7.12.16 Heb. 9.10 Seventhly those commands that belonged to another covenant then that which now in force bind not but such are the commands of the Jews sacraments Heb. 8.13 Heb. 9.1 therefore they bind not Eightly those commands which were proper to the Jews bind not us Christians but the sacraments of the Jews were proper to the Jews so was Circumcision the Passeover the Sacrifices therefore they bind us not Ninthly If one part bind us then all the commands bind us and if we be obliged to any one rite then to all for they had all the same authority nor hath that authority dissolved any one part more then another Now it is a sure rule that ubi lex non distinguit non est distinguendum where the law distinguisheth not we must not distinguish therefore either none binds us or else we must revoke Judaisme And indeed to say so far a command of God binds and so far not without a plain declaration of Gods will is an high presumption whereby man takes on him to release or dispense with Gods Law which is of equall authority with the making of a law Lastly those commands bind us not which the Apostle would not have us subject to no not in part but such are the commands of the Jewish sacraments Col. 2.16.20 Gal. 5.1 2 3. and your self say pag. 27. the Apostle would take them off wholly from circumcision therefore they bind us not Yea it is to overthrow utterly our Christian liberty by Christ which the Apostle was so stiffe in maintaining that he would not yeeld no not one houâ— and blamed Peter for diâ—sembling this liberty Gal. 2.5.14 to maintain that all the commands and institutions of God about the Sacraments of the Jews bind us as much as they did them in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant and were not accidentall to them But you endeavour to make good your Maxime by instances and accordingly you say thus As because Circumcision is called a seal of the covenant therefore our Sacraments are seals of the covenant though circumcision no where that I know be called the seal of the covenant but only the seal of the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 4.11 yet because it is called a signe or token of the Covenant Gen. 17.11 it may well be called a seal or confirming signe of the covenant with Abraham and so of the covenant of Grace and our Sacraments may be so called likewise they being confirming signs of the new Testament Luk. 22.10 Acts 2.38 but not because Circumcision was called so but because that phrase expresseth the truth of the thing But what is this instance to your purpose Is there a command or institution of God binding the Jews to call Circumcision so or a command or institution for us by vertue of the command to the Jews to call it so though I should oppose him that should deny our Sacraments to be seals of the covenant because he should deny a truth yet I should not say he did sin that did not call them so Your next instance is beâ—ause Circumcision might be administred but once being the seal of initiation therefore Baptisme being also the seal of initiation is to be administred but once However I conceive no necessity of circumcision or Baptisme above once yet I professe my self unsatisfied in this that there is either a command that a person be but once circumcised or a person once only baptized However if there were a command that a person should be but once circumcised and it could be proved that a person should be but once baptized yet I utterly deny that the command to circumcumcise but once is a cammand to baptize but once and therefore what ever any Divines may dictate Magisterially yet I do not think my self in Pythagoras his School that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he said it should be my rule You adde but that circumcision was to be administred on the eighth day only was an accidentall thing and therefore bindeth not I see no reason why once circumcising should belong to the substance of the covenant and to be circumcised on the eighth day should be accidentall yea if reason may rule the roast there is more reason that circumcising on the eighth day should belong to the substance of the covenant being commanded by God expresly and as many of the Ancients conceive particularly Cyprian Ep. 99. ad finem typifying Christs resurrrection on the eighth day then that to be circumcised but once should be of the substance of the covenant which is neither commanded nor is found in Scripture to typifie any thing belonging to the Covenant So vaine are mens conceits without the light of the Word But you go forward in the other Sacrament The Jewish Passeover being to be yearly repeated binds us to have a repetition of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper which came in roome of it because this belongs to the substance of the Covenant both of them being Sacraments for spirituall nourishment growth and continuance in the Covenant as the other was for birth and entrance but that their Passeover was to be eâ—ten in an evening and upon one set evening in the yeare was accidentall and so binds not us Here is a heape of dictats without proofe I grant the Jewish Passeover was to be yearly repeated because God so commanded it but thaâ— either this belonged to the substance of the Covenant or that this command binds us to the frequenâ— use of the Lords Supper I deny it if it did it were a very good plea for the superstitious custome of keeping Easter and receiving the Communion once a yeare on that day which I thinke you will be ashamed of though you lay the egge out of which it may be hatched I grant the Lords Supper is to be repeated often not because the Jewish Passeover was to be yearly repeated or because it is the Sacrament for spirituall nourishment growth and continuance in the Covenant as the other was for birth and entrance but because it may be plainly gathered from the Institution or Command of Christ and the Apostles declaration thereupon 1 Cor. 11.25 26. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth imply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as oft doth imply not obscurely but plainly a frequency and if example must be a rule as it is conceived in many cases lesse cleare and that have lesse reason that example Acts 20.7 should binde that on the first day of the weeke when Disciples come together they have the Lords Supper for the which the meeting then was intended and that action gave denomination to the whole service and by the relation of Justine Martyr if my memory deceive me not and others it was so in the primitive Church of Christians but I desire to be sparing in matters of command on mens consciences As for that you make the Evening accidentall to the Passeover and so not binding us in the use of the Lords Supper it 's but a
of grace and to be elect and to persevere in grace are meant of the same persons according to the Apostles doctrine Rom. 9.7 8. c. and the common doctrine of the Contra-Remonstrants And on the contrary Bertius in his book de Apostasia sanctorum pag. 79. among other absurdities which he reckons as consequent on their opinion that deny Apostasie of Saints puts this as the seventh Baptismum non obsignare certo in omnibus liberis fidelium gratiam Dei quum inter illos quidam sint etiam antecedente decreto Dei ab aeterno absolute reprobati ac proinde dubitandum esse fidelibus de veritate foederis divini Ego sum Deus tuus seminis tui post te And when this was urged by the Author of the Synod of Doâ—t and Arles reduced to the practise Part. 3. Sect. 6. in these words For to every person whom they baptize they apply the promises of the Covenant of grace clean contrary to their own doctrine which saith that they nothing belong to the Reprobates of the world Dr. Twisse answers that however in the judgement of charity they take all Infants brought to be baptized to be elect yet the promises of the Covenant of grace do indeed belong only to the Elâ—ct which he proves at large by shewing that there are promises of the Covenant of grace as of regeneration circumcising the heart writing the Law in their hearts Jer. 31.33 which must needs be absolute For no condition can be assigned of performing these promises but that it will follow That grace is given to wit the grace of faith according to mens workes which is plaine Pelagianisme Whence he concludes Now then who are they on whom God should bestow faith and regeneration but Gods Elect And accordingly Baptisme as it is a Seale and assurance of performing this promise of Justification and salvation unto them that believe so it is a seale and assurance of the promise of circumcising the heart and regeneration only to Gods Elect. And after pag. 192. VVe are ready to maintaine that all who are under the covenant of grace are such as over whom sin shall not have the dominion Rom. 6.14 Besides he that shall heare you preach that the children of believers are in the Covenant of grace and that they that are in the Covenant of grace cannot fall away may be apt to conceive himselfe within the Covenant of grace without repentance and faith and that he shall be saved without obedience and so lay a ground-work for Antinomianisme and consequently Libertinisme And may not on the other side believing Parents when they see their children vicious and ungodly doubt whether they themselves be true believers because they see not their châ—ldren in the Covenant of grace and so while you think to comfort parents about their children you may create great discomfort concerning themselves Lastly if this were true that the Covenant of grace is a birth-right priviledge then the children of believers are children of grace by nature for that which is a birth-right priviledge is a priviledge by nature and if as Mr. Blakâ— saith pag. 6. of his book Christianity is hereditary that as the childe of a Noble man is Noble the childe of a freeman is free the childe of a Turke is a Turke of a Jew a Iew the childe of a Christian is a Christian then Christians are born Christians not made Christians and how are they then children of wrath by nature which whether they may not advantage Pelagians and denyers of Originall sin it concernes those that use such speeches to consider But the Author of the writing entituled Infants baptizing proved lawfull by Scripture mentions other promises besides that Gen. 17.7 to wit Deu. 28.4 Deut. 30.2.6 Isa. 44.3 Isa. 59.21 Exod. 20.6 Psal. 112.2 and such like To all which the answer is plaine if men would conceive it 1. That according to the Apostles own determination Ro. 9 7 8. these promises as they contain such things as accompany salvation must be restrained to the Elect whose children soever they be by naturall generation and this is agreeable to our Saviours applying the promise Isa. 54.13 to them that are given of his Father Iohn 6.45 And thus are we to understand Deut. 30.6 Isa. 44.3 2. That the text Isa. 59.21 is plainly applied to the time of the calling of the Jews Rom. 11.27 and therefore cannot be applied rightly to the posterity of any believers at any time indefinitely 3. Thâ—t the promises Deut. 28.4 Psal. 112.2 are expresly meant of outward blessings and therefore cannot prove a covenant of grace in Christ. 4. That Exod. 20.6 doth plainly include a condition of obedience and it is expresly mentioned Psal. 103.17 18. as included in other promises of like kind which condition God doth not undertake for any children of a believer but the elect nor is Christ surety for any but the elect and therefore till it can be proved that the Election of grace belongs to the children of believers it cannot be proved that the Covenant of grace belongs to them by vertue of these promises I Now return to your Sermon You tell us thus As it is in other kingdomes corporations and families the children of all subjects born in a kingdom are born that Princes subjects where the father is a free-man the childe is not born a slave where any are bought to be servants their children born in their masters house are born his servants Thus it is by the Lawes of almost all nations and thus hath the Lord ordained it shall be in his kingdome and family the children follow the Covenant-condition of their parents if he take a father into his covenant he takes the children in with him if he reject the parents out of the covenant the children are east out with them This passage I might have passed over as containing nothing but dictates Yet I think it necessary to observe 1. That you do very carnally imagine the Church of God to be like Civill corporations as if persons were admitted to it by birth whereas in this all is done by free election of grace and according to Gods appointment nor is God tied or doth tie himself in the erecting and propagating his Church to any such carnall respects as descent from men Christianity is no mans birth-right The Apostle knew not that God had so by promise or other ingagement bound himself but he was free as he said to Moses after the promise made to Abraham to have mercy on whom he would Rom. 9.15 Yea to conceive that it is in Gods Church as in other Kingdomes and after the laws of Nations is a seminary of dangerous superstitions and errors Dr. Rainolds in his Conference with Hart hath shewed that hence arose the frame of government by Pâ—triarchs Metropolitans c. And is not this the very reason of Invocation of Saints that I mention not more of the like kind 2. When you say if he take a
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 and Mr. Blake aim at But your words concerning the knowledge of the will of Christ as the rule of baptizing rather advantage the Antipaedobaptists who know no other rule to baptize by but the condition you truly propound of profession of faith and therefore conceive your words a good plea for them But you further say And in this the rule to direct our knowledge is as plain for Infants as for grown men the rule having been alwayes this that grown men who were strangers from the covenant of God unbelievers Pagans Heathens should upon their being instructed and upon profession of their faith and promise to walk according to the rule of the covenant be received and added to the Church and made partakers of the seal of their entrance and their Infants to come in with them both sorts upon their admission to be charitably hoped of untill they give signes to the contrary charity being bound from thinking of evill of them not bound to conclude certainly of any of them because they ought to know that in all ages all are not Israel who are of Israel and that many are called but few chosen That the rule for baptizing Infants should be so plain as the rule to direct our knowledge about baptizing grown men professors of faith I wonder you should say it much more that you should preach and print it sith your selfe confesse pag. 34. no expresse command in the new Testament that they should be baptized no expresse example where children were baptized but on the other side pag. 35. you say expresse command there is that they should teach the Heathen and the Jews and make them disciples and then baptize them And I hope you do not imagine that a rule gathered by virtuall consequence is so plain as that which is expresse it may be as true but it is not possible it should be so plain But the truth of that additionall rule of Infants coming in with their parents hath been examined and as yet it hath been found to me neither plain nor true YOu go on to the fourth Objection But all who enter into covenant and receive the seal of the covenant must stipulate for their parts as well as God doth for his they must indent with God to perform the Believers part of the covenant as well as God doth to perform his part as even this Text 1 Pet. 3. requires that Baptisme which saves us must have the answer of a good conscience to God Now although it be granted that Infants are capable of receiving the first grace if God be pleased to work it in them yet what answer of a good conscience can there be from Infants unto God they having not the use of reason and not knowing what the covenant means For my part I own not this objection taken from the generall nature of the covenant as if it did exclude Infants or that particular text 1 Pet. 3.21 For the word used for a Covenant may be as well translated a Testament and the Holy Ghost Gal. 3. and Heb. 9. doth use it in that notion and it may be that covenants of another may be by interpretation of Law as their covenant as in the covenant of the Israelites with the Gibeonites And for that text however Beza translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by stipulation and in his Annotation on that place sayes The Apostle had respect to the interrogations of Catechists in which the catechised even then did witnesse their inward baptisme to be confirmed by the outward as Acts 8.37 whereto sayes he belongeth the Apostles Creed and that translated from the baptisme of grown persons to the baptisme of Infants by a greater error if you consider the Infants themselves Dost thou believe I do believe Dost thou renounce I do renounce Whence that of Tertullian which is as it were in the stead of a Commentary on this place in his book of the resurrection of the flesh The soul is established not by washing but by answering I say though Beza do upon second thoughts and neerer consideration conceive this to be the meaning yet I build not on it as being doubtfull and in mine apprehension it rather notes an effect of Baptisme and the resurrection of Christ then a prerequisite condition and there are other plain places before alledged which do prove the thing that the baptized were to professe and promise or to use your phrase seal which I deny not to be the phrase of John Baptist Joh. 3.33 as Acts 8.37 c. So that the objection is the same with the second Now let us see what you answer you say thus The Infants of the Jews were as much tied as the Infants of Believers under the Gospel every one who was circumcised was bound to keep the whole Law Gal. 5. And these men professe that Israelitish Infants were within the old covenant when yet they knew not what it meant nor could have the same use of it with their parents and others of discretion look what answer they will make for the Jews Infants if true will abundantly satisfie for the Infants of Believers under the Gospel It is true this answer serves turn against those that argue from the generall nature of a covenant but it is no answer against those that only urge Instituton and Apostolicall practice as our rule As for that which you here and all along in your Book suppose that there is the same reason of the mixt covenant made with Abraham as with the pure Covenant of the Gospel and of every Believer as of Abraham and of Baptisme as of Circumcision it is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chief error which misleads you throughout your Sermon and makes you speak and write in a dialect which in the Scripture is unknown And for that which you say that the Infants of the Jews were as much tied as the Infants of Believers under the Gospel if you mean it of common duties of Euangelicall obedience it is true if you mean it thus which alone serves for your purpose that persons to be baptized now are no more tied to make profession of faith before Baptisme then Infants of the Jews were tied to make profession of faith afore Circumcision it is false For there is now plain Text for the requiring of it before Baptisme but not before Circumcision But you say every one that was circumcised was bound to keep the whole Law Gal. 5. True and therefore circumcision was in the use of it diametrally opposite to the use of Baptisme You say and these men professe that the Israelitish Infants were within the old Covenant when yet they knew not what it meant and then say look what answer they will make for the Jews Infants if true will abundantly satisfie for the Infants of Believers under the Gospel If you mean this concerning the reason why the Christians Infants should not be baptized though the Jews Infants were circumcised this is a true and satisfactory answer
Believers are to be baptized with Christs baptisme by the lawfull Minister according to ordinary rule I deny it That which you say for the practise of baptizing infants may be reduced 1. To the testimonies of Antiquity 2. To the novelties and miscarriages of the opposers of it 3. To the arguments produced for it 4. To the answering objections against it I shall by Gods assistence examine each of these First you affirm That the Christian Church hath been in possession of it for the space of fifteen hundred years and upwards as is manifest out of most of the Records that weâ— have of Antiquity both in the Greek and Latine Churches To this I answer that if it were true yet it is not so much as may be said for Episcopacy keeping of Easter the religious use of the Crosse c. which I conceive you reject 2. That the highest testimonies you produce come not so high 3. Those that be alleaged being judiciously weighed will rather make against the present doctrine and practise then for it 4. There are many evidences that do as strongly prove as proofes usually are taken in such matters Quod ab initio non fuit sic That from the beginning it was not so and therefore it is but an innovation The first of these I presume you will acknowledge that for Antiquity not-Apostolicall there are plain testimonies of Episcopacy keeping of Easter the religious use of the Crosse being in use before any of the testimonies you or any other can produce for baptizing of infants and therefore I will forbear mentioning proofes so obvious to Schollars The second and third thing I shall make good in the weighing of the Testimonies you produce and the fourth in the close YOur Testimonies are either of the Greek or Latine Churches Of the Greekes you alleage foure The first is Justine Martyr of whom you say That he lived Anno 150. which wants somewhat of 1500. years and therefore you did somewhat overlash in saying that it is manifest out of most of the Records of the Greeke and Latine Church The Church hath been in possession of the priviledge of baptizing Infants 1500. years and upwards and then you say In a Treatise that goes under his name By which it is manifest that you know that it was questioned whether it was his or no and I conceive you could not be ignorant that it is not only questioned but also proved by Perkins in his preparative to the demonstration of the Probleme by Rivet in his Critieus sacer by Robert Cooke of Leeds if my memory faile me not to which I am inforced to trust in many things being spoiled of my bookes in his Censure and confessed by Papists to be none of Justine Martyrs but to bee written a great while after his dayes for as much as it mentions not only Irenaeus but also Origen and the Manichees Now what doth this bastard Treatise say You say Question 56. Justine Martyr disputes the different condition of those children who die baptized and of those children who die unbaptized The question propounded is If Infants dying have neither praise nor blame by works what is the difference in the resurrection of those that have been baptized by others and have done nothing and of those that have not been baptizâ—d and in like manner have done nothing The Answer is this is the difference of the baptized from the not baptiâ—â—d that the baptized obtaine good things meaning at the Resurrection by baptisme but the unbaptized obtain not good things And theâ— are accounted worthy of the good things they have by their baptisâ—â— by the faith of those that bring them to baptisme You may by thâ—â— testimony see what ever Age the book was made in what the reason of baptizing of Infants was Not the supposed Covenant of grace made to believers and their seed which you make the ground of baptizing of infants but the opinion that the not baptized should not obtain good things at the resurrection meaning the Kingdome of God mentioned Joh. 3.5 but the baptized should and that by reason of the faith of the bringers what ever the Parents were and therefore they baptized the children of unbâ—lievers as well as believers if they were brought YOur next Greek Author is Irenaeus who was indeed a Greeke and wrote in Greek but now only we have his works in Latine except some few fragments for which reason we are not so certain of his meaning as we might be if we had his own words in the language in which he wrote You say he lived in the same Century and it is acknowledged he lived in the same Century with Justine Martyr but not with the Author of the Questions Answers ad Orthodoxâ—s who as hath been said lived in some Age after Irenaeus is by Vsher placed at the yeare 180. by Osiander at the yeare 183. so that though he were of that Century yet he flourished in the latter part of it and so reacheth not to your 1500. years upwards Of him you say that l. 2. c. 39. he saith Christus venit per seipsuÌ„ omnes salvare omnes inquaÌ„ qui per eum renascuntur in DeuÌ„ infantes parvuloâ— pueros c. Now it is well knowne say the Glossers upon that text renascentiâ— nomine Dominica Apostolica Phrasi Baptismum intelligi You might have added what follows Aperte confirmans Apostolorum traditionem de baptismo infantium parvulorum adversus Anabaptisticam impietatem But I pray you whose Glosse was this Was it any other then Fevardentius if I mistake not of whom Rivet Crit. Sacr. lib. 2 cap. 6. Juniores tantum qui in opera Irenaei incident monitos volo ut caveant ab illis Editionibus quas impudentissimus ille Monarchus Fevardentius homo projecta audacia et nullius fidei foede in multis corrupit annotationibus impiiâ— et mendacibus conspuâ—cavit And for the glosse its false for no where doth our Lord or the Apostles call baptisme Now birth although our Lord speake of being borne againe of water Ioh. 3.5 and Paul of the washing of regeneration Tit. 3.5 and for the words themselves without the glosse all the strength lyes in this that the word Renascuntur is used for Baptisme by the Ancients which yet possibly was not the word Irenaeus used in his owne writing and how the Latine translation alters the meaning of Irenaeus you may see somewhat in Rivet Vossius Thesibus Theologic de Padebapt Thesi. 7. intimates that the proper acception is of sanctification and that the word may be so taken yea and that it is not meant of Baptisme the words and the whole scope of Irenaeus in that place shew For the scope of Irenaeus in that chapter is to refute the Gnosticks who sayd that Christ did not exceede one and thirty yeeres of age against whom Irenaeus alleageth that Christ lived in every age of infancy youth old age that by his age example
did only contain the covenant of Grace in Christ whereas it is apparent ouâ— of the Text that the Covenant was a mixt Covenant consisting of temporall benefits to wit the multiplying of his seed v. 6. the possâ—ssion of Canaan v. 8. the birth of Isaac v. 16. and the spirituall blessings v. 5 7. Yea Cameron thâ—sibus de triplici foedere Dei thesi 78. saith That circumcision did primarily separate Abrahams seed from other Nations sealed the earthly promise it signified sanctification secondarily And indeed this is so plainly delivered in the Scripture that the Psalmist cals the promise of Canaaâ— the covenant made with Abraham Ps. 105.8 9 10 11. He hath remembred his Covenant for ever the word which he commanded to a thousand generations which Covenant he made with Abraham and his Oath unto Isaac and confirmed the same to Jacob for a Law and to Israel for an everlasting covenant Saying unto thee will I give the Land of Canaan the lot of your inheritance If you should say that these promises were types of spirituâ—ll and heavenly things the reply is that though it be true yet the things promised were but carnall and earthly as the Sacrifices were but carnall things though shadowes of spirituall 2. When you say thus The manner of administration of this Covenant was at first by types and shadowes and sacrifices c. It had been convenient to have named Circumcision that it might not be conceived to belong to the substance of the Covenant But of this there may be more occasion to speak at pag. 35. of your Sermon 3. Whereas pag. 14. you place among the third sort of Abrahams seed Proselytes that were selfe-justitiaries carnall and formall professors it behoved you to shew where in Scripture they are called Abrahams seed which I think you cannot Yea the truth is you herein joyn with Arminius who in his Analysis of the 9. to the Romans makes this as the ground of his wresting that Scripture that there is a seed of Abraham mentioned Romans 4.9 10. and Galat. 3. 4. cap. Qui per opera legis justitiam salutem consequuntur Who follow after righteousnesse and salvation by the works of the Law To whom Baine on Eph. 1.5 p. 139. answers Beside 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 But it is yet stranger to me that which Mr. Blake hath pag. 9. where he saith That there yet remaines in the bosome of the Church a distinction of the seed of Abraham borne after the flesh and after the spirit And that now by vertue of being born after the flesh some have a Church-interest And applies that of Gal. 4 29. Even so it is now to children born of believing parents after the flesh as having there by title to Church-interest Which passages are very grosse though he makes this the medium of his fourth Argument For first whereas the Apostle by being born after the flesh means not infants born of believing parents but those that are under the covenant of Mount Sinai that is who sought righteousnesse by the law and not by faith Mr. Blake means by being born after the flesh birth by naturall generation of infants born of Christian parents 2. Whereas he saith that such are in the bosome of the Church the Apostle saith they persecute the Church and are cast out 3. Whereas â—e makes such Abrahams seed he therein joyns with Arminius against the truâ—h and against the Apostle for though the Apostle makes Ismael to be the son of Abraham and speaks of him as born after the flesh whom he typically makes to represent legall justitiaries yet doth he not call Abrahams seed simply such justitiaries 4. Whereas the covenant of grace is made the reason of baptizing infants by alleâ—ging this place for baptizing of infants To be born of Hagar that is to be in the covenant of works should give a child interest into the Church of Christ. For my part I can see no other consequence than this of that cloudy argument The rest of your explication of the first Conclusion I let passe without any further animadversions as being unwilling sectare minutias to insist on small things or to stand upon matters of expression where I think you mean right and your words are likely to be so taken YOur second Conclusion is this Ever-since God gathered a distinct number out of the world to be his Kingdom City household in opposition to the rest of the world which is the kingdom city and houshold of Sathan He would have the Infants of all who are taken into Covenant with him to be accounted his to belong to him to his Church and family and not to the Devils This Conclusion you expresse so ambiguously that it is a Cothurnus a buskin that may be put on either legge right or left which should not have been in the main Proposition upon which the whole frame of your Argument hangs You say The Infants of all who are taken into covenant with God are to be accounted his but you tell us not in what sense this is to be understood For whereas persons may be said to be accounted his either before God or in facie Ecclesiae visibilis in the face of the visible Church 1. Before God either in respect of his election from eternity or his promise of grace in Christ congruous to it Or of their present estate of inbeing in Christ or the future estate they shall have 2. In facie Ecclesiae visibilis persons may be said to be accounted God's either as born among his people and so potentially members of the Church as being in a way to be in time actuall members of the Church of Christ or who already enquire after God and professe Christ though they do not well understand the doctrine of Christian Religion such as the Catechumeni of old were or they are to be accounted his in respect of actuall participation of Baptisme and the Lords supper 3. The accounting of them to be God's may be either an act of science or faith or opinion and that grounded on a rule of charity of prudence or probable hope for the future You do not declare distinctly in which of these senses or respects the Infants of all who are taken into covenant with God are to be accounted his so that I am almost at a stand what to deny or grant It cannot be denied but God would have the infants of believers in some sort to be accounted his to belong to him his Church and family and not to the Devils which expression I fear you use in this and other places ad faciendum populum to please the peoplâ— It is true in facie Ecclesiae visibilis the infants of believers are to be accounted Gods to belong to his family and church and not to the Devils as being in a neer possibility of
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
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
be under the first member of the division in the text It is a strange speech that he shâ—uld contend to prove this The seed of believing Gentiles are Jews by nature born to be circumcised and to keepe Moses law But let it be granted that they are called sinners in the sense he would have it thaâ— is out of the Covenant as it is said Ephes. 2.12 the question is in what sense the Gentiles were without the Covenant and the Jewes in It is certaine the Jews had by Gods appointment the priviledge of circumcision and the Covenant made with Abraham did beloâ—g to them in speciall manner and the Oracles were with them Rom. 9.4 5. and the Covenant of Saving-grace was among them till they were by unbeliefe broken off and that the Gentiles were dogs uncleane persons aliens from the commonwealth of Israel without God without Christ c. And so it may be granted that the Jews had a birth privledge though it is certaine that their birth did not intitle them to the Covenant of grace and that the common priviledge of circumcision belonging to the Jews did not arise from the Covenant of grace accotding to the substance of it but according to the admiâ—istâ—ation that then was nor was a fruit of the faith of the parents but of Gods appointment according to the dispensation of his will in that time of the churches minoritie but he that will prove that therâ—fore our children have such a birth priviledge because the Jews had must make our case as the Jews and so bring us under the Ceremoniall law But of this wee shall have occâ—sion hereafter to â—peake more fully onely by the way I thought it necessary to say so much because Master Vines referres us to Master Blakes Sermon as a learned treatise and I heard it in like manner magnified by Master Calamy and therefore have thought it necessary some where or other to â—xamine what hath any seeming strength in it And for the same reason I take notice of that speech of Master Blake page 11. Singular opinions put men upon singular interpretations which may as truely be verified of himselfe as of his adversaries in that which occasioned him so to speake Another booke lately published being the treatise of one Mr. William Cook and commended by Master Francis Woodcocke one of your Assembly as I conceive in the 62. page of it saith Whoever before but Bâ—llarmine or such Iesuiticall interpreters of Scripture tooke it so putting uncleane for bastards or holy for legitimate And in the Margin Note Reader that this is Bellarmines interpretation and after whether A. R. borrowed this answer of Bellarmine or invented it of himselfe as it is the happinesse of the good wits and holy affections of Iesuiticall and Anabaptisticall heads and hearts to jump in the same thing let others judge Mr. Woodcock had done well to have left out this passage For first although I have not now Bellarmines book by me to examine whether it be his interpretation or no yet I perceive by Chamier Panstr Cathol tom 4. lib. 5. cap. 10. § 55. who saith thus Hoc observato Bellarminum e tribus quas enumerat non iudicare quam cui praeferat quasi nihil interessâ—t This being observed that Bellarmine of the three senses which he reckons doth not shew which he preferres as if it were of no behoofe That that Author did not well heed Bellarmine when he makes it his opinion because he numbers it amongst other opinions Secondly that Authour not only erroneously but also otherwise in an unfitting way makes it a Jesuiticall interpretation only whereas he might have perceived that Bellarmine cites others then Jesuites for that interpretation and if he be not to be believed yet Chamier might be believed who saith in the same place § 50. Sic Ambrosium Thomam Anselmum exposuisse hunc Suarez appellat literalem sensum That Ambrose Thomas Anselme so expounded it and this Suarez cals the literall sense And before Bellarmine Musculus in his Commentarie on 1 Cor. 7.14 alleageth Ambrose and Hierome so expounding it and confesseth that though he had abused formerly that place against the Anabaptists yet he found that of matrimoniall sanctification and sanctity to be the right sense And Melancthon and Camerarius doe expound it of legitimation Gagnaeus Parisiensis in loc also so expounds it and Osiander Enchir. controv cum Anabap. c. 2. q. 3. Mariana schol in loc And as for that of Foederal holinesse I have rather reason to conceive it to be a new exposition the Ancients expounding it otherwise None that ever I met with expounding it of federall holinesse till the controversie of the Anabaptists in Germanie arose You say But this cannot be the meaning I clearly prove by these foure arguments First uncleannesse and holinesse when opposed one to the other are never taken for civilly lawfull Nor do I like the calling of it civill holinesse for it is not from the lawes of men but the institution of God and therefore I rather call it matrimoniall holinesse You say Vncleanesse indeed when opposed to cleanesse may be taken in severall senses An unclean vessel an unclean cloth an unclean garment when opposed to clean may signifie nothing but dirty or spotted but when uncleanâ—sse is opposed to holinesse it is alwayes taken in a sacred sense referring to a tabernacle use to a right of admission into or use in the tabernacle or temple which were types to us of the visible church and holinesse is alwayes taken for a separation of persons or things from common to sacred uses It is hard for you to make good nor is it materiall for me to disprove that which you say That when uncleanesse is opposed to holinesse it is alwayes taken in a sacred sense referring to a tabernacle use to a right of admissiâ—n into or use in the tabernacle or temple which were types to us of the visible church For if it were true yet the sense I give might stand good sith uncleanesse for bastardy might be taken allusively to the tabernacle if the exclusion of bastards from the congregation of the Lord were an exclusion from the tabernacle and so the sense might be good that uncleanesse is bastardy though that which you say were true that uncleanesse as opposed to holinesse refers to a tabernacle use Howsoever it is enough that I have proved that the word uncleanesse must be taken here for bastardy if the Apostles reason stand good Yet let me intreat you to look a little on that text 1 Thes. 4.7 and tell me whether uncleanesse there be not opposed to holinesse and whether it be taken in a â—acred sense referâ—ing to a tabernacle use to a right of admission into or use in the tabernacle or temple which were types to us of the visible church Me thinks by uncleanesse is meant fornication and by holinesse chastity and that comes very near the adjectives for bastards and legitimate which are
conclude that this holinesse being the fruit of one of the Parents being a believer must be meant of some kinde of holinesse which is not common to the seed of them whose parents are both believers and that is enough for our purpose What others object I know not the Text Deut. 23.2 was produced by mee in my papers in Latin above-mentioned in these words Et quidni simili allusione ponatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro spuriis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro legitimis nam spurius inter impuros Deut. 23.2 And why may not bâ— a like allusion uncleane be put for bastards and holy for legitimate for the bastard is put among the uncleane Deut. 23.2 By which you may perceive that I produced it not to prove that bastaâ—ds did not belong to the Covenant among the Jeweâ— or were to be denied circumcision or to be put away and therefore in what respect they are to be excluded from the Congregation of the Lord is not to my purpose materiall but onely to shew that bastards were reckoned among uncleane persons by the Law which I thinke you will not deny sith you confesse they were excluded from bearing office in the Church or some such like thing and therefore the Apostle might fiâ—ly by allusion put uncleane for bastards Against this there being nothing in your answer nor any thing else which hath not been replyed to before I passe to the two objections you bring in against your interpretation You say Yet there remain two Objections to be answered which are made against this our interpretation First the unbelieving wâ—â—e is here said to be sanctified as well as the child is said to be holy and the originall word is the same for both one the Verb the other the Noune if then the childe is holy with a federall holinesse then is also the unbelieving wife sanctified with a fâ—derall sanctification and so the wife although remaining a Heathâ—n may be counted to belong to the Covenant of Grace I answer indeed there would be weight in this Objection if the Apostle had said The unbelieving wife is sanctified and no more as he simply saith the children are holy but that he doth not say He saith indeed the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the believing husband or to the believing husband that is to his use as all other creatures are as the bed he lies on the meat he eats the clothes he wears the beast he rides on are sanctified to him and so this sanctifiednesse of the wife is not a sanctification of state but only of use and of this use to be sanctified to the believing husband whereas the holinesse and sanctification that is spoken of the children is a holinesse of state and not only a sanctification to the parents use These words in your Margin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Greek Preposition signifying to as well as in as Gal. 1.16 2 Pet. 1.5 Acts 4.12 1 Cor. 7.15 being the Texts I produce in my Latin paper that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be translated to as well as by give me some occcasion to think that this Objection is produced in reference to these words in my Latin paper where arguing against the rendring of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by as if the faith of the wife were the cause of the sanctifying the unbelieving husband I say thus Nemo enim dixerit fidem uxoris sanctificare virum infidelem foederaliter ita ut baptismi capax sit infidelis maritus propter fidem uxoris quod tamen pace tantorum virorum dictum sit tam benè sequitur ex hoc loco quam filium sanctum esse foederaliter baptismi capacem propter fidem parentisâ— for no man will say the faith of the wife sanctifies the unbelieving husband federally so that the unbelieving husband should be capable of Baptisme for the faith of the wife which yet with the leave of so great persons be it said doth as well follow out of this place as that the sonne is federally holy and capable of baptisme for the faith of the parent In which words when I say it follows out of this place my meaning is so translated and expounded as before that the unbelieving husband is sanctified by that is by the faith of the wife as the child is holy it would follow that the unbelieving husband should be in the Covenant as well as the child and so be baptized for the faith of the wife is said to sanctifie according to this reading and exposition the one as well as the other And so much I conceive you acknowledge in saying in this Objection there would be weight if the Apostle had said the unbelieving wife is sanctified and no more But this only I put in by a parenthesis as not building the main of the interpretation I gave on it knowing that Beza renders it in uxore in the wife and then the Objection hath no place And seeing you do render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in or to and expound the sanctification to the believers use as all other creatures are I confesse against you that Objection is not in force and therefore your answer may be acknoweldged right in this particular I passe to the second Objection That holinesse of the children is here meant which could not be unlesse one of the parents were sanctified to the other which is the force of the Apostles arguing the unbeliever is sanctified to the believer else were not the children holy but unclean but federall holinesse of children may be where parents are not sanctified one in or to the other as in bastardy Davids childe by Bathsheba Pharez and Zarah Judah's children by Thamar the Israelites children by the Concubines Abrahams son Ishmael by Hagar c. in which case the children were federally holy and accordingly were circumcised and yet the Harlot not sanctified in or to the Adulterer or Fornicator though a Believer This Objection I own having first proved that the santification of the unbeliever is meant of lawfull conjugall copulation only where you say the unbeliever is sanctified to the believer I would say as the Apostle doth to the wife or husband Now to this Objection you say I answer but I pray you tell me where you answer it I finde no answer to it here except it be an answer to an Argument to deny the conclusion In the Argument you neither shew faultinesse in the form nor matter which was the way of answering I learned in the Schools where I was bred You say we must attend the Apostles scope true but when we are to answer we must attend to the Objection and shew the weaknesse of it You say which is to shew that the children would be unholy if the faith or believership of one of the parents could not remove the barre which lies in the other being an unbeliever against the producing of an holy seed because one of them was a Pagan or unbeliever therefore the childe could
I do not say the Sacrament of Baptisme was a concomitant of Circumcision if not ancienter For it is well known that Baptisme was in use among the Jews in the initiating of Proselytes for many yeers together with circumcision as may be seen in Selden de jure naturali gentium juxta discipl Heb. lib. 2. cap. 2 3 4. Ainsworth Annot. on Gen. 17. There is much of this in many Authors beside But I suppose you cannot be ignorant of what Mr. Lightfoot hath in his Sermon entituled Elias Redivivus pag. 11. where he makes it as ancient as Jacob. Gratius Annot. in Mat. 3.6 hath these words Cum verò peregrini abluti non circumcisi solis legibus tenerentur quos Deus toti hominum generi dederat intellectu facile est ablutionem hanc fuisse inter vetera instituta orta ut arbitror post magnum diluvium in memoriam purgati mundi unde illud celebre apud Graecos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 certe baptismum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse diluvio etiam in Petri Epistola legimus But it may be the Sacrament of Baptisme came after neither is that in exactnesse of speech true sith Circumcision was a great while in force after John began to baptize which you will not deny to be the same Sacrament with ours But let it be granted it succeeds that is comes after Circumcision sith it continues now circumcision is taken away yet the sense in which you can rightly make it succeed into the room place and use of Circumcision will be brought into a narrow room too strait to settle Baptisme of Infants in it Room and place are properly either the same or differ only as locus communis proprius common place and proper so Baptisme which is an action hath no place or room properly If you mean by the room and place the subjects to be baptized or baptizing it is not true except in part some of the baptized and baptizers only were circumcised and to be circumcised some that were not to be circumcised as women were to be baptized If you mean by the room and place the society into which both persons were to be initiated it is not true For by the Sacrament of Baptisme persons were to be baptized into the Christian Church by Circumcision into the Jewish as your own Conclusion saith If you mean it of the commandment upon which both are seated neither is that true the commandement of Circumcision was many ageâ— before Baptisme was instituted as a Sacrament And for the succession into the use of Circumcision that is yet more untrue Your self say a few lines after The use of Circumcision engaged men to the use of the rest of the Jewish Ceremonies And page 29. It is true indeed that circumcision bound them who received it to confâ—rm to that manner of administration of the Covenant c. And if you had not confessed it it might have been proved out of Gal. 5.2 3. Acts 15.10 from the custome in circumcising Proselytes to bind them to the Lawes not only common to all the Noachidae but also to all the Laws of the Jews as Selden ubi supra Ainsworth on Gen. 17. But I hope you will not dare to say that Baptisme succeeds Circumcision in this use if it do then are we still bound to keep the Law of Moses Another use of Circumcision was to signifie Christ to come out of Abrahams family I think you will not deny it if you should I might plead against you Col. 2.17 Gal. 3.23 c. the institution of it to be in the males only of Abrahams family by whom the Genealogy was to be reckoned in the member for generation the expressions of the Covenant confirmed by it and the consent of innumerable learned men both of the Jewes and Christians And I think you will not say Baptisme succeeds into this use of Circumcision Another use of it was to be a partition wall between the Jews and Gentiles to distinguish and divide them whence the one were counted unclean as uncircumcised the other clean Eph. 2.11.14 but you will not say that Baptisme succeeds into this use sith the use of Baptisme is to the contraâ—y Gal. 3.26 27 28. and surely these were the main uses of it But you will say there was use of circumcision for initiation into the Church of the Jews and so of Baptisme But then though Baptisme do initiate as Circumcision yet not into the same Church For Circumcision did not initiate into any Church but into the Church of the Jews or rather into the family of Abraham but so doth not Baptisme If it be said that the one confirms the Covenant and so doth the other still I answer that Baptisme doth not confirm the same Covenant in every part that circumcision did For the Covenant was a mixt Covenant a great part whereof Baptisme doth not confirm This is all that can be said that they agree in that as circumcision did confirm the spirituall part of the Covenant to wit righteousnesse by faith Rom. 4.11 and signified holinesse of heart so doth also Baptisme the like whereof did the Cloud Sea Manna the water out of the Rock 1 Cor. 10.2 3 4. the Deluge or Ark 1 Pet. 3.21 the sprinkling of the blood of the Sacrifices and the same are confirmed by the Lords Supper and why then should we not say that Baptisme succeeds the flood sprinkling of blood as well as Circumcision and that the Lords Supper succeeds Circumcision as well as Baptisme Wherefore I conceive your Proposition so generally delivered That the Sacrament of Baptisme succeeds into the room place and use of Circumcision erroneous and very dangerous But how ever you think the thing is plainly delivered Col. 2.8 9 10 11 12. let us examine that Text then You say thus Where the Apostles scope is to disswade the believing Christians from the rudiments of the world and Jewish ceremonies and observations upon this ground that we are compleat in Christ and that in him as in the head the Church hath all perfections All this is very right and the thing very well expressed by Beza Addendum fuit istud ut non tantum sibi in sese sed in nostrum etiam usum statuatur Christus esse talis tantus ut nihil in ipso desideretur in eo uno omnia nanciscamur ad veram salvificam Dei notitiam requisita Coâ—plementum igitur in Christo adeptis quorsum vel humana sapientia vel vanis hominum commentis vel ceremoniis ullo denique extra Christum ascito sit opus Annot. in Col. 2.10 where mark that Beza rightly makes us so compleat in Christ that there is no need of any thing added out of Christ in stead of those ceremonies You go on and because he would take them wholly off from Circumcision the use whereof engaged them to the use of the rest of Jewish ceremonies he tells them that in Christ we are circumcised with
have the promise therefore they have the seal in Abraham though they never are nor may be sealed in their own persons You go on and the Jewes received it not as a Nation but as a Church as a people separated from the world and taken into covenant with God If you take as with reduplication it is true that neither the Jewes received circumcision as a Nation for then every nation should receive it nor as a Church or people separated from the world and taken into covenant with God for then every Church or people separated from the world and taken into covenant with God should receive circumcision which is false but they received it as appointed them from God under this formall reason and no other But what is all this to the answering the objection That it was not the seal of the spirituall part of the Covenant of Grace to all circumcised persons and that circumcision was appointed to persons not under the Covenant of Grace and that the reason why persons were circumcised was not because they were under the covenant of Grace but only Gods appointment But you yet adde It is true indeed that circumcision bound them who received it to conform to that manner of administration of the covenant which was carried much by a way of temporall blessings and punishments they being types of spirituall things It is right which you grant that circumcision bound them who received it to conform to that manner of administration of the covenant but then it is to be considered that circumcision was a part of this administration and that though temporall blessings as of the land of Canaan and rest in it were shadows of the rest of Gods people and so in a sort of administrations of the covenant of Grace yet they were also part of the things promised in the covenant made to Abraham and when you say circumcision bound them who received it to conform to that manner of administration of the covenant which was carried much by a way of temporall blessings and punishments it is hard to shew in what sense they were bound to conform to temporall blessings and punishments they were bound to conform to the sacrifices and offerings and washings c. For these were their acts to be done by them but how they were bound to conform to the administration by temporall blessings and punishments it is hard to understand sith they were Gods acts not theirs You adde but no man can ever shew that any were to receive the Sacrament of Circumcision in relation to those outward things only or to them at all further then they were administrations of the Covenant of Grace The truth is no man was to receive the Sacrament of Circumcision in relation to these outward things only or to them at all either as they were temporall blessings or types of spirituall things and so as you speak administrations of the covenant of Grace but in this respect only and for this reason and no other because God had so commanded though I deny not circumcised persons were by faith to look on the covenant of Grace through these administrations yet the reason of being circumcised was barely Gods command so that if you abstract Gods command notwithstanding the covenant or any other administration of it they were not to be circumcised You go on Sure I am the proselytes and their children could not be circumcised in any relation at all to the temporall blessings of the land of Canaan as they were temporall because notwithstanding their circumcision they were not capable of receiving or purchasing any inheritance at all in the land sojourne they might as other strangers also did but the inheritance of the land no not one foot of it could ever be alienated from the severall Tribes to whom it was distributed as their Possession by the most High For all the land was divided into twelve Tribes and they were not any one of them allowed to sell their lands longer then till the yeer of Jubilee Lev. 25. v. 3. c. Yea I mâ—y boldly sâ—y that their circumcision was so far from sealing to them the outward good things of the land that it occasioned and tyed them to a greater expence of their temporall blessings by their long and frequent and chargeable journyes to worship at Jerusalem This which you say may be granted and the thing which you would prove by it That they which received circumcision did not receive it in relation only to these outward things yet this overthrows not this Proposition That the covenant made with Abraham had promises of temporall blessings and that some were to be circumcised who had no part in the covenant of Grace You adde And as for what was alledged concerning Ishmael the Answer is easie God indeed there declares that Isaac should be the Type of Christ and that the covenant of Grace should be established and continue in his family yet both Ishmael and the rest of Abrahams family were really taken into covenant untill afterwards by apostasie they discovenanted themselves as also did Esau afterwards though he were the son of Isaac in whose family God had promised the covenant should continue When you say that Ishmael was really taken into the covenant meaning of Grace mentioned in a few words before you oppose both the Apostle Rom. 9.7 8. Gal. 4.28 29. as I have shewed before and Gods own speech Gen. 17.19 20. To which I may adde that Isaac and Jacob only are said to be coheirs with Abraham of the same promise Heb. 11.9 And when you say that he and Esau were discovenanted by apostasie you plainly deliver apostasie from the covenant of Grace which I will not call in you Arminianisme but in others it would and that justly be so censured But you will say you mean that Ishmael and Esau were Abrahams seed by profession and outward cleaving to the covenant as you speak pag. 14. But this is not to be taken into the covenant of Grace really as you speak for taking really into the covenant of Grace is Gods act either of election or promise or some act executing either of these but profession and outward cleaving to the covenant is mans act and therefore how to salve your speech I know not As for the objection I see not that you have answered it but that still it stands good that persons were to be circumcised who were not in the covenant of Grace that Ishmael was appointed to be circumcised though it were declared Gods covenant did not belong to him and therefore the reason of circumcising persons was not the covenant of Grace but only the will and command of God to have it so Your fifth Conclusion followes FIfthly and lastly the priviledges of Believers under this last and best administration of the covenant of Grace are many wayes inlarged made more honourable and comfortable then ever they were in the time of the Jews administration This Conclusion with its Explication and
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
men therefore they may and ought to receive the outward signe of Baptisme The major proposition that they who are made partakers of the inward grace may not be debarred of the outward signe is undeniable it is Peters argument Acts 10. Can any forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the holy Ghost as well as wee And againe for as much as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us what was I that I could withstand God And this is so cleare that the most learned of the Anabaptists doe readily grant that if they knew any infant to have received the inward grace they durst not deny them the outward signe and that the particular infants whom Christ took up in his armes and blessed might have been baptized The Question between us is whether the infants of believers universally or indifferently are to be admitted to the Sacrament of Baptisme according to ordinary rule Now I suppose you doe not hold that the infants of believers indifferently have actually the thing signified by Baptisme that is the Holy Ghost union with Christ adoption forgivenesse of sinnes regeneration and everlasting life for then they are all sanctified and are all believers and if this could be proved there would be no question about Paedobaptisme the texts Act. 8.37 Act. 10.47 Act. 11.17 would undeniably prove it and therefore there is no Antipaedobaptist I thinke but will grant your Major That regenerate persons united to Christ whose sins are forgiven adopted persons that have received the Holy Ghost are to be baptized But I conceive though in the laying down the Major you use these phrases who have the thing signified who have the heavenly part and in your Minor are made partakers yet you do not mean in this Assumption actuall having and being made partakers of the inward grace of Baptism concerning which the Antipaedobaptists do so readily grant the Major but a potentiall having or as you after speak being capable of the inward grace and so you use the fallacy of equivocation in the Major having being understood of actuall having and in the Minor of potentiall which makes four terms and so the Syllogisme is naught Or if you do mean in both actuall having you mean it only of some Infants of Believers not of all of whom the Question is and so your conclusion is but particular that some Infants of Believers who are sanctified actually are to be baptized But this will not reach home to your tenet or practice concerning the baptizing of all Infants of Believers in as much as they are the children of Believers without the consideration of actuall faith or sanctification It is true the Lutheranes do teach that Infants have actuall faith and are regenerate in Baptisme and therefore in Colloquio Mompelgarâ—ensi upon the fourth Artic. de Baptismo they put these among the Positions they reject as contrary to the Scripture Non omnes infantes qui baptizantur gratiae Christi participes esse regenerari infantes carere fide nihilominus baptizari that all the Infants which are baptized are not partakers of the grace of Christ and regenerate that Infants want faith and neverthelesse are baptized And I remember when I lived in Oxford there was a book published in English of Baptismal initiall regeneration of elect Infants the Position whereof was opposed as favouring the doctrine of conferring grace by Baptisme ex opere operato by the work wrought and intercision of regeneration sith according to that doctrine a person might have the Spirit initially in infancy and though it could not fall away finally as being an elect person yet might run out in a continued course of sinning grosse and scandalous sins with full consent untill his dying day which doth enervate the urging of that Text 1 John 3.9 against Apostasie of regenerate persons when out of it is proved that raigning sin is not in the regenerate and the like texts which in that Controversie are urged against Arminans With that book Dr. Featley in his late feeble and passionate Tract against Anabaptists and Antiprelatists concurs pag. 67. in these words Nay so farre are they from excluding faith from Infants that are baptized that they believe that all the children of the faithfull who are comprised in the covenant with their fathers and are ordained to eternall life at the very time of their baptisme receive some hidden grace of the Spirit and the seed of faith and holinesse which afterwards bears fruit in some sooner in some later And since I came to London I met with a Book intituled A Christian plea for Infants Baptisme by S.C. who holds positions somewhat like to the Lutherans that though children of believing parents be not all holy and righteous they may degenerate apostatize yet the Infants of believing parents are righteous by imputation are believers and confessors imputatively c. pag. 10. and elsewhere And he hath this passage pag. 3. It is a sure truth that the sins of the parents being forgiven the Lord will not impute the same unto their Infants Originall sin I say taketh no more hold on the Infants then on their parents and touching actuall sin they are as clear as their parents Many more like passages there are in that Book these I mention that you may see what stuffe Paedobaptists do feed the people with But I suppose you do not hold that all Infants of Believers either actually or initially or imputatively are sanctified regenerated adopted justified as knowing how contrary this is to Rom. 9.6 c. to daily experience to the doctrine of Beza and his Collegues at Monâ—pelgart to the reformed Churches of Geneva c. and what advantage it gives to Papists Lutherans Arminians and those that follow the way of Tomson in his Diatribe of which I suppose you are not ignorant and therefore conceiving you orthodox in this point the answer to your Syllogisme is either by shewing it doth not conclude the question if your Minor and conclusion be understood of actuall having the inward grace and they be particular only If you understand them of actuall having and they be universall then I deny your Minor If your Major be understood of potentiall having I deny it if of actuall and the Minor be of potentiall there be four terms and so the Syllogisme is naught Take away the ambiguity of your terms and the answer is easie But for the proof of your Minor you say thus And for the Assumption or Minor That the Infants of Believers even while they are Infants do receive the inward grace as well as grown men is as plain not only by that speech of the Apostle who saith they are holy but our Saviour saith expresly Mark 10. That to such belongs the Kingdome of God as well as to grown men And whereas some would evade it by saying that the Text saith not To them belongs the kingdome of God but of such is the Kingdome of heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
that God commanded the one but no where the other and your self say pag. 84. Our knowledge of the will of Christ is that which is the only direction we are to follow But you adde a second answer which I let passe because it is but a declaration of your own conceits how you conceive a childe may seal the covenant in his infancy telling us that their name is put into the Deed and that a child may seal fiâ—st in infancy and then after agnize it and that God is pleased to seal to Infants while they are such and to accept such a seal as they can give without any proof but only spinning out the simile of a seal as if Gods wayes were like mans wayes or a simile did gâ—â—deare in omnibus a similitude were even in all things only where you say that in the mean time Jesus Christ who is the surety of the covenant and surety of all the covenanters is pleased to be their surety this speech is further to be examined 'T is true Jesus Christ is the surety of a better Testament Heb. 7.12 he is the surety of all the covenanters he doth strike hands and becomes a surety of the whole covenant and of every condition in it take it in the largest sense and this of all both on Gods part and ours as very rightly and excellently Mr. Thomas Goodwin in his Teatise intituled Christ set forth Sect. 3. Chap. 3. And to like purpose Mr. Rutherfurd The triall and triumph of Faith serm 7. But are any other among men covenanters but the elect who are purchased by the blood of the everlasting covenant Heb. 13.20 It is a very inconsiderate boldnesse in you to make every baptized person or at least every baptized Infant of a Believer a covenanter for whom Christ is a surety and one to whom God seals when the Scripture makes Christ the surety only for his redeemed ones as may be gathered out of sundry places in the Epistle to the Hebrews but I doubt not but when you have considered it a little better you will easily espie your error in these dictates and therefore I passe on to the next objection BVt what benefit comes to children by such kinde of sealing as this is it seems then say they by your own confession that this is but a conditionall sealing on Gods part viz. that they own it and ratifie it when they come to age and if they then refuse to stand to it all is then nullified were it noâ— therefore better to deferre iâ— to their yeers of discretion to see whether they will then make it their own voluntary act yea or no. In what sense baptizâ—ng may be called sealing I have above shewed Part. 3. Sect. 12. but I cannot allow of this to say that God seals to every one that is baptized It is true that Baptisme is in its nature a seal of the righteousnesse of faith 1 Pet. 3.21 but yet God doth not seal this to every one that is baptized but only to true believers For what is Gods sealing but the confirming of his promise But God promiseth righteousnesse only to Believers therefore he seals only to Believers As for the sealing by God upon condition persons agnize the covenant it is but a notion the Scripture makes not Gods promise in the covenant of Grace conditionall in that sense For Gods promise is for those he enters into covenant with That he will put his Law in their hearts and in their mindes will write them Heb. 10.16 Nor do I know any but Corvinus in his Examen of Moulins Anatomy chap. 9. sect 6. and the Arminians that do so speak of Gods covenant of Grace as if it were common to the elect and reprobates and conditionall in this sense as if God left it to mens liberty to whom he had sealed to agnize or recognize that sealing or to free themselves if they please and so nullifie all yet so as to afford them a while the favour and priviledge of being in covenant with him as you speak I appeal to them who have been conversant in the writings of the Arminians whether these speeches do not symbolize with their language And therefore this that you make an objection I look on as a frivolous supposing a Chimaera and then disputing about it But yet there are some things I shall take notice of in your answer The question is What benefit to Infants by such a sealing you answer thus This objection lay as strongly against Gods wisedome in requiring the Jews Infants even in their infancy thus to seal and therefore argues no great wisdome or modesty in man who would thus reason with God about his administrations It is true God appointed the male children of Abrahams family to be circumcised and thereby they were bound to keep the whole Law and it were a sinfull presumption to reason with God about it and in like manner if God had appointed Infants to be baptized it would silence all arguings about it though we knew not the reason but how it is to be understood that God required the Jews even in their infancy to seal I do not well understand our sealing to God is believing Joh. 3.33 I do not finde that God required this of the Jews Infants in their infancy nor of our Infants nor was Circumcision it self the Infants duty required by God of the Infant though it were its priviledge it was the parents duty Exod. 4.24 You say secondly God hath other ends and uses of applying the seal of the covenant to them who are in covenant with him then their present gain it 's â— homage worship and honour to himself and it behoves us even in that respect to fulfill all righteousnesse when Christ was baptized and circumcised he was as unfit for the Ordinance through his perfection as children through their imperfection being as much above them as children are below them It is true Baptisme is a worship of God but Paedobaptisme for ought yet appears is but a will-worship Christs Baptisme it is true was of a transcendent nature as is said before that children are unfit for the Ordinance is not to be imputed to their imperfection but to the defect of Gods appointment if God did appoint it there would be no doubt of their fitnesse But you adde further 3. I answer The benefit and fruit of it at the present is very much both to the parents and to the children to the parents first whilest God doth thereby honour them to have their children counted to his Church to his Kingdome and Family and to be under his wing and grace whilest all the other Infants in the world have their visible standing under the prince and in the kingdome of darknesse and consequently whilest others have no hope of their childrens spirituall welfare untill they be called out of that condition these need not have any doubt of their childrens welfare if they die in their infancy nor if they live
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