God in his covenant of grace yet if this be the rule of baptizing children of beleivers no other infants are to bâ— baptized but such as are thus the practise must agree with the rulâ— so not all infants of believers are to be baptized but the elect in the covenant of grace If it be said but we are to judge all to be elected in the covenant of grace till the contrary appeares I answer that we are not to judge all to be â—lâ—cted or in the covenant of grace because we have Gods declaration of his mind to the contrary Rom. 9.6 7 8. and all experience proves the contrary to be truâ— nor is the administration of an outward ordinaÌ„ce instituted by God according to such a rule as is not possible to be known but according to that which is manifest to the ministers of it therefore sith God conceals his purpose of election and the covenant of grâ—ce which is congruous to it in respect of the persons elected it is certain God would not have this the rule according to which outward ordinances are to be administred because such persons are in the election and covenant of grace not others You say our graffing in is answerable to the Jews and their infants were graffed in by circuÌ„cision therefore ours are to be graffed in by baptism But in good sadnesse doe you thinke the Apostle here meanes by graffing in baptizing or circumcision or insition by an outward ordinance if that were the meâ—ning then breaking off must be meant of uncircumcising or unbâ—ptizing The whole context spâ—aks of election of some and rejection of others of the breaking off by uâ—beliefe and the standing by faith and your selfe seeme to understand the phrase so when you say pag. 43. to cut miserable man off from the wilde olive and graffe him into the true olive Tâ—e ingraffing to me is meant of the invisible church by election and faith which invisible church was first amongst the Jews and therefore called the olive out of Abraham the root who is therefore said to beare them And because Abraham had a double capacitie one of a naturall father and another of the father of the faithfull in respect of the former câ—pacitie some are called branches according to nature others wilde olives by nature yet graffed in by faith and when it is said that some of the naturall branches were broken off the meaning is not that some of the branches in the invisible church may be broken off but as when our Saviour Christ saith using the same similitude Joh. 15.2 Every branch in me not bearing fruit he taketh away The meaning is not that any branch truely in him câ—uld be fruitlesse or taken away but he calleth that a branch in him which was only so in appearance So the Apostle speaking of branches broken off meanes it not of such as were truely so but in appearance For similitudes doe not runne with four feet but vary in some things Now if this be the meaning of your words that the insition of the Gentiles is the same with the Jewes and the insition is meant of ingraffing by faith into the invâ—sible church it onely proves this that now beleâ—vâ—rs of Gentiles are by faith in the church of the elect as the Jewes but neither the beleeving Jewes Infants were in the covenant of grace becâ—use their children nor are our children But let us consider the three particulars you speake of that we may examine whether there be any shew of an argument for your purpose in this text You say as plaine it is out of the eleventh of Rom. 16 c. where the Apostles scope is to shew that we Gentiles have now the same graffing into the true olive which the Jews formerly had and our present graffing in is answerable to their present casting out and their taking in in the latter end of the world shal be the same graffing in though more gloriously as ours is now The Apostles scope in the whole chapter is plaine to answer that question v. 1. Hath God cast away his people which he doth 1. by shewing for the present in himselfe and others perhaps unknowne That God had then a remnant according to the election of grace 2. For the future from ver 11. to the end that he intends a calling of all Israel when the fulnesse of the Gentiles shall come in and ver 16. is one argument to prove it It is not the scope of the Apostle as you say To shew that the Gentiles have now the same graffing into the true Olive which the Jews formerly had but to prove that the Jews notwithstanding their presâ—nt defraction shall be graffed into their owne Olive But for the thing it selfe You say That the Gentiles havâ— now
the same graffing into the true Olive which the Jews formerly had But you must remember your own distinction pag. 10. of the substance of the Covenant and the administration of it It is certain that in respect of the substance of the Covenant we have the same graffing into the Olive the Church of the faithfull of which Abraham is the root that the Jews had We by faith are partakers of the root and fatnesse of the Olive tree ver 17. or in plainer termes as the Apostle â—lâ—gantly Ephes. 3.6 that the Gentiles should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fellow-heirs and of the same body and partakers of his promise in Christ through the Gospel In respect of which all believing Gentiles are Abrahams seed the Israel of God one in Christ Jesus But if you mean it of the outward administration of this ingraffing by Circumcision Baptisme c. nothing is more false For indeed the outward administration is utteâ—ly taken away as separating the Jews from the Gentiles of very purpose that the enmity betwixt Jews and Gentiles may be removed and they made one in Christ by his death Eph. 2.14 15 16. and if you mean this when you say we have the same graffing in with the Jews which your whole arguing tends to and your expression in those words for these outward â—ispensations import you mean it you evacuate the blood of Châ—ist in this particular You say Our present graffing in is answerable to their present casting out It is true our present graffing in is anâ—wâ—rable to their or rather for their casting out that is God would supply in his Olive tree the Church the casting away of the Jews by the calling of the Gentiles so much the Apostle saith v. 17. Thou being a wilde Olive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in ramorum defrâ—ctorum locum into the place of the branches broken off as rightly Beza if you mean it in this sense I grant it You adde And their taking in though more gloriously as ours is now It is true their taking in will be by faith as ours is now concerning other particulars as I doubt not but it will be more gloriously as you say so for the manner I must confesse I am at a stand I look upon it as a mystery as the Apostle cals it Rom. 11.25 You go on Now all know that when they were taken in they and their children were taken in when they were broken off they and their children were broken off when they shall be takâ—n in in the latter end of the world they and their children shall be taken in I grant it they were taken in and broken off togethâ—r in respect of Gods election and reprobation and when they shall be taken in in the latter end of the world they and their children shall be taken in Yea I thinke that as at the calling of the Gentiles there was a fuller taking in of the children of the Gentiles then ever was of the children of the Jewes afore Châ—ists comming according to thâ—t Heb. 8.11 So at the calling of the Jâ—ws there shall be a more full taking in of the children of the Jâ—ws then is now of the Gentiles according to that Rom. 11.26 and so all Israel shall be saved But all this proves not that God would have either all Infants of believers counted his as elect persons or in the Covenant of grace in Christ or in the face of the visible Church admitted to baptisme which was to be proved by you You go on And that because the root is holy that is Gods Covenant with Abraham Isaac and Jacob extends yet unto them when their unbeliefe shall be taken away and then after an illustration from Nebuchadnezzars dreame Dan. 4.14 15. you say of the Jews their present Nation like this tree is cut down and this holy root the Covenant made with their forefathers is suspended bound with an Iron barre of unbeliefe blindnesse being come upon them till the fulnesse of the Gentiles be come in and then all Israel shall be saved In this passage you somewhat alter the Apostles resemblance who doth not make the Jewish Nation to answer the tree but the branches nor doth he say the tree is cut down but the branches broken off and here you make the Covenant the root but a little after your words import when you say a holinesse derived from their ancestors c. that by the root you mean their Ancestors And you say The Covenant made with their forefathers is suspended which in some sense may be true that is thus the effects of Gods love to Israel are for the present suspended from those generations and so in our apprehension the Covenant is suspended but in exact speech it cannot be true sith Gods Covenant according to his intention and meaning cannot be suspended or stayed but doth alwayes take effect irresistibly In that wherein you alter the resemblance of the Apostle by putting in the cutting down of the tree instead of breaking off thâ— branches you much pervert the Apostles meaning who makes the tree that is the Church of believers still standing and some branches broken off and others graffed in And for that of the root it is true it is variously conceived by Interpreters some understanding with you the Covenant some Christ some Abraham Isaac and Jacob and some Abraham only which last I conceive to be genuine for the expressions of some branches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to nature and others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides nature Some naturall some ingraffed our not bearing the root but the root bearing us are plain evidences to me that by the root Abraham is meant Nor know I how to make the resemblance right but by this Exposition Now to say the root that is Abraham is bound with an Iron band of unbeliefe cannot have any handsome construction But you tell us And marke that in all this discourse the holinesse of the branches there spoken of is not meant of a personall inherent holinesse Then Master Thomas Goodwin is answered who in urging 1 Cor. 7.14 for Paedobaptisme saith in the New Testament there is no other holinesse spoken of but personall or reall by regeneration about the which he challenged all the world to shew the contrary whereas here is according to you a holinesse which is not personall or as Mr. Blake speakes qualitative and inherent But to go on You say But a derivative holinesse a holinesse derived to them from their Ancestors the first fruit is holy the lump holy the root holy the branches holy that is the Fathers holy accepted in Covenant with God the children beloved for their Fathers sake and when the vail of unbeliefe shall be taken away the children their posterity shall be taken in again bâ—cause beloved for their fathers sake Now then if our graffing in be answerable to theirs in any or all of these three particulars we and our children are graffed in together Object
not be a holy seed unlesse the faith or believership of the other parent could remove this barre You made the scope at first right to resolve them whether they might lawfully retain their Infidell wives or husbands but the scope you now give is but a meer figment not the Apostles You say now this can have no place of an argument in any case where one of the parents is not an Infidel I know not what you mean in this passage unlesse it be you would answer thus the Apostles scope is otherwise then the objector takes it therefore he can make no argument nor objection and so I need not make any answer which is a kinde of answering I am not acquainted with You go on But this was not the case amongst the Jews Hagar and Thamar and the concubines however sinfull in those acts yet themselves were Believers belonging to the Covenant of God and that barre lay not against their children as it did in the unbelieving wife This passage is indeed a grant of the Minor in the objection that children may be federally holy where the one parent is not sanctified to the other and that the Major is true which rests on this that the children could not be holy unlesse one parent were sanctified to the other you will not deny it you do your self frame the force of the Apostles reason thus both pag. 19. when you say were it with them as when both of them were unbelievers their children would be an unclean progeny and pag. 21. when you say the Apostles answer had not been true because then if one of the parents had not been sanctified to his unbelieving wife their children must have been bastards In these and other passages you acknowledge the force of the Apostles reason to consist in this that holinesse of the children is here meant which could not be unlesse one of the parents were sanctified to the other wherefore the conclusion stands good that the holinesse here is not federall holinesse But you adde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a wise remedy Indeed if a believing man or woman should adulterously beget a child upon a Pagan or Heathen or unbeliever there this objection deserves to be further weighed but here it comes not within the compâ—sse of the Apostles argument This is just nihil ad rhombum nothing to the point as if you had said I will not answer the objection which is made but if you make it thus or thus I will answer it and thus I have at last gotten your chief hold which you had best manned but in the close you quitted it You adde as over-measure certain Reasons 1. From Gods will which were enough if you could prove it 2. From Gods honour in which you say so iâ— iâ— with the Lord he having left all the rest of the world to be visibly the Devils kingdome will not for his own glories sake permit the Devill to come and lay visible claim to the sons and daughters begotten by those who are the children of the most High which speech if true well fare Cain and Cham and Ismael and Esau and innumerable others whom the Devill hath had visible claime to by their works and profession 3. For the comfort and duty of these who are in covenant with him Indeed it were a very great comfort if you could make it good which you say but we must be content with that comfort God is pleased to give and not for our comfort speak that of God which is not true You say you have been the larger upon those two first conclusions because indeed the proving of these gains the whole cause and so I have been the larger in answering as conceiving by loosing these you loose the cause You say The most learned of the Anabaptists do professe that if they knew a child to be holy they would baptize it It is likely they that said or professed so did declare in what sense and for what reason they so spake But because these are but Rhetoricall passages I leave them and passe to your third Conclusion which you â—hus expresse THe Lord hath appointed and ordained a Sacrament or Seal of initiation to be administred unto them who enter into covenant with him Circumcision for the time of that administration which was before Christs incarnation Baâ—tisme since the time of his incarnation Thâ— conclusion as you here set it down may be granted that the Lord hath appointed and 〈…〉 a Sacrament or Seal of initiation to be administred to them that enter into covenant with him circumcision for the time of that administration which was before Christs incarnation Baptisme since the time of his incarnation But this is not all you would have granted for it would stand you in no stead and therefore in stead of it pag. 33. in the Repetition you put this conclusion for your third that our Baptisme succeeds in the room and use of their Circumcision and your meaning is that it so succeeds that the command of circumcising Infants should be virtually a command to baptize Infants as you expresse your self pag. 35. Now this I deny That which you alledge for this is First the agreement that is between Cicumcision and Baptisme Secondly the Text Col. 2.8 9 10 11 12. I shall examine both and consider whether they fit your purpose You confesse they differ in the outward Elements and that is enough to shew that the command for the one is not a command for the other except the Holy Ghost do so interpret it But you say they agree in five or six particulars The first that they are both of them the same Sacrament for the spirituall part which is to be granted but with its due allowance For though Baptisme signifie in part the same thing that Circumcision did namely sanctification by the spirit justification and salvation by Jesus Christ and faith in him yet it is true that there is a vast difference betwixt them because Circumcision signified these things as to be from Christ to come and therefore it was a sign of the promise of Christ to come from Isaac but Baptisme signifies these things in the name of Christ already manifested in the flesh crucified buried and risen again And because Circumcision did signifie Christ to come out of Isaac therefore it did also confirm all the promises that were made to Abrahams naturall Posterity concerning their multiplying their bringing out of Egypt their settling in the Land of Canaan and the yoak of the Law of Moses which was to be in force till Faith came that is till Christ was manifested in the flesh Gal. 3.19.23 24 25. Gal. 5.2 3. The second agreement you make is that both are appointed to be distinguishing signes betwixt Gods people and the Devils people This must be also warily understood for though it be true they are both dâ—stinguishing signes yet not so but that they may be Gods people who were not circumcised nor are baptized God had
the reformation of these Churches according to Gods Word unto which wee have both bound our selves by solemne Covenant I have endeavoured not to let passe any thing of weight either in your Sermon or Master Thomas Goodwins which I could well remember or Master Blakes or any other that have published any thing about this matter of late It is an endlesse businesse to make a severall answer to every one I chose to answer yours because you are stiled the antesignanus Ensigne-bearer in print and for other reasons given in the Prologue My motion is that there may be an agreement among those that have appeared in publique in this cause to joyne either in a reply to this examen of your Sermon or in some other worke in which I may see together the whole strength embattailed and not be put to weary out my selfe in reading every Pamphlet of which there are too many indigested ones now adayes printed even with License and for the buying of which as now my estate is I doubt whether my purse will furnish me If I may have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 daily bread for mee and mine in a narrow compasse it will be as much as I may looke for The small stipend I had is likely to be even now subtracted If there be any willingnesse in you to have any conference with mee to consult about a way of brotherly and peaceable ventilating this point I shall be ready upon notice to give you the meeting and I hope it shall appeare that I shall not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 stiffe in opinion in case truth shining before me present my errour to my view and I hope the like of you I shall waite a moneth after your receiving this writing to know whether any of these motions take place with you hoping you will not disdaine to let me have advertisement of your minde by some letter or message I would faine have truth and peace and love goe hand in hand if it may be though of these three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is meet to preferre truth as Aristotle said long since It will be no griefe of heart to you at the day of resignation of your spirit that you have done nothing against the truth but for the truth You have now my writing as I have yours one day Jesus Christ shall judge us both Consider what I say and the Lord give you understanding in all things Thus prayeth From the house belonging to the Rectory of Gabriel Fanchurch in London December 7. 1644. Delivered to him Dec. 9. 1644. Your brother and fellow-servant in the worke of Christ JOHN TOMBES Inscribed thus To the reverend and worthy Mr Stephen Marshall B. D. these present As it is now printed it is enlarged in sundry places occasioned by sundry Books published since the first writing of it Colossians 2.11 12. Proves not Infant-Baptisme An Appendix to these Treatises in an Answer to a Paper framing an Argument for Infant-Baptisme from Coloss. 2.11 12. SIR YOUR Paper exhibites an Argument for Infant-Baptisme in this form That may be said to be written without which that which is written cannot be true This I grant But that which is said Colos. 2.11 12. of the compleatnesse with respect to Ordinances in the new Testament could not be true unlesse Baptisme were to Believers children as Circumcision was of old because it cannot be understood of the compleatnesse that Believers have in Christ for salvation for that the Jews had in Christ in the old Testament but yet they had a token of the Covenant to their children Ergo so they must now or else that cannot be true Answ. This Argument supposeth sundry things whereof somewhat is true somewhat false 1. It is true That the believing Jews were compleat in Christ for salvation For so was David Abraham c. who were justified by faith Rom. 4. Gal. 3. Heb. 11. 2. It supposeth that the Apostle Colos. 2.11 12. mentions Baptisme to shew that we are as compleat as the Jews in respect of outward Ordinances whereas the Apostle speaks not vers 10. of compleatnesse by reason of outward ordinances but sayes we are compleat in Christ without outward ordinances and that is his very Argument to disswade them from embracing the Jewish ordinances vers 8. yea it is plain that the Apostle makes the Jews incompleat by reason of their outward ordinances and that it is our compleatnesse that we have all in Christ without outward ordinances vers 17. Nor doth the Apostle mention Baptisme to shew that we are equall to the Jews in outward ordinances for the Apostles assertion is that we are compleat in Christ exhibited without outward ordinances and so the better for want of them but to shew how we put on Christ and so are compleat in him and therefore he mentions Faith as well as Baptisme as in like manner he doth Gal. 3.26 27. Rom. 6.3 c. Besides if that by being baptized we are compleat in outward ordinances then we need no other ordinance and consequently the Lords Supper should be needlesse 3. It is supposed that Circumcision was a token of the Covenant to their children But this is ambiguous in some sense it is true in some sense it is not true It was a token of the Covenant made to Abraham to wit First that God made such a Covenant with Abraham Secondly that God required them to keep the conditions of it But it is not true in these senses First that every person circumcised or to be circumcised of right had a title to the promises of the Covenant Secondly that this title to the promises of the Covenant was the reason why they were circumcised 4. It is supposed that if our children have not a token of the Covenant now as the Jews had that it cannot be true that we are compleat as the Jews But there is not a shadow of proof for it in the Text. And it is grounded on these false assertions First that the Jews children were in the Covenant of Grace because they were Abrahams naturall seed Secondly that a Believers children now are in the Covenant of Grace because they are a Believers children which things are expresly contrary to Rom. 9.6 7 8. 5. It is supposed that the Jews having salvation by Christ had also a compleatnesse by outward ordinances It is true that compared with the Gentiles that served dumb Idols they were compleat by reason of outward ordinancâ—s For their outward ordinances did shadow Christ to come and so did not the Rites of the Gentiles But compared with Christians since Christ manifested in the flesh so they were incompleat in respect of outward ordinances and so the Apostle determines Gal. 4.1 2 3. 6. It is supposed that without a succession of some ordinance in stead of Circumcision we are not compleat in Christ or at least not so compleat as the Jews But this I account to be false and very dangerous 1. False because it is contrary
little ones most lately born can be freed from damnation unlesse by the grace of the name of Christ which he hath commended in his Sacraments Pag. 16. Neither let that move thee that some do not bring little ones to receive baptisme with that faith that they may be regenerated by spirituall grace unto life eternall but because they think that by this remedy they keep or receive temporall health For not therefore are they not regenerate because they are not offered by them with this intention For necessarie ministeries are celebrated by them It is answered he doth beleeve by reason of the Sacrament of faith Pag. 18. in the margin Lastly who seeth not that this was the manner of that time when scarce the thousandth person was baptized afore he was of grown age and diligently exercised among the catechized Part. 2. Pag. 21. These to the rest of the errours which they borrowed from the Manichees and Priscillianists added this over and above that they said that the baptisme of little ones was unprofitable inasmuch as it could profit none who could not both himself beleeve and by himself ask the Sacrament of baptisme of which kind we read not that the Manichees and Priscillianists taught any thing They mock us because we baptize infants because we pray for the dead because we ask the suffrages of the Saints They beleeve not that Purgatory fire remains after death but that the soul loosed from the body doth presently passe either to rest or to damnation But now they who acknowledge not the Church it is no marvell if they detract from the orders of the Church if they receive not their appointments if they despise Sacraments if they obey not commands Because he took away Festivals Sacraments Temples Priests because the life of Christ is shut up from the little ones of Christians while the grace of baptisme is denied nor are they suffered to draw neer to salvation Pag. 23. We perceive in the man dexterity and a study of mediocrity But in that man I desire to be deceived I have seemed to my self to have found nothing but immoderate thirst of wealth and glory A fanatique man and grosse Anabaptist Pag. 24. They would seem studious of truth Pag. 25. The word of the Lord. From the staffe to the corner A proverbiall speech in Schools when one thing is inferred from another which have no connexion They who all along these places of Belgick and lower Germany are found bordering on this Anabaptisticall heresie are almost all followers of this Mennon whom I have named to whom now this Theodorick hath succeeded In whom for a great part you may perceive tokens of a certain godly mind who being incited by a certain unskilfull zeal out of errour rather then malice of mind have departed from the true sense of Divine Scriptures and the agreeing consent of the whole Church which may be perceived by this that they alwayes resisted the rage of Munster and Batenburgick that followed after stirred up by John Batenburg after the taking of Munster who plotted a certain new restitution of the kingdom of Christ which should be placed in the destruction of the wicked by outward force And they tauâ—ht thâ—t the instauration and propagation of the kingdom of Christ consists in the crosse alone whereby it happens that they which are such mâ—y seem rather worthy of pity and amendment then persecution and perdition Pag. 28. What part of time Pag. 48. Hâ—w it may be that Israel may be rejected but that together the Covenant of God established with Abraham and his seed should seem to be made void In the margin The credit of that promise Gen. 17.7 8. doth presently appear to be brought into danger by the rejecting of the Jews and the exclusion of them out of the Covenant of God sith they are born of Abraham according to the flâ—sh so saith he it appeares to them that look upon the first fâ—ce of things The Apostle shews thâ—t theâ—efâ—re the word of the Covenant and divine promises made to Israel failed not or was made void aâ—though a great part of the Jews were unbelieving because those promises of the Câ—venant are of God not to them properly who were to come from the seed of Abraham according to the flesh but to those who were to be ingraffed into the family of Abraham by vertue of divine promise Pag. 49. The argument of the Apostle to prove the Covenant of God entred into with Abraham doth not comprehend all the posterity of Abraham in its skirt we think should be thus simply framed Esau and Jacob were of the pâ—sterity of Abraham but God did not comprehend both of these in his Covenant with Abraham Therefore not all the posterity of Abraham It is proved that God did not comprehend both in the Covenant of grace because he did not comprehend Esau the elder but Jacob the younger Pag. 50. There are many of the seed of Abraham to whom the word of promise doth not belong as Ismael and Ismaelites But if so there be many of the seed of Abraham to whom the word of promise doth not belong then the rejâ—ction of many Jews who are of the seed of Abraham doth not make void the word of promise In the margin Calvin gathers hence in that any is the seed of Abraham the promise made to Abraham belongs to him but the answer is manifest that promise understood of spirituall blessing pertaines not to the carnall seed of Abraham but to the spirituall as the Apostle himselfe hath interpreted it Rom. 4. 9. For if you understand the carnall seed now that promise will belong to none of the Gentiles but to those alone who are begotten of Abraham and Isaac according to the flesh He teacheth also that the promises of God are not tied to the carnall birth but to belong onely to the believing and spirituall posterity For they are not the sons of Abraham who are of Abraham according to the flesh but who are according to the spirit Pag. 51. In the Margin The inculcation also of the seed sheweth that onely the elect and effectually called are noted the Apostle so interpreting this place Rom. 9.8 Gal. 3.16 4.28 Pag. 52. That baptisme doth not certainly seale in all the children of believers the grace of God sith among them some are absolutely reprobated even by an antecedent decree of God from eternity and therefore believers are to doubt of the truth of Gods Covenant I am thy God and the God of thy seed after thee Pag. 58. To be a son of Abraham doth declare nothing else but to be freely elected Rom. 9.8 and to tread in the steps of the faith of Abraham Rom. 4.12 and to doe the workes of Abraham Joh. 8.39 From which is rightly gathered certain expectation of salvation to come Rom. 8.29 Pag. 69. In the Margin Infants in their parents grandfathers great grandfathers grandfathers grandfathers have refused the grace of the Gospel by which act