it is easier for these men to repeat over the same things many times then once to justifie them ADVERSARIES TO the Scriptures record that little children were brought to Christ that he might lay his hands on them and pray or blesse them and that wheras his Disciples would haue hindred them from him even upon the same ground without doubt upon which these men excludes them he being therewith displeased bids suffer them to come unto him for that of such is the Kingdom of heaven and takes them in his armes and blesseth them and to our collection hence they answer first that He saith not that Infants are of the Kingdom of heaven that is obeyers of the Gospell but that they that will enter into the Kingdom of heaven must become as little children for of such c. And that his mayn end was to declare the innocent estate of Infants and to teach all to be like unto them by conversion and withall that Christ baptized them not and lastly that his blessings are manifold to Infants in their creation life and bodily benefits DEFENCE LET us examine the particulars First they presume but cannot proue that onely such are of the Kingdom of heaven as obey the Gospell Shall Infants which they affirm else-where be glorified in the Kingdom of heaven and yet are they not of it There are not two Kingdoms of heaven but one begun in grace and perfected in glory Secondly they to make more colourable their erroneous construction of the Evangelists words and Christs work about those Infants cite for Math. 19 and the like places Math. 18 that so the slight Readers such as their Disciples are might conceiv that Christ had no other meaning in the other places by us alledged then in that by them and that he spake not of a child personally but in condition as David was Ps. 131. Wheras in that place Christs meaning was to reprov the ambitious contentions amongst his Disciples by the contrary disposition in a childe which he therfore took and set in the midst of them but in the other his purpose was to shew what interest the children of the Church had in him and in his blessing for which they were brought unto him by their parents Against these depravers both of the word and work of God I thus argue That which the parents which brought their infants desired that the Lord did for them But it is plain that their desire in bringing them was that he might pray for them and blesse them as the Scriptures expresly teach he did But say they he baptized them not True for hee baptized none though actuall beleevers It sufficeth that he did that by which he declared that they had right in him and in his blessing and that it was his will they should come unto him Let them shew a way how they can now come to Christ saue by Baptism Or how they can haue right in his blessing and yet haue no right in his bloud-shed and in Baptism for the signifying and applying it They add that Christ healed the sick and gaue bodily blessings of life growth in stature and the like But as it is meerly and vainly imagined that these children were brought for the healing of any bodily diseases so are we taught expresly by the Holy Ghost that Christs blessing them was not for bodily benefits but because the Kingdom of heaven was of such that is appertained to them and to such as they were ADVERSARIES TO our next Argument taken from the circumcision of Abrahams infants they answer First there is no commandment for baptizing of Infants now as there was for circumcising them then Secondly that that commandement was for males onely children or servants though unbeleevers Thirdly that circumcision was to be performed onely on the eight day so as there is no proportion between Circumcision and Baptism DEFENCE HEE that pleaseth to reade the former passages between them and us which they haue in their hands but answer not shall see how weightlesse this exception is and how we haue proved against them that the Church of Israel and ours is one in substance the covenant the same which God made with them in Christ to come and with us in Christ come in the flesh and withall how our Baptism succeeds their Circumcision They trifle in objecting the Legall difference of daies and sexes which the Scriptures expresly teach to bee abolished Are not Pastors now the Lords Ministers as the Levites were of old and their successors therein and yet are they not tyed to any certain Tribe as they were Is not our Lords Supper the same in effect with their Passeover Both the one and the other the mysticall eating of the Lamb of God Which yet is not tyed to any certain day or month as was the former Lastly they err grievously in saying that unbeleeving servant and children were commanded to be circumcised The Lord would haue all the wicked cut off from his people and would he haue unbeleevers received unto them Hath God entred Covenant with unbeleevers to be their God as he hath done with all to whom Circumcision appertained Was it the seal of the righteousnesse of faith and yet due to the faithlesse Rather then these Adversaries will admit the seed of the faithfull to be of Gods people now they will haue very Infidels and Vnbeleevers of old to haue been of his peculiar ones If their heresie were detestable who made the God of the Law worse then the God of the Gospell surely theirs is not light nor small who thus contumeliously speak of him in his people which he took neer unto himselfe and whose God he became and of that speciall Ordinance by which he differenced them from the prophane world as holy unto him in which they interest the unbeleevers and unholy ADVERSARIES NOW followeth our main foundation that as the infants of Abraham and of the Israelites his posterity were taken into the Church-covenant or covenant of life and salvation as they call it and rightly in a true sense with their parents and circumcised so are the infants of the faithfull now and to receiv accordingly the seal of Baptism to which they say and proue as they say that neither Circumcision was nor Baptism is a seal of the Covenant of salvation but the spirit of promise which is ever the same DEFENCE THeir dispute from the seal of the Spirit to proue that there is no other seal is as if a man should deny all teaching direction and comfort by the Word and Sacraments because the Spirit teacheth directeth and comforteth the faithfull This point I haue else-where proved at large against them neither are they either able or doe they goe about to giue any shew of answer and yet without modesty they repeat their former bare sayings fully answered and refuted Where the Apostle 2 Cor. 1 and Eph. 1 4 speaks of the seal of the spirit means
he that the Spirit makes a materiall print in the soule as a seal doth in Wax Or not this onely that it helps to confirm and comfort a Christian inwardly in the loue of God and hope of salvation And are not the Sacraments outward helps of comfort and confirmation of a beleevers heart in the same loue of God and hope of glory Vpon the same ground that the Apostle cals it a seal inwardly we call them seals outwardly ADVERSARIES TO shew that the Covenant in question was the Covenant of the Law and old Testament and not the covenant of salvation and so Circumcision the seal thereof and not the sign and seal of life and salvation they discourse at large upon Gal. 4 and of the two seeds of Aoraham the one after the flesh unto which the covenant appertained whereunto circumcision was annexed DEFENCE FIrst they err greatly in denying the very Covenant of the Law to haue been the Covenant of life and salvation For the commandement was ordained to life And the man that doth the workes of the Law shall liue in them And if the Law promise not life and salvation then neither doth it threaten death and condemnation The Covenant then is of the same things but the condition divers The Law exacting perfect obedience of and by our selvs the Gospell requiring true faith and repentance which it also worketh in the elect Secondly it is most untrue that Circumcision was the sign or seal of the old Testament or Law taking it properly as they doe The Apostle expresly cals it the seal of the righteousnesse of faith opposed to the righteousnesse of works or of the Law of which more hereafter else where shewing that the same Law was given foure hundred and thirty years after the covenant or promise to Abraham and his seed confirmed before in Christ through the peaching of the Gospel that they which are of faith might be blessed with faithfull Abraham How preposterous are these mens waies who will haue the seal so long before the Covenant Thirdly Circumcision was the seal of that Covenant by which Abraham and his posterity became the Lords peculiar people seperated from all the uncircumcised heathen unto him for his inheritance and therein blessed For blessed is the nation whereof the Lord is God the people that he hath chosen for a possession to himself and blessed is the people whose God is Iehouah Now will these gainsaying spirits have men blessed by the law whether God will or no Saith not the scripture that by the law all are accursed and that as many as are of the works of the law are accursed as being unable to keep it The Covenant then by which Israel became Gods people and therein blessed of which Circumcision was a sign and seal was not the Covenant of the law but of the gospell and so of grace and salvation by grace Lastly how wyde and wilde are they in expounding the allegory of Abrahams two sons Gal. 4 makeing Abrahams children after the flesh the Infants of the faithfull never considering the Apostles generall scope unto which the particulars are to be applyed Doth he in that place deal against the Infants of the Galatians or against the men of yeares though children in knowledg who had begun in the spirit but would be made perfit in the flesh that is would be justified by the law specially by circumcision in the flesh by which they made Christ of none effect and fell from grace Were they Infants to whom he saith Tel mee ye that desire to be under the law c. So where he addeth He that is born after the flesh persequutes him that is born after the spirit doth he mean that Infants are persequuters Or is not his meaning plain that such as glory in the flesh and in circumcision and other fleshly prerogatives and so despise the free promise of grace in Christ and them that rest under it as Ismael did both in truth of person and type of others are these persequuters at all times to be cast out with Ismael as having no right to the inheritance of grace or glory Are the Infants of beleevers to be cast out for their persequutions Out of what I marvail and for what persequutions These men in opening this Allegory or Parable verify that of the Wise-man As a thorn goeth up into the hand of a drunkard so is a Parable in the mouth of fooles That the Covenant Gen. 17. whereof circumcision was a sign was the same which we haue now in the Gospell we haue not onely said as they say we haue done but proved by so clear arguments as that had they onely set them down there had needed no further confirmation of them notwithstanding any thing that they could haue excepted But they haue cunningly passed them by in silence as if no such thing were in the book and doe onely repeat over and again the same things with great irksomnes specially to those that haue formerly confuted them ADVERSARIES BVT they tell us that the Covenant under the Gospell is a new and better Covenant then the old c. DEFENCE WE grant it but affirm withall that the Covenant with Abraham was not the Covenant of the law or old testament as they mean The Covenant with Abraham was confirmed of God in Christ that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles thorow Iesus Christ. The Covenant of the Law or old Testament was 400 and thirty years after and was added for transgression til the seed should come to whom the promise was made that is to detect and manifest mens sins and cursed state thereby that so they might fly the more earnestly to the promise of Christ the blessed and blessing Seed made formerly to Abraham Neither do the Scripture in this matter ever oppose Abraham and Christ but Moses and Christ. The Law was given by Moses but grace and truth by Iesus Christ. So Hebr. 10 the Law of Moses and Covenant of the Son of God are opposed and Moses made the Mediator of the old testament and Covenant established in the blood of bulls and goats and Christ the mediator of the new by his own blood And I would know of these men where the law is ever called the law of Abraham as it is every where the law of Moses which law or old testament opposed to the new was written and engraven in Tables of stone and had therefore not Abraham but Moses the mediator of it Lastly for the ceremoniall part of the Law old Testament or Covenant the Authour to the Hebrews makes it plain that it was received under the Leviticall Priesthood having a worldly sanctuary and ordinances and divers washings for the purifying of the flesh but not of the conscience from dead workes whereas by the promise and Covenant to Abraham and his seed the blessing of justification came both upon the Iews in their time and Gentiles
sign of Circumcision as a seal of faith if not of that faith of which he treats For wheras it might be objected that if Abraham were justified by beleeving before he was circumcised as is said v. 3. 9. 10 then what needed hee after to haue been circumcised The Apostle answers v. 11 that hee received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousnesse of faith vvhich he had yet being uncircumcised which faith v. 9 vvas reckoned to him for righteousnesse that by it the covenant of grace between God him might be confirmed as covenants among men formerly agreed upon are by the seals thereunto annexed Lastly who endued with common sense and modesty can deny that by the righteousnesse of faith wherof Circumcision was a seal is meant the righteousnes which is by faith as v. 3 Abraham beleeved God and it vvas imputed to him for righteousnesse and v. 9 faith vvas reckoned to Abraham for righteousnesse which righteousnesse of faith in this whole discourse he opposeth to the righteousnesse of works by the Law as is expresly to be seen v. 3. 14. 15. 16. But now what say our Adversaries to these things as men in a maze and not knowing how to finde the way out goe sometimes backward sometimes forward and sometimes leap unorderly from one place to another so doe they in expounding this Scripture In their out-leaps about Abrahams fleshly children I shall not need heere to follow them Where after they say that Circumcision was a seal of Abrahams faith in beleeving God that he should be the father of many Nations and that this was imputed to him for righteousnesse they say as much as we do or desire they should But where they say in the very same place that hee received not circumcision to seal up his faith in the Messiah they goe backward most dangerously to bring in a faith to justification imputed for righteousnesse which yet is not in the Messiah Was righteousnesse ever or is it imputed to any for justification but by faith in Christ then promised now exhibited The reason insinuated by them is a pleasant one namely for that Abraham had faith in the Messiah 24 years before he was circumcised Whereas on the contrary it could not haue been a seal of such faith except hee had had the faith before whether longer or lesser time it matters not but is as it pleaseth him who bestowâ—th both the one and other Signes and Seals are not to be set to blankes neither doe they make things that were not before to be but serv onely to confirm things that are These things thus cleared the Reader must be requested not to measure our arguments from Abraham and Isaaks circumcision to the Baptism of Infants by the crooked line which these men draw between them but by the right rule of sound reason applyed as followeth in three particulars First that the Covenant unto which Circumcision was annexed was the Covenant of the Gospell and not of the Law and old Testement as they take it For then it could not haue been to Abraham the seal of the righteousnesse of faith any way but of unrighteousnesse and condemnation every way for righteousnes is not by the Law which worketh wrath and by which sin revives and becomes exceeding sinfull And surely it is more then strange that any beleeving the Scriptures should beleev that the Lords Covenant made with Abraham and so with Israel in him by which he took them to be his peculiar people from among all other peoples because hee loved their father and them by which they were a blessed Nation having Iehovah for their God in remembring of which covenant with Abraham c. he so often shewed them mercy and did them good and in time gaue his Son Christ to saue them from their enemies and lastly by which Covenant they shall again be called when the fulnesse of the Gentiles is come in and so all Israel shall be saved as it is written There shall come out of Syon a Deliverer and shall turn away ungodlinesse from Iakob For this is my Covenant unto them when I shall take away their sins As concerning the Gospell they are enemies for the Gentiles sake but as concerning the election they are beloved for the fathers sake for the gifts and calling of God are without repentance that this covenant of loue and mercy making them blessed which are taken into it and procuring the giving of Christ and of salvation should be the covenant of the old Testament and Law Of the Law I say and old Testament which is the ministery of death the letter that killeth which worketh wrath was added for transgression by which sin reviveth and all die and are accursed What is this else but to bring the currant of gracious mercy into a channell of severe justice and to curse where God blesseth as Balaam purposed to haue done Secondly we conclude hence that the Church of the Iews and Church now is one in substance though diversly ordered one Uineyard in which there are both grown trees and yong plants one Kingdom which was taken from them and given to us the branches of one oliue tree holy in the same holy root Abraham from which most of them were broken off for unbelief and we by faith planted in their place one body and therefore having Infants in it now as then and the same therefore to be baptized there being also one Baptism as one body as they were circumcised of old Baptism as elsewhere I haue proved at large to their silencing in that point comming in the place of Circumcision Thirdly that all their disputes against Infants Baptism because they cannot manifest faith and repentance are but the same quarrels which might haue been picked of old against Infants Circumcision That there was something in Abrahams circumcision extraordinary is true for he first received it for his posterity and for the Proselytes with them which joyned themselvs to the Lord so was there also in his faith as he was the father by example to all that should beleev after him Their prophane assertion that faith was required of none to wit men of years for circumcision I haue formerly disproved How can it come into the hearts of reasonable men that the Lord in whose eies the prayers sacrifices and all other services of ungodly men were so abominable should like of their circumcision Lastly for Abrahams children of the flesh according to their misunderstanding of them they were by nature children of wrath as well as others and had thereby no more right to circumsion then the Infants of Sodom It was of grace and not of nature that they were within Gods Covenant Of Gal. 3. and Rom. 9. we haue spoken at large formerly and of their misconstructions of the Apostles meaning Lastly we neither run as they say nor goe to the old Testament Law or Moses for the baptizing of Infants but to
store-house of earthly good things and figure of heavenly These men therfore in this place unskilfully transform the fulfilling of an old promise into the making of a new Which they also confesse in effect in the very same place in saying that the promise that is the Covenant on Gods part was made to Abraham Gen. 17. The word everlasting Gen. 17. I urge not further to proue the Covenant with Abraham perpetuall then as the nature of the same Covenant carries it It was that by which God became Abrahams God and more he is or can be to none and that which Christ himselfe extends to the very resurection of the bodies of Abraham c. whos 's God the Lord was and is Two reasons I will annex to justifie mine exposition of the Prophet Ieremy and Apostle after him and to proue that by the old Covenant they meant the Covenant of the Law given on mount Syna The former from the opposition between the old and new Covenant expresly made in the generall and particularly insinuated in these words I will write my Law in their hearts and will forgiue their iniquity and remember their sins no more which was not according to but most unlike to the old Covenant or Law given on mount Syna written in Tables of stone and by which sin and transgression was not forgiven but quickned and encreased A second reason is for that the old and first Covenant opposed to that in Christ had ordinances of divine worship and a worldly Sanctuary or Tabernacle wherein was the Table and Candlestick c. which no man that beleevs the Bible can make doubt to be meant of the Law and Covenant given on mount Syna to and by Moses By the old Covenant is meant that of the Law by Moses on mount Sina unto which the other is opposed Their exception that Abrahams children of 8 daies old could make no covenant nor agreement is too childish to exclude them from it and that by which they should haue been in no covenant at all with the Lord nor hee with them new nor old Legall nor Evangelicall for they could make none It is not required that every one comprehended in a Covenant should actually stipulate or promise Witnesse the Covenant with Noah in which both all his seed and every living creature both foule and cattell were included It was therefore sufficient to bring Abrahams seed into the Lords Covenant that God in grace made and Abraham by faith received the promise that he would be his God and theirs That every faithfull man and his seed is as Abraham and his seed the Scripture proue in teaching that every beleever is of the faith of Abraham and walks in his steps For if Abraham did by faith receiv the promise that God would be his God and the God of his seed without which no promise had belonged unto them then where the same faith is for substance there is the same promise for substance to every beleever though a son of Abraham as following his example yet as Abraham himselfe in beleeving as hee did And this is most manifest in that by this very covenant God was not onely the God of Abraham and his seed Isaak but of Isaak and his seed Iakob and of Iakob and his seed the Patriarks and so successiuely not by fleshly descent of the children from their parents as they absurdly cavill but by spirituall and divine promise of grace which they ungraciously despise for their children because they cannot be doing something to God again by their free-will to require him withall Next comes to be examined that notable place Rom. 4. 11. Abraham received the sign of Circumcision the seal of the righteousnesse of the faith which he had being uncircumcised that he might be the father of all that beleev though uncircumcised that righteousnesse might be imputed to them also ADVERSARIES THeir evasion is that by faith here is not meant faith in the Messiah by which he was and we are justified but say they Circumcision sealed up Abrahams fatherhood of the faithfull that is was a seal of his faith in beleeving God that he should be the father of many Nations DEFENCE AND this faith say we was the faith of the Gospell and faith in the Messiah which the Apostle expresly saith was imputed to him for righteousnesse and by which he was justified as is plain from v. 17 I haue made thee a father of many Nations compared with v. 22 where he infers therupon even upon that faith And therfore it was imputed to him for righteousnesse Which also that it was the same in substance with ours now the words following manifest Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him but to us also to whom it shall be imputed if we beleev in him that raised up Iesus our Lord from the dead who was delivered for our sins c. v. 23. 24. 25. This will yet the more clearly appear if we consider what is meant by these promises I haue made thee a father of many Nations and so shall thy seed be recited by the Apostle for the purpose in hand In these words I haue made thee a father of many Nations he opposeth many Nations to that one Nation of the Iews Of these many Nations hee was the father even of all that beleev though uncircumcised v. 11. And how a father By way of example that as hee was justified by faith in the promise of God and of the promised seed Christ even when he was uncircumcised So they beleeving the same promise of God in Christ now come of him though uncircumcised should in like manner be justified as he was Which is yet further confirmed where it is said that he is the father of all them though not of the circumcision that walk in the steps of the faith of Abraham which he had yet being uncircumcised Whence I gather that if we be justified by the same faith that Abraham was justified by and that he was justified by faith in that promise that then that promise was made of and in the Messiah Christ the blessed and blessing Seed as it is said So shall thy seed be and Abraham beleeved and he counted it to him for righteousnesse And again In thee shall all Nations or families of the earth be blessed Now of this faith the Apostle here speaks and of it he testifies circumcision to haue been a seal to Abraham It cannot be denyed but that the Apostle in this whole discourse speaks of faith to justification proving partly by the example of Abraham and partly by the testimony of David that we are justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the Law And to what end or with what order should hee thrust in an impertinent discourse of any other faith To affirm this is no better then to defame the Holy Ghost with equivocating Or to what purpose should he mention the
in them and their children with them upon their repentance This could be no other then that promise made to Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy seed in that blessed seed Christ. Thirdly he exhorts the Iews to repent and to be baptized for that the promise was unto them and their children and therein shews that he speaks not of a promise made to Abrahams children upon their faith and repentance as they mistake but on the contrary exhorts to repentance upon a promise made The promise is the ground of the exhortation and presupposed by the Apostle as going before it Hence also it is that hee cals the Iews which had denyed and killed the Lord of life and not yet repented as appears v. 19 Children of the Prophets and of the Covenant which God made with the fathers with which accords that Act. 13. 32. 33. They were not therfore here called the children of the promise because they repented for that they did not but because they came of Abraham Isaak and Iakoh and so had Christ promised unto them as their King and Saviour and so were by faith and repentance to receiv the fruit of the same promise and the confirmation or seal thereof by Baptism to them and their children Of which here and every where they are exhorted not to depriue themselvs and theirs Neither is this exhortation to repent and be baptized made to the children but to the parents for the obtaining of the benefite and confirmation by Baptism of the promise both to parents and children If any demand Was not Christ promised to the Gentiles also I answer not as to the Iews He was promised to the Iews indefinitely as the Church of God and Abrahams seed as being their King but to become the King of the Gentiles the Iews were his Citizens the other were by faith to become his Citizens and of the houshold of God ADVERSARIES TO 1 Cor. 7. 14. Else were your children unholy but now are they clean they answer that the beleevers children were no otherwise holy then as their unbeleeving wiues were holy namely to be used by their parents DEFENCE HEre first as commonly they treasonably clip the Lords coyn in leaving out for their advantage to the beleeving husband and to the beleeving wife The Apostle saith simply The children are holy so saith he not simply that the unbeleeving wife is holy but holy to her beleeving husband and the unbeleeving husband sanctified or holy to the beleeving wife as all things are pure to the pure Now for the better clearing of this place the Apostles drift is to be considered which was to teach beleeving husbands that they might lawfully and without scruple keep and converse with their unbeleeving wiues and so beleeving wiues with their unbeleeving husbands as being sanctified to them though not in themselvs This he proues by an Argument taken from their children Else were your children unclean but now are they holy that is if the beleeving husband might not lawfully retain his unbeleeving wife then the children so born should be unholy but they are holy Whereupon it follows that he may lawfully keep and converse with her This word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 else or otherwise ever includes in it a casuality as Math. 18. 32 because thou desiredst me ch 27. 6 because it is the price of bloud So 1 Cor. 5. 10 Else or for then you must goe out of the world As if he had said seeing Christians are not to goe out of the world but to liue in it they may therfore eat with the fornicators of the world So here seeing your children thus born are not unclean but holy therfore you may and ought to retain your though unbeleeving wiues The Apostle therfore making the children holy and their holinesse a ground of the husbands lawfull keeping and conversing with his wife can haue respect to no other thing then the Covenant with Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy seed as a known and received ground by the Corinthians and all other Churches This will yet be the more plain if we bear in mind that the question propounded to Paul by the beleeving Corinthians was not whether they might keep their children or no but their wiues Hee had therfore no occasion of mentioning the children as he doth but to fetch from them an Argument for the retaining of the wiues Now if his meaning were as they say that the children were holy to the beleevers use as the wife was then he should haue argued from the holinesse of the wife to proue the holinesse of the children But thus he doth not but the clean contrary Besides if the Apostle had argued as they would haue him where had he laid the foundation of his proofe Or how had he removed the scruple out of the Corinthians hearts They add that the Corinthians made no question of their children True and that overthrows their exposition as shewing that the Apostle argues not from the wiues to the children as they make him but from the children to the wiues Secondly the Apostle disputes not from the Corinthians supposition or perswasion but from the truth of the thing the holinesse of their children But now are your children holy They object that these children must be holy either as the beleeving or unbeleeving part is holy We say they are holy as the beleeving part in regard of that foederall holinesse and the spirit of regeneration Then say they They are separated from common uses in which they were used and are set now apart to Gods use We say they are as were the Infants in Israel set apart or severed from the world and taken into the number of Gods people They themselvs affirm a few lines before that Israel was sanctified and set apart from common and prophane uses to the service of God And were not the Infants part of Israel thus set apart and sanctified And yet could they not testifie any purity of heart or other grace That which in the very same period they build with one hand they pull down with another Secondly if as they say Infants bee no otherwise sanctified then to the use of others and as unbeleevers are then can they not be saved except the unholy can enter into Gods Kingdom They object further that then all the children of beleevers though of age and unbeleevers should be holy also But why rather holy then Innocent which they will haue all Infants to be By their unbelief they are cut off from Gods Covenant as the Iews were and from all holinesse therby The next objection is ill framed as they set it down and the answer worse The errour in both is that they consider not Iohns Baptism and Christs according to their distinct parts Iohns as outward Christs as inward Iohns outward Baptism and Christs outward Baptism were the same for Christ was baptized by Iohn thereby sanctifying Baptism to us as
in theirs through Christ Iesus in whom it was confirmed In adding that the Old taught that Christ was not come in the flesh nor into their hearts at their Circumcision They make the Lords Covenant negatiue as teaching what is not and not what is A Covenant is a promise upon condition and a Testament or Will that in which Legacies are given But by this doctrine here should be nothing either given or promised It is besides very ungodlily said that Abraham in whom principally we are to consider both of the Covenant and seal thereof Circumcision had not Christ in his heart when he was circumcised Both Moses in Abrahams historie and the Apostles who well understood it affirm the contrary and that he was justified in uncircumcision by beleeving in Christ In which respect he is called the father of them that beleev not onely circumcised but uncircumcised also Haue his children that which he for substance had not even in that wherein he was their father This thing they grant in the very next page and that Abraham had the covenant of grace promised him by which promise he had salvation in the Messiah to come and therein that the Covenant made with Abraham whereof Circumcision was a seal was the Covenant of the Gospell and the same with ours now It is strange that these men who so magnifie Baptism as they will haue men made Christians by it should so vilifie Circumcision as to make it of right to appertain to godlesse and wicked men for such were and are all at all times since Adam sinned that had and and haue not Christ in their hearts Was it not an holy Ordinance of God and therfore not to be prostituted to the unholy and unpure as all unbeleevers that is all into whose hearts Christ is not come are and unto whom nothing is pure or holy Could it be to any a sign that God was their God a seal of the righteousnesse of faith a pledg of Gods protection and note of distinction between Gods people and others And yet belong to such as were wholly without Christ and so without God in the world When any of the Heathens became Proselytes they chose God to be their God came to trust under the wings of the Lord God of Israel and separated themselvs from Idolaters to the Law of God and of all this they made solemn profession by Circumcision which they must either do without faith and so not please God therein which is absurd to say they did which did it lawfully or else with faith by which Christ though not come in the flesh was come into their hearts Of the Ceremonies of Moses and so of Circumcision which Moses took of the fathers into the body of the Ceremoniall Law and of their divers considerations I haue elsewhere written at large and doe refer the Reader thither for satisfaction in that point That none of the Church of Israel called by them affectedly Abrahams seed in the flesh had the Ordinances of the new Covenant is not true They had Iohns Baptism which even now these men avowed as the Baptism of the new Testament and Christs also who baptized more Disciples then Iohn and with them the twelv had the Lords Supper also and all these whilst the Iewish Church and Ordinances stood in their full strength It is true that Iohns was not in the Kingdom of God as Christ speaks Math. 11 that in the state of the Church and Ordinances dispensed under Christ glorified Otherwise the Iews had the Kingdom of heaven which else could noâ— haue been taken from them and given to others neither could Christ haue been as he was the King of Sion So the Patriarks received not the promise that is Christ come in the flesh to which purpose the Apostle saith Before faith came c. Shall we therfore say that before Christs comming in the flesh none had true faith to salvation or that true beleevers received not Christ though to come as we now receiv Christ come in the flesh They Christ promised and prefigured by the Word and Ordinances then we Christ manifested and remembred by the Word and Ordinances now properly called the New Testament as founded in the actuall death of the Testator ADVERSARIES HEre follows an exception against me in particular which is that by the old Covenant mentioned Ier. 31 Hebr. S is not meant as I affirm that which was made on mount Sinai Exod. 19 but the Covenant mentioned Exod. 3. v. 6 c. Their reason is for that God made that Covenant with them when hee took them by the hand to bring them out of Aegipt which is mentioned Exod. 3 and not Exod. 19. For then say they did God appear to Moses and commanded him to take them by the hand and lead them out of Aegipt where the Covenant is mentioned I am the God of thy fathers Abraham c. DEFENCE FIrst to let passe that though they bid mark the words yet they cite them not I answer that these words in that day as the Text hath it cannot be restrained to that particular day when God appeared to Moses seeing the Lord did not that particular day take them by the hand to bring them out but divers daies after as is expresly affirmed ch 12. 51 Psal. 77. 12 105 27. 43. By that day therfore is not meant any particular day but indefinitely the time of their transporting out of Aegipt into Canaan as elsewhere by the day of their birth is meant the whole time of their fore-going misery So many hundred times in the Scriptures by the day or that day is meant indefinitely the time in which a thing happeneth or is done Besides where the Prophet speaks of the day in which God took them by the hand they speak of the day in which God appeared unto Moses and commanded him to take them by the hand which was whilst he was in the land of Midian God indeed then shewed his will to Moses but stretched not out his hand for their deliverance till many daies after They say further that Exod. 3 the Covenant is mentioned I am the God thy father Abraham c. But is every mentioning of a Covenant the making of it And did God make a Covenant with and become the God of Abraham Isaak and Iakob at that time That is when they were now dead divers hundred years before What can be more plain then that the Lord doth not there make a new but remembers the old Covenant made before with Abraham c. of which the bringing his posterity out of Aegipt into the promised land was an appurtenance God promised to be Abrahams God and the God of his Seed that is all-sufficient for the good things not onely of this world but also of the world to come as Christ expounds his fathers words Math. 22. 32. 33 and so gaue them accordingly the land of Canaan as a
and after baptized Ioh. 3. 5 speaks of regeneration by the spirit compared in that place to water as elswhere to fire for its property in purifying And admit it speak of the ordinance of baptism yet must it follow regeneration as a means of confirmation As therefore Christians are not made by the ordinance of baptism so much lesse are Churches This I haue elswhere proved against them by many firm Arguments to which seeing they neither giue answer nor shew thereof though this be a main matter in question between them and us what should I say more to them These they may answer if they be able as I am sure they are not nor I think will ever goe about it Onely I here add this one thing If members and Churches be made by Baptism I demand when I. M. alone baptiseth one of his converts alone what Church or member of what Church is here made And if one alone may receiv or make members of the Church why not also cast them out and excommunicate them without the Churches presence or privity Such is the confused course of these men Here they cite sundry Scriptures but proving onely that which we willingly grant viz. that men and women converted from Heathenism and Iudaism to the faith of Christ and so to be added to the Church and being before unbaptised were to be baptized But how proues this that they were made either Churches or Christians by Baptism When any of the Heathens became Iews that is embraced the Iewish Religion and separated themselvs from the other Idolaters of the land to the Law of God and came to put their trust under the wings of the God Israel and were to be circumcised did their Circumcision make them such Or did it not onely declare and confirm that state of grace in and unto which God had called them Neither yet could the things forementioned be performed by their infants and yet were they made partakers of Circumcision with them ADVERSARIES BVT minde here a futher matter They say The Church at Ierusalem was the first Church of Christ and by faith and Baptism made a Church and in the next words that the twelue were so made also DEFENCE IF the Church at Ierusalem were the first Church of Christ as in a sense it may be so called I would know how the Baptism of Christ before that time and of Iohns before Christs having also joyned with them faith in the baptized made Churches Were any made before the first Or what and which were the Churches which they so made and gathered Both the one and other living and dying members of the Iewish Church I add considering how it is said of Iohn that Ierusalem and all Iudea and the region round about Iordan were baptized of him confessing their sinnes and of Christ that he made and baptized moe Disciples then Iohn it is very evident that thousands afterwards made members of the Churches in Ierusalem Iudea Samaria and Galilee were baptized long before by Iohn and Christ and were made members of the Church in our sense long after their Baptism Here then we see Baptism administred and yet no Church made and again Churches made and yet many the members thereof not then but long before baptized We grant as they say that Rome is that Aegipt Sodom and Babylon in mysterie mentioned in the Revelation but deny which they adjoyn as being both untrue and uncharitable that all in that Church are in Gods account as the worst pagans c. God hath his people considered in their persons in Babylon unto whom he saith Come out of her my people c. being held captiue there by her craft and cruelty Neither is Babylon called an habitation of Divels for that the devill possesseth men but to shew its desolation after the day of the fall thereof the Evangelist in that speech alluding to the forms of speech used by the Prophets before against Babylon Civill in regard of her utter ruin and desolation shortly to follow Neither is the Baptism in Rome a Babylonish or Aegyptian washing as they calumniate no more then the doctrine of Baptism in the name of the Trinity is a Babylonish doctrine but it is as a vessell of the Lords house though prophaned there Much lesse can that vitupery agree to the Church of England where the faith is sound for justification and salvation and effectuall for obtaining the same in those that truely professe it The Circumcision of Gods people though too much infected with their sinns in Aegipt and Babylon were noâ— Aegyptian and Babylonish no more is the Baptism in Aegypt and Babylon spirituall specially in regard of Gods people there as not a few also shew themselvs to be by comming out thence at the Lords call though some more slowly then other as of old they did out of Babylon Civill as Esra and Nehemiah testifie That the everlasting Gospell commands beleevers to be baptized to wit if unbaptized before we grant but that men become an habitation of God by his spirit and water is as if they said water dwels in men as the spirit of God doth It is hard to say whether Papists bread or these mens water be made the greater Idoll Neither doe we in retaining the Baptism received in Rome take a corner stone out of Babylon either for foundation or wall but bring thence a vessell of the Lords house there captived with the Lords people I know not but that the very circumcision of the Shechimites might haue been retained if any of the males had survived and embraced the truth of religion which yet was far from being lawfully administred Lastly though all were true which they say for anabaptizing in the generall yet were their particular practise not justified thereby nor our exception cleared being against their manner and the same singular from all other of their Sect in all places of baptizing by persons uncalled thereunto either by God immediately or mediately by the Church â—â— or otherwise then by their own particular and personall motion To their objection arising from the supposed proportion between Baptism and the Ministery and to their Demand Why I cast away my Popish Priesthood and retain my Popish washing for my Christianity as they please to speak I haue answered elsewhere at large neither haue they been able to this day or now are to say against mine answer any thing at all either true or colourable and yet neither haue they the humility to suffer themselvs to be taught better nor the modesty to hold their tongues in the matter but doe irksomely demand a new the things of old answered For the present I will onely note these three differences First it is absurdly said that a man is made a Christian by his Baptism as he is made a Minister by his outward calling He that is not a Christian before he be baptized becomes not one thereby But by the outward
Gods appoyntment who hath allotted to every one his portion Their second answer is of admirable devise that as the preists might meddle with all the services of the old Testament So all the saints being preists unto God no men excepted may meddle with all the services of the new Testament But why might and may and not ought and must The Preists under the Law were bound leaving unto the high Preist his function and to the Levites theirs in their courses to all the services of the Tabernacle and Temple So by their crooked rule every Christian no men excepted not onely may in liberty but must in duty minister not onely baptism but the Lords Supper also and all other ordinances in his turn and so all must be alike for publicke ministrations for all are Preists to God alike All the congregation are holy every one of them and the Lord is among them and you Moses and Aaron take too much upon you said Korah of old They err grosly therefore in making all Preists for all publique ordinances in the Church whereof some appertayn to Christs Propheticall administration as the sacraments which are seales of the Covenant dispensed by preaching others to his kingdom as the appointing of officers and censuring of offenders Our Christian Preisthood stands onely in our offering of spirituall sacrifices to God our selvs first and so consequently the sacrifices of prayses and prayer from a broken heart works of mercy and the like That baptism is a service of the Temple that is an ordinance of the Church we haue formerly proved And surely strange it is that I should need to proue that there is any ordinance of religion which the Church is not to administer Paul and Apollos and Cephas are the Churches and is not their baptism theirs This whilst they compare to the hewing of stones in the mountains they lay in common for ministration to very unbeleevers with disciples for the Zidonians or other of the Heathens as well as Israelites might either square stones or hew wood for the Temple Lastly touching my similitude As it cannot be denyed but that the setting of the seal unto the Kings pardon granted to a malefactour is a matter both of more solemnity and authority then the bare manifestation and making known of the same pardon which any ordinarily may do to any as oportunity servs So haue I proved long agoe against these Adversaries by many Arguments hitherto by them unanswered and I assure my self unanswerable that the outward baptism of which we speak is an outward seal of the Covenant of grace that is an holy outward signe ordained of God as a means by the work of the spirit to confirm the faith of the Church in her washing both from the guilt and contagion of sin by the bloud of Christ Iesus More then this we mean not in calling the Sacraments Seals with the Apostle and lesse none can yeeld them that hath learnt their right use either from his own fruitfull experience or the Scriptures information Glory be to God and good to men FINIS Courteous Reader take knowledge that the Author being absent through oversight these faults mostly materiall haue escaped which I pray thee correct as thou readest if more thou findest impute them to hastie oversight PAge 24 line 5 for sin stands not in c. reade sin stands in c. pag. 40 lin 1 for are done read are not done p. 44 l. 3â— for of themselvs the r. of the p. 45. l. 20 for and r. add p. 56 l. 12 for calling r. calling p. 72. l. 6 for falsifying r. falsitie p. 80. l. 11 for purpose r. purposes p. 81. l. 8 after vers add comma p. 93. l 4 for but will r. but nil p. 134 l. 4 for regenerate r. unregenerate p. 137. l. 25 for indossolible r. indissolible p. 156 l. 12 for casuality r. causality p. 168 l. 22 for or Will that in r. or Will inâ— p. 175 l. 15 for things as r. things As. Rom. 10. 2. Epistle to the Reader 1 Cor. 14. 38. Eph. 4. 8. 11. Phil. 4. 4. Act. 20. 19 Eph. 4. 15. Pag. 3. 1 Pet. 1. 1â— 20. Synod Dor. Art 6. 15 of divine providence Pag. 4. 5. Gen. 3. Act. 2. 22. 23 ch 4. 27. 28. Pag 28. 29 Ioh. 3. 16. Gal. 2. 20. 1. Ioh. 4. 9. Rom 5. vers 25. 29. Mark 3. 31. Luk. 24. 20. 26. Ioh. 12. 32. 33. Gal. 3. 13. 2. Sam. 12. 10. 11. 12. 2 King 29 19. Psal. 119. 160 164 Pag. 5. Gen. 22. Exod. 4. 21. 22. Luk. 12. 50. 22. 42. Pag. 5. Pag. 6. 2 Sam. 12 15 16. Rom. 1. Pag. 6. 7. 2. Pet. 2. 10. Iude 10. Iam. 1. 17. Pag. 7. 3. 9. 10. Prov. 16. 4. Rom. 11. 36 Pag. 10. 1 Tim. 6. 16 1 Tim. 1. 17 Psal. 115. 4. Pag. 11. Pag. 11. 12 1 Cor. 12. 4. Pag. 12. â— Tim. 5. 21 Esay 6. 2. Mat. 16. 11. Ioh. 4. 34. Act. 20. 28. Mat. 18. 7. 1 Cor. 11. 19 1 King 2 â— Chap. 12. 23 33. 11 Prov. 1. 2â— Chap. 33. 1â— 2 Tim. 2. 24. 25. 26. Ioh. 6. 44. Psal. 135. 6. Pag. 12 13. 14. Matth. 25. Gen. 1. 1. 2. â—â—â— 17. 28 â—â—â— 146. 6 Mat. 15. 1â— Gen. 38. Pag. 14 15 17. Maâ— 11. 29 Pag. 17. Pag. 17. Pag. 18. Act. 15. 18. Pag. 19. Esay 53. 7 10. Iam. 1. 17. â— Sam. 14. 29. Pag. 20. Pag. 20 21 22. Prov. 16. 23 Mat. 10. 29 Pag. 23. c Gen. 45. Exod. 4. 9. Iob. 1. 2. Sam. 16. 2. Sam. 24. 2. King 22 Esay 10. 2. Thess. 2. Pag. 23. 2 Sam. 16. 10. Iob 1. 21. 2 Sam. 24. 1 Pag. 24. 1 King 22. Pag. 25. Rom. 11. 3â— Pag. 26. Esa. 10. 6. 7 12. 13. c. Pag. 31. Pag. 27. Mat. 8. 15. Mark 1. 31 2 Sam. 18 22. 23. Gen. 45. 5. 7. 8. Pag. 30 Pag. 4 5. 6. 7. 8. â—ee Vrsinus of the divine Providence Pag. 31. 32 vers 3â— Mat. 4. 10. 11. Mat. 13. 1â— ch 11. 26 Rom. 9. 8 Pag. 34. 35 Of divine Predestination Art 7. Pag. 34. â—â— 36. Mat. 11. 28 Mat. 11. 24 Pag. 3â— Psal. 15. â—â— Ezech. 11. 19 chap. 36. 26. 27. Mat. 25. 26 Rom. 8. 30 Ephes. 1. 9. Ioh. 1. 12. Eph. 2. 8. â— Cor. 2. 14 15. 1 Cor. 3. 6. 7 Ioh. 6 44. Vers. 47. 2 Tim. 2. 24. 25. Luk. 18. 10 â—1 Pag. 36. 37. 38. 39. c. Mat. 11. 25 Act. 16. 14 Act. 13. 18 2. Tim. 2 25. Ephes. 1. 4. Pag. 42. 43 Prov. 7. Vers. 3. Vers. 11. Rom. 8. â—â— Eph. 1. 3. 4. 5. 13. Math. 22. â— 12. Act. 15. 18 Pag. 39. 42 43. 44. Ephes. 1. 4. Vers. 5. Deut. 4. 35. ch 7. 7. 8 ch 14. 2. Psal. 65. 4. Iob. 15. 16. Iam. 1. 6. â— Iob. 3. 22. Ephes. 2. 8 2 Tim. 2. 2â— chap. 10. 3. 6 â— 4. â— Pet. 1. 2. Iam. 2. 5. Eph. 1. 4. 1 Cor. 1. 2. â— Pet.