as they were types of spirituall things it may then passe â—um granâ— salis but if by primarily be intended principally that Circumcision did chiefly seale earthly blessings the opinion is too unsavory to be received and whereas he and you with him say that Circumcision did thus primarily seale the earthly part of the Covenant I desire to know of you what Scripture ever made Circumcision a Seale of Canaan wee have expresse Scripture that it sealed the righteousnesse of faith whereby he was justified but I no where read that iâ— sealed the Land of Canaan Whereas you say though the promises were types of spirituall and heavenly things yet the things promised were but carnall and earthly as the sacrifices were but carnall things though shadowes of spirituall I reply all this is true but this belongs to the administration of the Covenant as was said before but makes it never a whit the more a mixt Covenant for the substance of it the Covenant then was more administred by carnall things then it is now and yet the administration of the Covenant even now also hath some carnall promises and priviledges as well as then as the externall ordinances of the Gospell Baptisme and the Lords Supper and wee as well as they have in the Covenant of grace the promise of this life and of that which is to come and so you may if you will call ours also a mixt Covenant consisting both of temporall and spirituall blessings and as among them some who were in Covenant did partake onely of the temporall part and never were partakers of the spirituall others of them were partakers of the spirituall part also even so now some partake of the externall and carnall part onely whilst others partake of both this you must grant to be true unlesse you will maintaine that none are now members of the visible Church but onely Elect and true beleevers Secondly you except against mee that when I said the manner of administration of this Covenant was first by types shadowes and sacrifices c. it had beene convenient to have named Circumcision that it might not be conceived to belong to the substance of the Covenant I reply first this is a very small quarrell I added c. which supplies both Circumcision and other things Secondly you know the Covenant of grace was administred by sacrifices and other types before Circumcision was instituted Thirdly whereas I said there were some Proselytes in the Jewish Church who were but selfe-justiciaries carnall and formall professors who are yet in the Scripture called Abrahams seed you answer I call them so without the warrant of Scripture as you conceive to which I reply my words were that there was another sort of Abrahams seed who were onely circumcised in the flesh and not in the heart who though they were borne of Abrahams seed or professed Abrahams faith and so were Iewes facti though not nati yet they never made Abrahams God their portion but rested in somewhat which was not Christ c. and so were to perish with the uncircumcised This you doe not here deny to bee true onely you would have me shew where the Proselytes were called Abrahams seed I reply had I mentioned no proselytes at all but onely said there were some in the Church of the Iewes who were visible members and partakers of outward Church-priviledges and yet were not inwardly godly nor partakers of the spirituall part and that these were called Abrahams seed as well as others it had been enough for my purpose I named not Proselytes to adde any strength to the argument and because they are called Gods people I feared not to call them Abrahams children by profession and never expected to have met with a quarrell for calling them who joyned to the Church of Israel by that common name whereby the Church members were called viz. the seede of Abraham or the children of Israel and could no place of Scripture be produced where proselytes are expresly called by this name the matter were not tanti But if it were a thing of any moment it would be no hard matter to produce evidence sufficient to prove that proselytes were called Israelites and the seed of Abraham as Acts 2. 10. and 22. compared Act. 13. 26. compared with Verse 43. but I forbeare You go on and accuse me that herein I joyne with Arminius who saith there is a seed of Abraham mentioned Rom. 4. 9. 10. Gal. 3. Gal. 4. who seeke justification and salvation by the workes of the Law and that hee makes this the ground of wresting that Scripture and that Mr. Bayne upon Ephes 1. sayes that the seed of Abraham without any adjoyned is never so taken I reply you give an high charge but a weake proofe I said there was a sort of proselytes who were the seed of Abraham by profession onely or outward cleaving to the Covenant who though they professed Abrahams faith yet did not place their happinesse in Christ or make choyce of Abrahams God for their all-sufficient portion Sir is this to joyne with Arminius in his interpretation of the ninth to the Romans 1. How doe you prove that Arminius meanes the words which you cite of Jewish Proselytes Nulli filii carnis censentur in semine saith Arminius doth hee meane that no proselytes were the seed of Abraham according to the flesh if so I beleeve acute Mr. Bayne would have been more wary then to have opposed him in that point Nay Mr. Bayne in the very selfe same page which you quote having set downe Arminius his two conclusions 1. The children of the promise are reckoned for the seed 2. The children of the flesh are not reckoned for the seed passes his judgement upon them in these words Page 140. The Conclusions are true but not pertinent to this sense for the children of the flesh here are those onely who in course of nature came from Abraham But you very wisely mention neither of these Conclusions of Arminius you thought it more for your advantage to fasten upon some other proposition laid downe by Arminius and as you set it downe it runs thus There is a seed of Abraham qui per opera legis justitiam salutem consequuntur I was much amused at the words I know Arminius saith Deus ex promisse ac debito dat vitam aeternam operanti but he meanes it not of the workes of the Law and therefore I wondered to see opera legis in your proposition but the word which puzled me most was consequuntur Sir let me intreat you to correct your booke there is no such word as consequuntur in Arminius his exposition and it doth not agree with your own exposition for consequuntur justitiam is by you translated Follow after righteousnesse I have perused Arminius with whom you say I joyn and Mr. Bayne from whom you say I say I differ and I shall give an account of both to the reader First for Arminius his words
that circumcised persons were by faith to looke on the covenant of grace through these administrations but by what warrant could their faith look upon the Covenant of grace through circumcision if the command of circumcision were not in reference to the Covenant of grace I professe I cannot understand it nor doe I thinke it possible for you to reconcile this either with the constant doctrine of the Scripture concerning the end and use of Circumcision or with your owne grant that Circumcision was the initiall Seale of the Jewes Covenant with God To cleare it further that Circumcision was not a seale of the land of Canaan or the temporall blessings of it I shewed the Proselytes and their children could not bee circumcised in relation to Canaan c. because they were not capable of any inheritance there yea that it tied them to a greater expence of their temporall blessings by their long frequent and chargeable journies to worship at Ierusalem you answer onely this all this may bee granted yet this overthrowes 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 but Sir the thing I am here proving is that Circumcision was no Seale of the land of Canaan not that there were no temporall blessings belonging to the Covenant I know the promises of temporall blessings belong to the Covenant of grace as well as the promises of spirituall godlinesse having the promise of this life and of that which is to come nor was I proving that all who were to bee circumcised had part in the spirituall graces of the Covenant my drift being onely to prove that all who were to be circumcised had a visible membership and right to bee reputed as belonging to the Church against which in this place you say just nothing Lastly whereas I added that Ishmael and the rest of Abrahams family Esau and others were really taken into covenant untill afterwards by apostasie they discovenanted themselves you answer that I plainely deliver apâ—stasie from the covenant of grace which in others wou'd bee called Armianisme because taking into the covenant of grace argues election or some act which executes election I reply I have no doubt but that all indifferent Readers well enough understand what I meant by being taken into the Covenant of grace even such a taking in as when the Gentiles were taken in in ramorum defractorum locum instead of the Iewes who were broken off your selfe grant it is one thing to bee under the spirituall grace of the Covenant and another thing to bee under the outward administration in this later sense were Ishmael Esau and the rest taken in they were visible professors had an externall calling and are all visible professors elected and is not externall vocation Gods act though a common one The fifth and last conclusion which I laid downe in my Sermon was this the priviledges of beleevers under this last and best administration of the covenant of grace are many wayes enlarged made more honorable and comfortable then ever they were in the time of the Iewes administration many Scriptures speake of their inlargement not one for the dimininishing or extenuating of them I could hardly have imagined that you could have spent ten or eleven whole pages in excepting against this I shall very briefely examine what you have said first you shew your skill in the description of a priviledge out of the civill Law and I concurre with you that a priviledge must bee somewhat which is a benefit and that the same thing may bee a priviledge at one time which is not at another that that may bee a priviledge in comparison of the heathens which is not in comparison of Christians but what 's all this to the purpose further say you the priviledges of the covenant of grace belonging to the substance of it are not now more enlarged or more honorable or comfortable then they were in the time of the Iewes I answer first though this were granted it hurts not mee it 's sufficient if the administration be now more comfortable to beleevers and their children Secondly if there be no more honorablenesse in those priviledges which belong to the substance of the Covenant how comes it to passe that in your answers to those severall texts which I and others bring to prove the enlargement of priviledges under this last administration you interpret them of those priviledges which belong to the substance of the Covenant or the spirituall part of it Thirdly though I willingly acknowledge that the spirituall priviledges are the same both to the Jewes and Gentiles the same under both administrations yet seeing that under this last administration these priviledges are communicated not onely with more clearenesse but in greater measure and abundance floods in stead of drops wildernesses made like Lebanon and Sharon I wonder you should say they are no more honorable and comfortable now then they were then is not abundance of grace more honorable and comfortable then a little grace But say you in respect of the administration it is granted they are many wayes enlarged and made more honorable this will serve our turne well enough for this was a priviledge belonging to their administration that their Infants were under it as well as themselves yeeld that for ours and the controversie is ended wee say I are freed from that hard and costly yoake of their way of administration true say you it is not onely our priviledge to bee free from that but it is our priviledge also to have nothing in lieu of that yoake To have nothing in lieu of them as they were shadowes of the substance which is Christ is very right but to say it is our priviledge to have nothing in lieu of them as they were externall Ordinances to apply Christ is to say it is our priviledge to have no Ordinances to apply Christ to us and thereby to make us compleat in him which were a most absurd thing to affirme Whereas I added that our priviledges for our selves and our children are at least as honorable large and comfortable as theirs your answer to this is very remarkable but whether with an obeliske or asteriske the Reader shall judge first say you circumcision belongs to the administration of the Covenant not to the substance of it I reply it was indeed a part of their administration and obliged them to the rest of that manner of administration as Baptisme now doth to ours but did it not also belong to the substance was it not a seale of the righteousnesse of faith of circumcision of heart c. doth not the seale belong to the thing sealed the conveyance and seal annexed to it are no part of the purchased inheritance but doe they not belong to it Secondly your next is as remarkable viz. That it 's so farre from being a priviledge to our children to
to him who makes an outward profession because wee have not a Spirit of discerning to know them to bee reall beleevers then it undeniably follows That some may rightly be accounted to belong to the Church of God and Covenant of grace beside reall beleevers which is as much as I need to make my sense and meaning in this Proposition to passe for currant And truly Sir whoever will grant that a Minister in applying the seale must doe it de fide in faith being assured he applyes it according to rule must either grant such a right as I plead for that many have right to bee visible members and bee partakers of the externall administration of Ordinances though they be not inwardly sanctified or else hee must by revelation be able to see and know the inward conversion of every one hee applyes the seale unto for certainly hee hath no written Word to build his faith upon for the state of this or that man And for my own part when once you have disproved this that there is such a visible membership and right to externall administrations as I have here infisted upon I shall not onely forbeare baptizing Infants but the administration of the externall seale to any what profession soever they make untill I may bee de fide assured that they are inwardly regenerate This then was and is my meaning when I say That Infants of believers are confederates with their Parents that they have the same visible right to be reputed Church-members as their Parents have by being visible Professors and are therefore to be admitted to all such external Church-priviledges as their Infant age is capable of and that the visible Church is made up of such visible Professors and their Children that the invisible takes in neither all of the one nor the other but some of both Whereas therefore you say you are at a stand to finde out what my meaning is and know not what to deny or what to grant and again pag. 45. You are at a stand whether I meane they are to bee taken in with their Parents into Covenant in respect of saving grates or the outward priviledge of Church-ordinances I beseech you stand no longer doubtfull of my meaning I meane of them as I meane of other visible Professors they are taken into Covenant both ways respectively according as they are elect or not elect all of them are in Covenant in respect of outward priviledges the elect over and above the outward priviledges are in Covenant with respect to saving graces and the same is to bee said of visible members both Parents and Infants under the New Testament in this point of being in Covenant as was to be said of visible members in the former administration whether Jewes and their children or Proselytes and their children I endeavour in all this to speak as clearly as I can possibly not onely because you say you are oft at a stand to pick out my meaning but because this mistake runs through your whole book that none are to be reputed to have a visible right to the Covenant of grace but onely such as partake of the saving graces of it Now I proceed with you When I say That God would have beleevers children reputed to belong to his Church and family and not to the devills You answer That you feare I use that expression of not belonging to the Devills Kingdome to please the people But Sir why doe you judge my heart to intend amisse in using an expression which your self cannot mislike I have more cause to think you use all these words it cannot be denyed but God would have the Infants of beleevers in some sort to be accounted his to belong to him his Church and family and not to the Devills And againe it is true in facie visibilis Ecclesiae the Infants of beleevers are to bee accounted Gods c. onely ad faciendum populum to please the people because this is not your judgement for when you speake your full meaning and sense of this point you professe you know no more promise for them in reference to the Covenant then to the children of Turkes And even here you onely grant them a nearer possibility to belong to the Covenant of grace then the children of Infidels have therefore in your judgement they are not now actually belonging to it but onely in a possibility so that though they may be accounted to belong to the Kingdom of God potentially yet by your doctrine they belong to the Kingdom of the Devill actually and all this charitable opinion which here you expresse toward them dontaines no more then is to be allowed to the child of a Turk if born among Christians especially if a Christian will take it and bring it up in Christian Religion and by what may we ground any probable hopes they will actually receive the profession of Christ since by your rule there is no promise no externall Covenant why may I not have as good hopes of Heathens children if Gods promise helpe not here But say you To make them actually members of the visible Church is to overthrow the difinitions of the visible Church that Protestant Writers use to give because they must be all Christians by profession I reply it overthrows it not at all for they all include the Infants of such Professors as the visible Church among the Jewes did include their Infants male and female too lest you say that Circumcision made them members I adde also Baptisme now as well as Circumcision of old is a reall though impâ—iâ—â—â— Profession of the Christian Faith But say you Infants are oâ—ly passive and doe nothing whereby they may bee denominated visible Christians I answer even as much as the Infants of Jewes could doe of old who yet in their dayes were visible members Yea say you further it will follow That there may bee a visible Church which consists onely of Infants of beleevers I answer no more now then in the time of the Jewish Church it 's possible but very improbable that all the men and Women should dye and leave onely 〈◊〉 behindâ— them and it 's farre more probable that a Church 〈…〉 Anabaptists why may consist onely of Hypocritâ—â— Againe you affirme We are not to account Infants to belong to God either in respect of election or promise of grace or presenâ—◠〈◊〉 of in being in Christ 〈◊〉 â—state by any act of 〈…〉 with in a particulâ—â— revelation because there 〈…〉 declaration of God that the Infants of prisâ—â—◠〈…〉 all or some either are elected to life or in the Covenant of grace in Christ either in respect of present in-being or future estate To which I answer briefly though all this bee granted if meant of the spirituall part of the Covenant onely yet this makes nothing against that visible membership which I plead for Yea I reâ—ort the argument upon your selfe and dare boldly affirme that by this argument no visible Church or all
you and your children so many of them as the Lord shall call viz. you and your children have hitherto been an holy seed But now if you beleeve in Christ your selves your children shall bee in no better condition then the rest of the Pagan world but if afterward any of them or any of the heathen shall beleeve and be baptized their particular persons shall be taken into Covenant but their Children still left out this said I would not have been a very comfortable Argument to perswade them to come in in relation to the good of their children To this your answer is that this witlesse descant followes not on the applying the restriction in the end of the verse to them their children and all that are afarre off and that which I burden my adversaries Tenet with of putting beleevers Infants out of the Covenant into the condition of Pagans children is a Coâ—cysme answered before But Sir bee it witlesse or witty they must owne it whose it is and I perceive you can more easily put it off with a scoffe then give it a solid answer and it is a thorne which will not so easily bee plucked out of your side the strength of it is Peter could not have used this as an Argument to perswade them to come under this administration of the Covenant whereof Baptisme was a seale from the benefit which should come to their children if your interpretation bee true because by this their children should be in a worse condition in relation to the Covenant then they were before all grant in the former they were included you say in this latter you know no more promise for them then for the children of 〈…〉 How then could this argument be fit to be used tel me I pray you suppose a man held some Farm or Office under some great man and that in his Grant or Patent there were some apparent priviledges or benefits included concerning his posterity If now the Lord of whom hee held it should offer him a new Grant in which his children should be expressely left out and no more priviledges for them then for meere strangers could an Argument bee taken from the benefit that should come to his Children to perswade him to give up his former and accept this latter Grant I thinke not And whereas you call that expression of putting of the children of beleevers into the same state with the children of Turks a Coccysme which you have answered before I pardon your scornfull expression you doe but kick at that which bites you it is a truth which you have no cause to delight to heare of you have answered it indeed by granting the truth of it as the Reader may plainly see in my Answer to your 10 Section of the second Part and to Sect. 3. of this part Whereas I further said in my Sermon except in relation to the Covenant there was no occasion to name their children it bad been sufficient to have said a promise is made to as many as the Lord shall call You answer Their children indeed are named in relation to the Covenant But there was another reason then that which I alledge not onely their imprecation Matth. 27. 25. but especially because Christ was first sent to the Jews and their children Acts 3. 26. I Reply but this reason which you alledge affords no Argument for them now to beleeve and repent from any benefit should come to their posterity by vertue of that promise I will bee thy God and the God of thy seed To close this Section you say The Antipadobaptists have hence a good Argument against baptizing of Infants because Poter required of such as were in Covenant repentance before baptisms I answer just as good an one as because Abraham was in Covenant and an actuall beleever and justified by the faith he had in uncircumcision and received it as a seal of the righteousnesse of faith therefore all these must go before Circumcision and because all who turned Proselytes to the Jews must first make profession of their faith therefore none may bee circumcised but such as they are But more of this when we consider this Argument in your Exercitation Next let us try whether your successe bee any better against the next Text of Scripture which I brought to prove this Conclusion viz. Rom. 11. 16. c. where I said The Apostles scope was to shew that we Gentiles have now the same graffing into the true Olive which the Jewes formerly had and our present graffing in is answerable to their present casting out and their taking in at the latter end of the World shall bee the same graffing in though more gloriously as ours is now and it is apparent that at their first graffing in they and their chiâ—dren were taken in at their casting out they and their children were broken off and when they shall be taken in again at the end of the world they and their children shall be taken in together and all this by vertue of the Covenant Ero Deus tuus c. Which is the same to us and to them we and they making up the Church of God In your Examen of this Argument you still proceed in your old method first to cast scorne upon it as such an obscure Argument That none but a Diver of Delos can fetch up the meaning of it and indeed should you not pretend difficulties you could have no colour to bring in so many imaginary senses thereby to darken an Argument which is the second branch of your Artifice As whether this ingraffing be meant of the visible or invisible Church by faith or profession of saith certain by reason of election or Covenant of grace made to them or probable and likely because for the most part it happens so c. Alas Sir why doe you thus strip your selfe to dive under the water when the sense swims upon the top Look how the Jewes were Gods people so are the Churches of the Gentiles looke how the Jewes children were graffed in so are our children we are taken in in stead of them who were cast out and become one visible kingdom of Christ with the rest of them who kept their station this is the plaine sense of my Argument Now if you please but to apply all your imaginary senses to the Jews and their children and say if they and their children were graffed in together was it into the visible or invisible Church was it by faith or the profession of faith was it certain or probable Doe you not thinke your Reader would smile at the vanity of these questions When you have set downe your senses next you thus proceed the thing that is to be proved is That all the infants of every beleever are in the Covenant of Free grace in Christ and by vertue thereof to bee baptized into the Communi of the visible Church No Sir the thing to bee proved from this Text is That our infants have
that no part of the spirituall Covenant made with Abraham did appeare to belong to Ishmael when he was circumcised or not to Esau when hee was circumcised God indeed did then declare that Isaac was he in whose family the Covenant should continue but not a word that Ishmael should have no part in it prove if you can in your next that Ishmael and Esau were not by their circumcision bound to have their hearts circumcised and to beleeve in the Messiah that was to come of Abrahams seed And whereas you say againe and againe that no benefit of the Covenant was the proper reason why these or those were circumcised but onely Gods precept I have already cleared it out of the Text Genesis 17. that though Gods command was the cause of the existence of the dutie of Circumcision yet the Covenant of grace was the motive to it and these two are well consistent together Whereas I answered to that carnall objection of the Anabaptists that nothing is plainer then that the Covenant whereof Circumcision was a signe was the Covenant of grace you reply first it was a mixt Covenant which is before taken away in answer to your exceptions against my first conclusion Sect. 2. Part 3. Secondly you say all circumcised persons were not partakers of the spirituall part it 's one thing to bee under the outward administration another thing to be under the Covenant of Grace Sir I thanke you for this answer you grant as much as I have been proving all this while viz. that men may have a visible membership though they bee not elected and that there ever was and will be some such in the Church to whom the outward administration and externall priviledges doe appâ—â—taine though they are not inwardly sanctified and I hope you will not deny but that these are called in that sense which our Saviour meanes when hee sayes Many are called but few are chosen I added Abraham received Circumcision a signe of the righteousnesse of faith true say you Circumcision was a seale of righteousnesse but not to all or only circumcised persons but to all beleevers whether Iews or Gentiles though they never are or may be sealed in their own persons I reply first this is but a peece of odde Divinitie that Circumcision should seale righteousnesse to them who never are circumcised nor reputed so nor capable of being circumcised nor might lawfully be circumcised but let that passe 2ly Indeed none but beleevers have the spirituall part of Circumcision but visible professors had a visible right to it and were obliged to seeke the spirituall grace of it and though they who are externally called and not elected never come to attaine the spirituall part yet are they in foro visibilis Ecclesiae to be reputed Church members and they have as Austin saith veritatem sacramenti though not fructum Sacramenti they receive the truth of the Sacrament though they partake not of the best part of it And the Iewes said I received it not as a nation but as a Church as a people separated from the world and taken into Covenant with God against which you object if I take as with reduplication they received it neither as a nation nor as a Church for if as a nation then every nation must have been circumcised if as a Church then every Church must be circumcised they received it as appointed them from God under that formall notion and no other But what poore exceptions are these my plaine meaning was the Jewes were both a civill societie or Common-wealth they were also a Church or a people in Covenant with God Circumcision was given them in reference to their Church State not in reference to their civill state and was in ordine to the things of Gods kingdome and though the formall reason of their being circumcised was the command of God yet the Covenant of grace or their Church state was the motive to it and the thing it related to as is most cleare out of the 17. of Genesis and many other places where their Circumcision denotates their religious standing as hath often been shewed before But what is all this say you to the answering of the objection which was that Circumcision was not the Seale of the spirituall part of the Covenant of grace to all circumcised persons and that Circumcision was appointed to persons not under the Covenant c. I answer I thinke it very fully answers the objection for if it was commanded and observed as that which was a priviledge and dutie belonging to the Covenant and they used it as being in Covenant the objection is wholly taken off Your frequent bringing in of the manner of administration by types shadowes c. hath been abundantly answered in my vindicating my first conclusion and elsewhere Next you much trouble your selfe how I will cleare that expression of mens conformity to temporall blessings and punishments because blessings and punishments are Gods acts and not mens I desire you to require an account of it from them who assert it I said Circumcision bound them who received it to conforme 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 is this all one to conforme to temporall blessings and punishments I added no man can shew that any were to receive Circumcision in relation to these outward things onely or to them at all further then they were administrations of the Covenant of grace you answer they received Circumcision neither in relation to these outward things onely no nor at all either as they were temporall blessings or types of spirituall things and so administrations of the Covenant of grace but for this reason and no other because God had so commanded I reply here had beene the fit place for you to have made good what you have so confidently asserted heretofore that Ishmael Esau and others were circumcised for some temporall respects that Circumcision sealed the temporall or politicall promises c. but in stead of proving this you doe here as good as deny it for if they were not circumcised in any respect at all to their temporall blessings how I pray you did Circumcision seale their temporall blessings Nay further you by consequent deny that Circumcision sealed either temporall or spirituall blessings and consequently it was no seale at all or a seale of nothing at all for if they were circumcised with respect to nothing but onely because God commanded them to bee circumcised how was Circumcision any Seale to them If a father give a child a Ring and command him to weare it onely to shew his obedience to his fathers command what doth the wearing of this Ring seale to the child it declares indeed the childes obedience to the father but seals nothing to the child from the father Nor doth that which you adde any whit helpe this you say You deny not
in their Sacraments tanquam contentum in continente nor in ours their Sacraments were to bee administred onely to them who were accounted to bee in Covenant so are ours they had one Sacrament which most immediatly and properly was a standing Sacrament for admission into the visible Church so have wee now in these things doe our Divines use to argue by analogy and proportion from their Sacraments to ours this was that which I intended in my Sermon namely That looke what dutie they were tyed to by their Sacraments in seeking after the spirituall part of it looke what graces they were bound to beleeve to bee sealed unto them in their Sacraments the same are we tied to beleeve in ours these things concerne us as much as they did them but for those things which were the accidentall or if you like not that expression which concerne onely the rituall part of their Sacraments these doe no wayes oblige us Rites and Ceremonies which were peculiar to them are ceased the duties obligations comforts and benefits which they were led to in their administration doe all remaine the same to us under our administration when the Apostle sayes 1 Cor. 10. That all our fathers did eate the same spirituall meat and dranke the same spirituall drinke our Interpreters generally doe agree that by the same spirituall meate and the same spirituall drinke is meant the same with ours So Calvin Beza Chamier and who not because say they Eadem fuit veterum Sacramentorum nostrorum substantia Their Sacraments and ours were the same in substance yet no man is so absurd as to thinke that either the Manna or the water of the Rock doe remaine to us such an analogicall Argument as this the Apostle Paul himselfe uses Ephes 6. from the fifth Commandement which in the Jewes time was backt with a particular promise of living long in the Land whiâ—h the Lord their God would give them and beleevers now have no promise of living in the land of Canaan yet Paul there presses a promise to us from the generall scope of that promise Honour thy father and mother which is the first Commandement with promise that it may be well with thee and that thou mayst live long on the earth I indeavour the more fully to expresse my sense in this particular because after your usuall manner you endeavour to make my assertion senselesse and absurd and then come to reason against a sense of your owne making and cannot bee acknowledged to be mine Now I proceed to see what you say against this Argument First say you it is no undâ—niable argument that this must bee good because all Protestants use it nor did I lay the weight of this upon their number or consent but onely intimated that it is obvious and usuall if you take away the strength of the Argument I shall not leaue upon the men Secondly you consent not to this that there were no other ordinary Sacraments among the Iewes then Circumcision and the Passeover you rather concurre with Mr. Cudworth that they had almost as many Sacraments as Ceremonies I reply whether this bee right or wrong it is nothing to the businesse in hand Mr. Cudworth denies not the lawfulnesse of such an Argument as reasoning from the Jewes Sacraments to ours in that sense which I have here set downe yea in that very Treatise he acknowledges the Lords Supper to succeed the Passeover in that notion of being a feast upon a Sacrifice Thirdly you take a great deale of paines to put a sense upon my words which I never thought of viz. That the Iewish Sacraments are still in force to us that I make some things in the Iewish Sacraments to bee substantiall some things to bee accidentall that the accidentalls I would have abolished the substantialls to remaine that I shew but little skill in Logick in opposing the substance of an Act and the Accidents of it that I would make somethings commanded by God in the Sacraments accidentall and not to bee of the same weight or obligation as other things which are substantiall and finally you bring no lesse then ten Arguments to prove that all the Iewes Ceremonies Rites and Sacraments are all abrogated substance and circumstance whole and part In all your ten Arguments I fully concurre with you and in that conclusion which you confute by those Arguments I never understood by the substance of their Sacraments the sensible signes used in the Sacraments but rem Sacramâ—nti the spirituall part of the Sacrament or the res signata and my Argument was never intended to bee any other then that analogicall Argument which is above set downe and none of your Arguments meddle with You proceed to those particular instances I gave in which you might have knowne the meaning of my Argument if you had pleased and spared fighting with your owne shadow by your ten Arguments The first is Circumcumcision is called a Seale of the Covenant thenoâ— our Divines plead our Sacraments are Seales of the Covenant To this you except first you know not where Circumcision is called the Seale of the Covenant though you acknowledge it is called the signe of the Covenant in one place and both the signe and seale of the righteousnesse of faith in another place truely Sir I thought that the comparing of these two Scriptures together had been sufficient to shew that Circumcision was a sealing signe Secondly you except though Circumcision bee called so yet that is no Argument to call our Sacraments so though you are willing they should bee called so and you say our Sacraments are Seales of the Covenant I reply lay aside but this analogicall Argument and prove if you can that our Sacraments are Seales our Sacraments are neither called signes nor seales in the New Testament all the world must grant indeed that they are signes but when the Papists deny our Sacraments to be Seales of the Covenant how will you bee able to prove it if you lay aside this Argument Circumcision was a Seale therefore our Sacraments are Seales ours agreeing with their in the generall nature of a Sacâ—ament Next I said Circumcision might bee administred but once it being the Seale of admission therefore Baptisme being also the Seale of admission may bee administred but once you answer denying both antecedent and consequent you know nothing you say but that hoth Circumcision and Baptisme might bee administred more then once which I hope I have sufficiently consuted in answer to Sect. 4. Part. 2. And secondly say you had there been a command to circumcise but once it would not follow that therefore a person may bee baptized but once but when this is proved that Baptisme succeeds Circumcision to bee the initiall Seale which your selfe cannot deny it must then follow that a man may bee baptized but once no more then hee may be circumcised but once because where there is the same reason of a command or practise there must bee the
answer that Anabaptist I should answer him silentio contemptu for why should I not since in that very place of my Sacraments part 1. p. 78 79. where I confute those Schismaticks he snatches my words from their own defence My words are I confesse my selfe unconvinced by any demonstration of Scripture for Paedo-Baptisme meaning by any positive Text what is that to helpe him Except I thought there were no other arguments to evince it Now what I thinke of that my next words shew pag. 77. lin 4 5 6 7. I need not transcribe them In a mord this I say though I know 〈◊〉 yet that is no argument for the non-Baptizing of Infants since so many Scriptures are sufficiently convincing for it Therefore this want of a positive Text must no more exclude Insants c. then the like reason should disanull a Christian Sabbath or Women-kind not to be partakers of the Supper The quoting of mine own Text were enough 6. If Mr. Ball cut the sinewes of the Argument from Circumcision to Baptisme himself was very much mistaken in his owne meaning and intentions who in the very same place alledged by you uses the same Argument makes the parallel to lie in the same things which my Sermon doth you might have done well to have informed the Reader so much when you used his authority to overthrow that Argument his words are these Circumcision and Baptisme are both Sacraments of Divine institution and so they argree in the substance of the things signified the Persons to whom they are to be administred and the order of administration if the right proportion be observed as Circumcision sealed the entrance into the Covenant the righteousnesse of Faith and Circumcision of the heart so doth Baptisme much more clearly as Abraham and his Houshold and the Infants of beleeving Jewes were to bee Circumcised so the faithfull their families and their seed are to be baptized Circumcision was to bee but once applyed by Gods appointment and the same holds in Baptisme according to the will and good pleasure of God Seventhly I perceive you glory much that Musculus hath deserted 1 Cor. 7. 14. as an impertinent proofe for baptizing of Infants and you repeat it at least three or foure times in your book and I observe through out your whole Treatise that when any Authour joynes with you in any particular you improve his authority to the utmost which makes me conceive that it would be a great glory to you to be able to prove a consent of Learned men to concur with you in your way And therefore I cannot but wonder that you should so much slight and undervalue the Judgements of Fathers and Councells Harmonies and Confessions of whole Churches when they differ from you As for Musculus whether he changed his Judgement upon 1 Cor. 7. on good grounds shall be examined in due place In the meane time I informe the Reader that in the same place Musculus acknowledges that there are Arguments enough and sufficiently strong to prove baptizing of Infants though this 1 Cor. 7. be left out And if Musculus Opinion sway in the one I hope it 's not to bee rejected in the other Eightly whether Dignum tanto tulit hic promissor hiatn whether your roast be answerable to your great boast Whether your Arguments and Answers will make good this high charge that Paedo-Baptisme is an Innovation maintained upon dangerous principles c. we proceed now to examine And first wee shall inquire concerning the Historicall part Whether Paedo-Baptisme as it is now taught be but a late Innovation whether it bee not as anoient as is pretended Because many of the Anabaptists shame not to say That the Ancients especially the Greek Church rejected Infant-Baptisme for many hundred yeares I said in the beginning of my Sermon that the Christian Church hath been in the possession of it for the space of 1500 years and upward and named a few testimonies out of the Greeke and Latine Fathers in little more then one page to make this good no wayes intending to make the weight of the Question to hang in any degree upon humane testimonies or consent of authority but onely upon the evidence of the Word upon this you have bestowed two or three sheets of your book and as if all Antiquity run on your fiâ—e you confidently affirme 1. As much may bee said for Episcopacy keeping of Faster the religious use of the Crosse 2. That my highest Testimonies reach not so high 3. That being rightly weighed they make rather against the present Doctrine and practice then for it 4. That there are many evidences which doe as strongly prove that from the beginning it was not so and therefore is but an Innovation The first of these you suppose so cleare to Scholars that it is needlesse for you to bring any proofe the other three you undertake to make good in your subsequent discourse Truly Sir your undertaking is very high and confident and I shall diligently weigh with what strength you perform it and shall therefore more fully inquire into the practice of Antiquity in this point then else I should have judged convenient to doe As for that which you tooke for granted That there are plaine testimonies for Episcopacy the Religious use of the Crosse c. before any testimonies can be produced for the baptizing of Infants pardon mee that I forbear to beleeve you till you have made it good I have already alledged some and shall now God willing alledge more testimonies to prove that in the Judgement of the Ancients the baptizing of Infants was received in all ages and from the very Apostles as a divine Institution I read no such thing for Episcopacy as a distinct order from Presbytery your selfe may read in Dr. Reynolds his Epistle to Sir Francis Knolls that in the Judgement of Ambrose Chrysostome Augustine Theodoret Theophylact Oecumenius Primasius Sedulius Gregorius and many other that Bishops and Presbyters were all one by divine Institution and that Ecclesiasticall constitution made the difference between them Much lesse doe I read among them that the Religious use of the Crosse was received in all ages and that as a divine Institution If you can make it out that these things were so you will do a very acceptable service to the Papists Anabaptists Prelaticall Party who no doubt will return you hearty thanks if your evidence be correspondent to your confidence If you cannot you should doe well to revoke this bold assertion In the meane time I shall examine your Examen of the Antiquity produced to make good the practice of the Ancient Church in Paedo-Baptisme The first whereof was taken from Justine Martyr Your first exception put in against this testimony is concerning the year in which he lived I said 150 thereupon you charge me with overlashing because I affirmed the Church had been in possession of the priviledge of baptizing Infants 1500 yeares and upwards Yet my
of Satan Hee would have Infants of all who are taken into Covenant with him to bee accounted his to belong to him to his Church and family and not to the Devills So much weight lies upon this Conclusion and it so neerely concernes you to make at least a shew of overthrowing it that in 40 Pages and upward you try all your wits and artifices to shake the strength of it by scornefull speeches by clouding and darkning what was expressed plainely by framing senses and confuting what was never asserted nor intended by Bringing in at the by opinions of other men and disputing against them by alledging the Testimonies of some eminently learned men when they are nothing to the purpose in hand and by seeking to elude the strength of my arguments In all these I shall attend you and endeavour to cleare what you would seeme to have obscure briefly to passe over what is impertinent and chiefly buckle with you in that which concernes the cause in hand First you tell me this conclusion is a bâ—â—kin that may bee put on either leg right or left exprest so ambiguously that you know not in what sense to take it Truely Sir you take a course to make it seeme so I knew a man in Cambridge that went for a great Scholler whose remarkable facultie was so to expound a Text as to make a cleare Text darke by his interpretation even thus have you dealt with a plaine Conclusion you bring first three sorts of senses then you subdivide them and under each of them bring severall Imaginable senses foure or five under one head five or six under another head and then blame me that I have not distinctly set downâ— in which of these senses Infants of Beleevers belong to the Covenant whether in respect of Election or of a promise of grace in Christ whether potentially or actually whether they are so to bee accounted by an act of science or faith or opinion and that grounded on a rule of haritie or prudence or probable hopes for the future thus you expresse your skill in multiplication of senses But I reply that hee that runs may reade my sense and with the tenth part of the paines you have taken to fasten a sense upon it which I never thought upon might confidently have concluded that I meant of a visible priviledge in facie visibilis Ecelesiae or have their share in the faedus externum which my words plainely enough held forth when I spake of Gods separating a number out of the world to be his Kingdome Citie Household in apposition to the rest of the world which is the Devills Kingdome and afterwards in the same Conclusion God having left all the rest of the world to bee visibly the Devills Kingdome although among them many belong to his invisible kingdome as being of the number of his elect he will not permit the Devill to come and lay visible claime to the off-spring of those who are begotten of the children of the most High is not this plaine enough that as all they who by externall vocation and profession joyne to the Church of God though few of those many so called are elected have a visible right to bee esteemed members of the Church Kingdom of God which is a visible Corporation distinct and opposite to the rest of the world which is visibly the corporation and kingdom over which the Devill doth reign So God would have their children even while they are children to enjoy the same priviledge with them what Delian Diver is there any need of to fetch up the meaning of this But that you may no longer complaint of not understanding my sense I say plainly The Covenant of grace is sometime taken strictly sometime largely as it is considered strictly it is a Covenant in which the spirituall benefits of justification regeneration perseverance and glorification are freely promised in Christ Secondly as the Covenant of grace is taken largely it compâ—â—hendss all Evangelicall administrations which doe wholly depend upon the free and gratious appointment of God and this administration is fulfilled according to the counsell of Gods will sometimes it was administred by his appointment in typeâ— shadowes and other legall Ordinances this Covenant of administration God said Zâ—â—â—ary 11. 10. hâ—â— did 〈◊〉 with the people of the Jews and at the death of Christ hee did wholly evacuate and abolish and in stead thereof brought in the administration which wee live under where also hee rejected the Jews or booke them off from being his people in Covenant and called the Gentiles and graffed them in ramâ—rum defractorum locum into the place of the branches broken off as your selfe page 65. doe with Beza rightly expresse it Now according to this different acceptation of the Covenant are men differently said to bee in covenant with God or to be members of his Church and family some are mysticall members by inward grace the inward grace of the Covenant being bestowed upon them being made new creatures c. others are members in regard of the externall and visible aeconomy accordingly among the Jewes some were said to bee Abrahams seed according to the promise and not onely after the flesh who had the Circumcision of the heart as well as that which was outward others were Jewes in propatulo Jewes onely in foro visibilis ecolesia and in like manner is it under the Evangelicall administration in the Christian Church some are in Christ by mysticall 〈◊〉 so as to bee regenerate c. 1 Cor. 6. 17. 2 Cor. 5. 17. others are said to bee in Christ by visible and externall profession as branches which beare no fruite Iohn 15. 2. and these also are called branches of the Vine though such branches as for unfruitfulnesse shall at last bee cut off and cast away and often times tells us many are called but few are chosen Unto both these do belong great priviledges though the priviledgâ—â— of the one be saving the other not as shall by and by appeare Furthermore according to this different notion of the Covenant grounded upon the different manner of mens being in Christ there are also different Sâ—ales belonging unto the Covenant some peculiar and proper onely unto those who are in Covenant spiritually a quoâ—d substantiam et gratiâ—â— faeâ—â—ris as the testimony and Seale of the Spirit 2 Cor. 1. 2â— Ephes 1. 13. 14. 30. Rom. 8. 16. others common and belonging unto all who are in the visible body and branches of Christ the Vine in any relation and so in Covenant quoad 〈…〉 till by scandalous 〈◊〉 which are 〈◊〉 with that very outward dignitie and profession they cut themselves off from that relation and such are the visible and externall Seales annexed to the externall profession among Christians as the Jewish Seales were to those who were Jewes externally When therefore I say they are visibly to bee reckoned to belong to the Covenant with their parents I meane looke what
would hardly swadlow downe the tediousnesse of my discourse if I should take them all singly and shew what I own or reject of each of them It is better to set down the plaine sense together and make it goods and then he will discern how you have indeavoured to cloud an argument and wrangle against it when you cannot answer it I plainly expressed the Apostles argument to be fetched from the benefit which would not onely come to themselves but to their children by their beleeving in Christ and after added that the cleare strength of the Argument lay thus God hath now remembred his Covenant to Abraham in sending that blessed seed in whom hee promised to be the God of him and of his seed doe not you by your unbeliefe deprive your selves and your posterity of so excellent a gift In which passage you acknowledge I have hit the marke and given that very interpretation which you owne And whereas you adde as a further illustration that the promise is now fulfilled to them and their children according to Acts 3. 25. Ye are the children of the Prophets and of the Covenant which God made with our fathers c. I confesse that is true but not all that is meant and yet even that strengthens my Argument the Covenant which God made with their Fathers That hee would bee thâ— God of them and of their seed and they were the children or heires of that Covenant that look as God was the God of Abraham and his seed so he would be the God of them and of their seed if they did beleeve and were baptized and therefore he would not have them by their unbelief deprive themselves and their children of that priviledge this I then made my argument and this you saw well enough and therefore say that this expression doe not by your unbeliefe deprive your posterity of so excellent a gift hath a little relish of my interpretation of the promise concerning the naturall seed of beleevers But Sir why doe you call it a little relish it is the very scope of my Argument that look as God did when hee made the promise of grace in Christ to Abraham upon his beleeving and took also his posterity those that were borne of him into Covenant with him in the sense which I before alledged and not onely the naturall Jews but even among all Nations whoever became followers of Abrahams faith did inherit Abrahams promise That he would be the God of them and their seed and by vertue of that promise their children were taken into visible communion so this blessed seed in whom this promise was founded being now come would according as heretofore make it good to al whether Jewes or Gentiles that should beleeve in him This clause of the Covenant of grace and the interpretation of it viz. That it belongs to all believers and that by vertue of it their children are to be received into visible communion you often dispute against and sometimes say that it was a promise peculiar to Abraham at other times it was at the utmost to be extended no further then to Abraham Isaac and Jacob to have their posterity as born of them to belong to the visible Church though in this place where it was most proper you say little or nothing about it onely make wrangling exceptions against my interpretation but because it most pertinent to the businesse in hand I shall here take it into consideration and manifest that it was not a personall priviledge to Abraham no nor to Abraham Isaac and Jacob to have their posteâ—â—ty taken into Covenant by vertue of that promise I will be the God of thee and thy seed For first though Abraham was the father of the faithfull and so in some sense the root as you elsewhere call him yet the Covenant was made with him for his faiths sake and believers are his children and heires and partake of those priviledges and promises which were made to him and therefore look as Abrahams faith justified him before God gave him interest in the spirituall graces of the Covenant and none but himself yet it was so beneficiall and advantageous to his children that for his sake they should be accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom and houshold and partake of the externall priviledges of it and thereby be trained up under the discipline of it and so bee fitted for spirituall priviledges and graces which God doth ordinarily confer upon them who are thus trained up so shall it bee with them who become followers of Abrahams faith Secondly had it been a peculiar priviledge to Abrahams naturall seed Proselytes of other Nations could never by vertue of their becomming followers of Abrahams faith have brought their children into Covenant with them so as to have a visible Church-membership as wee know they did Thirdly and we know also that this promise of being the God of beleevers and their seed was frequently renewed many hundred yeers after Abraham Isaac and Jacob were dead and rotten as Deut. 30. 6. The Lord will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed c. so Esa 44. 2 3. Feare not O Jacob my servant and thou Jeshâ—run whom I have chosen I will poure my spirit upon thy seed and my blessing upon thine off-spring and they shall spring up as among the grasse c. So likewise Esay 59. 21 As for me this is my Covenant with them saith the Lord my Spirit that is upon thee and my words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth nor out of the mouth of thy seed nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed saith the Lord from henceforth and for ever and this last promise your selfe acknowledge page 54. to bee intended chiefly of the nation of the Jewes at their last calling in and whereas you use to elude these Texts by saying these things belong onely to the elect when they come to beleeve and reach not to any priviledge which is externall I reply by the same answer you might cut off the seed of Abraham Isaac and Jacob for to beleevers then as well as to beleevers now were these promises made and I shall desire you to thinke how by this Answer you will avoyd that which page 42. you call absurditie and trifling in Mr. Cotton For Instance God made this promise say you to Abraham Isaac and Jacob to bee the God of them and of their seed in all generations see how you will answer your owne objection if it bee understood universally to all his seed that is manifestly false all his seed had not God to be their God or if it be meant conditionally if they beleeve then the meaning must bee that God would bee the God of Abraham and his seed if they did beleeve and then it signifies no more then thus that God will bee the God of every beleever and then it is but trifling to adde to bee the God
measure of grace accompanying it You goe on and say when some of the naturall branches were cut off it is not meant any otherwise then our Saviour Christ meanes Joh. 15. 2. Every branch in me not bearing fruit hee takes away that is not that any branch truly in him could bee fruitlesse or taken away but onely those branches which were so in appearance I reply that this is my very meaning that this standing as branches of the Olive is not to be limited to the invisible but takes in the visible also not restrained to such as have a spirituall union with Christ by faith but takes in also the externall profession of faith which oft times is not in truth that which it appears to be Whereas you say the Apostles scope in the whole chapter is to answer that question Hath God cast away his people c. and not to shew that wee have now the same graffing into the true Olive which the Jews formerly had I answer I undertook not to Analize the whole Chapter but to open the scope of that matter or argument which begins at the 16 ver and that you cannot gainsay but that there the Apostle makes an Argument from our graffing in in their stead And you minde me also of my owne distinction of the substance of the Covenant and the administration of it Sir I thank you for remembring me of it it is of very good use in this place though not of that use which you bring it for we have the same Covenant with them for the substance which Covenant consists of the same blessings and is applyable upon the same conditions belongs to the same sorts of persons but the administration of it is clean differing from theirs You grant That by faith wee partake of the substance of the Covenant in respect of which all beleeving Gentiles are Abrahams seed Yea and you may adde visible beleevers are his visible seed But if you mean it say you of the outward administration of this ingraffing by Circumcision Baptisme c. nothing is more false the outward administration is utterly taken away and to affirme that it is not were to â—vacuate the blood of Christ in this particular But Sir this is at the best but cunning dealing and in part a confident false assertion it is cunning to say by Circumcision Baptisme c. as if both these belonged to one administration Indeed to affirme that ingraffing into the visible Church should now bee by Circumcision were to evacuate the death of Christ in that particular but to say as you ought if you would speake plainly that to have our initiation now by Baptisme into the visible Church as formerly by Circumcision or to say that all outward administrations of the Covenant are now utterly taken away though the old one is vanished is not onely a coâ—fident but a false assertion and if you say not this you apply my distinction to no purpose You goe on whereas I said their taking in in the end of the world wil be as ours they and their children you grant this is true If it be true that their children by being the children of beleevers shal be accounted to belong to the Church you grant my Argument if you meane not so but think that at their last and best restauration their children shal not enjoy that priviledge which they had when they were Gods people before why doe you not say so that all the world may see that you think in their best condition they shall bee deprived of that glorious priviledge which they enjoyed in their non-age and yet you grant That they and their children shall bee taken in yea and a more full taking in of the children of the Jews then is now of the Gentiles according to that Rom. 11. 26. And so all Israel shall be saved But say you all this proves not that God would have either all Infants of beleevers counted his as elect persons or in the Covenant of grace in Christ or in the face of the visible Church admitted to Baptisme I answer the thing to be proved was our Infants have the same priviledge with theirs and that it proves abundantly as for election wee are not to esteem all visible members whether Infants or grown men to bee elected God having declared the contrary this being true in all ages of the Church Many are called and but few chosen Notwithstanding when we speak of particulars wee have the same ground of charitable hope for one as for another As for your other expression That this proves not that they are to bee looked upon as visible members of the Church and to be admitted to outward Ordinances this is onely to deny the Conclusion whether this being proved that our Infants have the same right to bee reckoned to the Church of God as well as the Infants of the Jews be not a just ground and as good a foundation to prove that therefore they must bee admitted to that Ordinance which is the initiall seale shall in due time appeare when I have made good the next conclusion That Baptisme succeeds in the roome of circumcision to that use in the meane time let the Reader judge I further said of the Jews they shall by vertue of Gods Covenant bee taken in againe in the end of the world because the root is holy because Gods covenant with Abraham Isaac and Jacob extends yet to them and shall againe blossome and will take place when the Nations unbeleefe shall bee taken away and their present nationall condition I shadowed out in the comparison of Nebuchadnezzars dreame Dan. 4. 14. of a tree that was cut downe and the root bound with an iron chaine and yet afterward did grow again The thing it self you deny not nor go about to answer my argument drawn from the Jewes viz. we as they were taken in they and their children shall be at the last taken in againe as they were at the first and therefore we and they making up the same body are taken in upon the same ground our children with us as well as theirs with them this Argument I say you go not about to answer but in stead of answering you pick quarrels against my comparison taken from Nebuehadnezzars dreame Why Sir I never thought a Scholar would have expected a comparison should runne upon foure feet nor have wrested it beyond what was intended by it I never intended to make Nebuchadnezzars dreame an argument to prove but onely to illustrate that as that tree for a while was cut downe and the root bound with an Iron chaine was kept from growing yet in the end the chaine was removed and the tree grew againe so the nation of the Jewes was for a while cast off from being the people of God during the time of their blindnesse and unbeleefe but in the end the vaile should be removed and their nation taken into their former Church-standing yea and more gloriously and that by reason of
against baptisme to succeed circumcision as a Lord Major elect succeeds the old though the old continue after his election for a time Yet further You inquire in what sense Baptisme succeeds in the roome and place of Circumcision and say if by roome and place I meane locus communis et proprius so Baptisme being an action hath no roome or place at all properly and if by roome and place I meane the baptized and baptizers that is true but in part seme who were to be baptized were not to bee circumcised as women Thirdly if by roome and place I meane the same society that is not true Circumcision admitted into the Jewish baptisme into the Christian Church Fourthly if of the Commandement upon which both are sealed that is not true neither Circumcision was commanded long before Baptisme Fiftly if of the same use that is most untrue for the use of Circumcision obliged to keepe the Law to be a partition between Iewes and Gentiles and to initiate into the Iewish Church or rather into Abrahams family Then lastly you say if I meane it of confirming and sealing the same Covenant neither is that true save onely in part because their Covenant was a mixt Covenant and although Circumcision did confirme righteousnesse by faith and signified holinesse of heart so also did the Cloud Sea Manna the Rock the Deluge or Arke and the same are also confirmed by the Lords Supper and therefore to say that Baptisme succeeds in the roome and place of Circumcision is a position erroneous and very dangerous I am prone to thinke that time as well as paper and Inke are very cheape with you who thus needlesly waste them this poore quibbling about succession and roome place c. is too Pedanticall for a grave Divine what Reader will not at the first view see this to bee my meaning of Baptisme succeeding in the roome and place of Circumcision that Baptisme succeeds Circumcision as a signe substituted in the place and stead of Circumcision to signifie and seale the same Covenant of grace which Circumcision did Circumcicision more darkely sealing Christ being not yet exhibited baptisme more clearely the shadow being taken away and the substance come almost all your differences refer onely to the severall manners of administration of the Covenant not to the Covenant it selfe or thing administred yet I shall touch upon each particular First your fancy of Locus proprius communis is too idle to require any answer Secondly that of the Iewish women hath been sufficiently spoken to in the first Section of this third part Thirdly when you say circumcision admitted into one Church baptisme into another I am very loath to impute to your sense which you intend not if you meane onely the severall administrations the Church of the Jewes being Christs Church under one administration the Christian Church the same Church of Christ under another administration you speake truth but not to purpose my conclusion never said Circumcision and Baptisme doe initiate into the same Administration of the Covenant but if you meane that the Church of the Jewes and wee are not one and the same Church you speake pure Anabaptisme indeed and contradict the Scripture expresly which every where makes the Church of the Jewes and the Gentiles one and the same Church though under divers administrations I count it needlesse to annex any proofes because I thinke you dare not deny it Fourthly you lay the command of circumcision was loâ—g before the command of Baptisme but how this followes that therefore Baptisme doth not succeed in the roome of Circumcision I cannot guesse the Lords day succeeds the seventh day in being Gods Sabbath but certainly the institution of it was long after the other And fiftly as for the severall uses mentioned by you they all referre to the manner of administration peculiar to the Jewes I have often granted there were some legall uses of Circumcision it obliging to that manner of administration and so they were part of the Jewish paedagogy which is wholly vanished and therein Circumcision hath no succession but baptisme succeeds it as a Seale of the same Covenant under a better administration as a set and constant initiating Ordidinance onely I wonder that you say Circumcision did initiate into the Church of the Iewes or rather into Abrahams family I pray you explaine this rather into Abrauams family if by Abrahams family you meane the Church of the Jewes why say you rather into Abrahams family if you meane any thing else tell us what it is and how Circumcumcision initiated Proselytes into Abrahams family any otherwise â—hen as it was the Church of the Jewes Lastly you hit upon the right thing intended They he both seales of the same covenant but say you the covenâ—nt was not the same except in part which hath abundantly been confuted before and justified to be one and the same and the difference to lie onely in the manner of administration But say you the Cloud Sea Manna water of the rock c. signified righteousnesse by faith and holinesse of heaâ—t as well as baptisme doth and why then should we not say that Baptism succeeds these as well as it doth Circumcision I answer these were extraordinary signes not standing Sacraments to bee used in all generations much lesse were they set and standing Sacraments of initiation And yet so farre as God hath made the parallel what hurt is there in saying baptism succeeds them sure I am the Apostle Peter compares baptism and the Ark the like figure whereunto Baptisme saves us But whereas you adde And why also should not the Lords Supper succeed Circumcision as well as Baptisme I answer what ever disparity may bee made betweene Circumcision and Baptisme yet herein certainly they agree and you often grant it That both of them are initiall signes and therefore this is most wildly said of you That the Lords Supper may he as well said to succeed Circumcision did ever any thinke the Lords Supper to be an initiall signe And now let the Reader judg of that expression of yours in the close which you so boldly use against all Divines and Churches since the Apostles time who all concurre in the same truth except onely the Anabaptists That to say Baptisme succeeds in the roome and place of Circumcision 〈◊〉 a proposâ—tion 〈…〉 and very dangerous To confirme this of Baptism succeeding Circumcision much may be gathered out of many places in the New Testament which hold out the things wherein they are parallel'd I used onely that clear place Col. 2. 8 to 13. whence I made it evident Not onely that we have the same thing signified by Circumcision while we are buryed with Christ in baptism but also that the Apostle plainly setâ— Baptisme in the same state and makes it of the same use to us as Circumcision was to the Jews Christ onely to them â—nd 〈◊〉 also is the
from the command of Circumcision to Baptisme be not every way as strong clear As for your ten Arguments to prove the abolition of the Jewish Sacraments ceremonies they are al agreed to are brought nothing to he purpose in hand I have already shewed that this argument from the Analogie betweene Circumcision and Baptisme and the reason end and use of them both stands still in force though Circumcision it selfe be abolished and I doubt not but the impartiall Reader will acknowledge this argument to be as good Circumcise your children because your children have right to this initiall seale Ergo by analogie let Christians baptize their children who have the same right to the initiall seale as this ye Iewes keepe the Sabbath on the seventh or last day of the weeke Ergo ye Christians keep the Sabbath on the first of the weeke As for your ridiculous consequences which you put upon me of thou art Peter Ergo the Pope is Monarch of the Church c. I answer onely this I shall desire you in your next to deal with your Adversary by solid Arguments rather then seek to render him ridiculous by jeeres and scoffes lest in the end you meet with some adversary who may dresse you in your own kind which I have no minde to doe whether I have not made good this command of Circumcising Infants to prove baptizing of Infants by good consequence I leave the Reader to judge and proceed to try your strength against the next Another command by good consequence I gathered out of Mat. 28. compared with Mar. 16. 15. Gal. 3. 89. Rom. 1. 16 17. where our Saviour bids his Disciples goe and teach all Naâ—ions baptizing them c. VVherein I observed two things First what they were to doe viz. to teach the whole Covenant the Covenant made with Abraham whereof this was one branch I will be the God of thee and of thy seed they were also to baptize that is to administer Baptisme as a seale of the Covenant to all who received the Covenant Secondly wee have the persons to whom they were to doe 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 Iews had been in times past now we know when that one Nation of the Iews were made Disciples and circumcised their Children were made Disciples made to belong to Gods school and circumcised with them c. To this you answer First that promise I will be the God of thee and thy seed that it should be thus interpreted the seed of beleevers are taken into Covenant with their Parents is a new Gospel no older then Zwinglius But I have sufficiently proved that this was good Gospel in the Apostles dayes and in the times of the Fathers of the Primitive Church Secondly concerning the persons who were to be baptized every Nation or all Natitions to this because it is like to trouble you you bring forth your old artifice of framing many senses whether by every Nation be meant beleevers of every Nation then you grant the sense is good or whether by Nation be meant a great or eminent part of the Nation the Goveâ—nours and chiefe Cities the representative body of a Nation Then you fly out and talke of baptizing all within the Precinâ—â— of a Parish a concâ—it which you fasten upon Cyprian and talke of necessity of baptizing by officiating Priests and bring in the Independents nothing to the purpose and enquire whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or them referre to Nations or Disciples in those words of our Saviour then you vent your Criticismes against the author of Infant-Baptisme and undertake to shew that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to teach cum effectu or teach till they be made Scholars and after a long Discourse upon these things your result is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them may be meant of Disciples and Nations respectively Disciples of Nations or Nations who be Disciples but not to baptize any of them till they were Disciples But Sir what need all these things the meaning is plaine by Nations I neither meane the major part of a Nation nor representative body of a Nation nor the King of a Nation but whereas before onely one Nation of the Jews were Gods people in Covenant now other Nations should be taken in likewise and whereas before their Commission to preach and baptize was restrictive Goe not to the Gentiles or Samaritans now he enlarges their Commission to all Nations and wherever their Ministery should bee so blessed as to have any Nation accept the Gospel they should be his people now as the Jewes had been in times past according to that Evangelicall promise Esa 19. 24. In that day shall Israel he a third with Egypt and Assyria even a blessing in the midst of the Land whom the Lord of Hosts shalâ— blesse saying Blessed be Egypt my people and Assyria the work of my â—ands and Israel mine inheritance Here is the Nation of Egypt and the Nation of Assyria taken into Covenant as well as Israel Gods inheritance and now Abraham indeed became the Father of many Nations so that the emphasis of this Text is in the word Nations in opposition to the one Nation of the Jews that whereas the Apostles thought they were never to go to those vile nations who were esteemed as Dogs and Swine our Lord instructed them That now hee would pluck up the partition wall and that the rest of the Nations should be brought within the verge of his Church and partake of the same Covenant which the Jewes had before enjoyed as their peculiar treasure a wonder of mercy as the Jews themselves judged when they came first to understand it Act. 11. 8. and consequently when other Nations should thus by receiving and professing the Gospel come under his wing they should enjoy the same benefit of the Covenant with the Jews He would henceforth be the God of them and their seed Against this you except many things First say you then there may bee a rule assigned to know when a Nation may be called a beleeving Nation but there is none And to prove this minor you run out at large not when a King is baptized nor when the representative body nor when the greatest part are beleevers and further if the children of wicked parents in a nation may be baptized it must be either from their descent or place of birth or both if by descent it must be either from their immediate parents or forefathers within memory or beyond memory if from the place of their birth then the children of Turks born in England may be baptized and if the children of wicked parents may claime it it must be from some Charter Abraham indeed had a Charter to circumâ—ise his how wicked soever
Seale of admission neither male nor female Whereas you adde had they done it they would have left some president of such a practise whether by good consequence they have not left us some evidence of it is the question wee are now debating I added in every nation the children make a great part of that nation and are alwayes included under every administration to the nation whether promises or threatnings priviledges or burthens mercies or judgements unlesse they bee excepted whereof I gave divers instances in my Sermon you answer the Lord hath plainely given a caution in Scripture for the leaving out Infants in this administration according to ordinary rule in that hee directs them to baptize Disciples upon preaching hee excludes Infants c. and when Christ and John baptized onely such this practise excludes others I answer by what rule then durst you baptize an Infant knowne to you to bee regenerate since they cannot bee Disciples upon preaching if you say you cannot doe it by ordinary rule shew us I pray your extraordinary if you answer they are Disciples therefore they may bee baptized I answer the Infants of beleevers are visible Disciples they visibly belong to the kingdome family schoole of Christ as I have abundantly proved already any manifestation of Gods that persons belong to his Covenant is to your selfe a sufficient ground of accounting them such either a promise or powring out the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost though they are no infallible signes of inward sanctification or confession of faith or of repentance are warrant sufficient for us to baptize them now the promise of God to beleeving parents to bee the God of them and of their seed and his owning them as persons belonging to his Church is as reall a manifestation of it as the other signes of receiving extraordinary gifts externall profession c. either are or can be And whereas you adde that Christs and Johns Baptizing such and no other as made a visible profession is exclusive to all others I answer first it is no where said they baptized no others secondly I deny that consequence this is not an exclusive rule the practise and example of Christ and John is sufficient to make an affirmative or positive rule they baptized such therefore wee may baptize such but it 's not exclusive that therefore wee may baptize no other and the reason is plaine they possibly might not meet with all persons and occasioons and so their practise is a good rule not a full rule I shall give one instance wee read not before the tenth of the Acts that either Christs Apostles or Iohn the Baptist baptized any proselytes of the gate or that they baptized any as you say untill they made actuall confession of their faith and repentance or that there was any rule given that the receiving the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost should without any other confession bee a sufficient warrant to Baptize any yet Peter upon the very powring out of those gifts without requiring any further confession either of faith or repentance baptized Cornelius and all his company in one word any word or act of God declaring that such and such belong to his visible Church is a sufficient warrant without any danger of wil-worship and this wee have abundantly for the Infants of beleeving parents wee have therefore here nothing to doe with a mixture of wine and water salt and creame and spittle they are impertinent to our businesse and you bring them in to no purpose all your discourse of wil-worship which you thus often repeate reaches not the point in hand in the least tittle the Sacrament of Baptisme is an ordinance of his owne appointment and by his appointment may bee applyed to all such as himselfe doth manifest to bee in the number of those who belong to his visible Church what course soever himselfe pleases to take to manifest it whiles wee keep within these bounds we are therein out of the danger of will-worship I added it behooved the Lord to give them a caution for the leaving out of Infants in this new administration that they might know his mind if hee had intended to leave them out which that ever hee did in word or dâ—ed cannot be found in the Scripture to this you answer it behooved the Lord to give a precept to put them in into this new administration if hee intended to have them in which that ever he did you cannot find I reply but I have abundantly proved that they alwayes had a right to bee accounted as belonging to his Church to bee reputed visible members and therefore need no new putting in if God once bestow upon a people a Sabbath to bee a signe between him and them they may lay claime to that Sabbath upon what day of the week soever he please to appoint it the like is to bee said here while the Lord will own any to be visible members of his Church they have right to the administration bee it new or old if they bee capable of it and no barre put in against them by himselfe That which followes in your booke page 133. about Childrens being taken in with their parents and included unlesse excepted and of being under the former administration and so under this by paritie of reason hath been abundantly spoke already I added our Infants are capable of being Disciples as well as the Infants of Jewes and Proselytes you grant it to bee true and I aske no more for ours then they had for theirs and though they bee not capable of receiving actuall instruction from men yet they are capable of Gods owne teaching even in their Infancy as much as the Jewes Children were which is sufficient for my purpose I added in Christs dialect to belong to Christ and to bee a Disciple iâ— all one and cleared it by some Text in the Margent you answer onely this that though Mr. Blakeprâ—â—â—ph in this nâ—tion yet it is a triumph beford victory and that the Text cited by me spake not of little ones in respect of age and some of them mention not little ones at all but what 's this to the purpose when the intent was onely to prove this notion or expression that to bee a Disciple and belong to Christ is all one Lastly I argued from Act. 15. 10. to shew that Children may bee called Disciples because they upon whose necks those false teachers would have put the yoake of Circumcision are called Disciples and to bee called Disciples and it is apparent that they would have put it upon the Infants of beleevers as well as upon the beleevers themselves because they would have imposed it after the manner of Moses Law and prest that Law still to bee in force you answer you see no necessitie from this to call Infants Disciples and you first deny the major that all are to bee called Disciples upon whose necks they would have put that yoake To which I answer
them if we knew in what Infants the Lord did so worke wee might baptize those Infants but that we cannot know by any ordinary way of knowledge therefore we may not baptize any of them but wait to see when and in whom God will worke the thing signified and then apply the signe to them You answer this is granted that if by revelation it could bee knowne such as have this inward grace might be baptized and that those who are thus intituled are not through want of an institution to be excluded To my understanding this over throws all which you have hitherto contended for for then if wee can prove that Infants are such as to whom this Sacrament belongs by your owne grant they are not to be excluded for want of an institution now I have proved that Infants of beleevers are such as to whom the Sacrament doth belong yea and your selfe grant that true faith is not a needfull pre-requisite to the administration of Baptisme Besides I desire before I leavâ— this passage to know of you how you will reconcile this with that which you spake pag. 162. That there is a plaine Text requiring confession before Baptisme though not before Circumcision I hope you doe not think a regenerate babâ— can make a confession of its faith surely these two things doe much differ Gods inward revealing that he hath sanctified a child and the childs own profession or confession God revealed that Saul was hid behind the stuffe but this was not Sauls owne confession God revealed to the Prophet Ahijah that the disguised woman was Jeroboams wife but that was not her owne confession My answer to this objection was That our knowledge that God hath effectually wrought the thing signified is not the condition upon which we are to apply the seale he never required that we should know that they are certainly converted whom we admit to Baptisme we are indeed to know that they have in them the condition which must warrant us to administer the signe not that which makes them possessed of the thing signified fallible conjectures are not to be our rule in admistring Sacraments either to Infants or growne men but a knowne rule of the Word out of which we must be able to make up such a judgement that our administration may be of faith as well as out of charity To all this you assent and consâ—quently that there is nothing needfull according to the Word but a visible right and then what is become of all your pleading That because we cannot know that all infants of beleevers have the inward grace we may not therefore baptize them this hold you have now quitted and when once you have proved that they have not a visible right to bee reckoned and accounted to belong to the visible Church I promise you to quit all mine Whereas I added That I doubted whether in case Peter or Paul could by the Spirit of revelation have known that Ananias or Alexander would have proved no better then hypocrites whâ—ther they either would or ought to have refused them from baptisme whiles they made that publick profession upon which others were admitted who in the event proved no better then those were You think they would and ought because the end of such an extraordinary revelation would be to warn them not to admit such persons I answer the cause depends not upon it whether your conjecture or mine be rightest in this particular and I confesse should such an extraordinary revelation be made purposely to warne them not to admit such persons that would be equivalent to a prohibition but might not such a thing be revealed for other ends Christ knew that Judas would prove a devill yet he admitted him not onely to baptisme but Apostleship and since your selfe doe grant that we have a warrant de fide out of faith and not out of charity onely to admit men into visible communion by baptisme upon an externall confession onely I cannot understand why my private knowledge upon a particular revelation of a mans inward condition should be a sufficient barre against proceeding according to the ordinary rule if I were infallibly assured that some glorious professor were no better then an hypocrite were that sufficient warrant to deny the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to him so long as his life was unblamable before the Church Lastly I added That in this the rule to direct our knowledge is as plaine for Infants as for growne men the rule having beene alwayes this that grown men who were strangers from the Covenant of God Pagans or Heathens should upon their being instructed and upon profession of their faith and promise to walke according to the rule of the Gospel bee received and added to the Church and made partakers of the Sacrament of admission 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 evill of them not bound to concludâ— certainly of any of them Your onely exception against this is wondering that I dare say the rule to direct our knowledge is as plaine for Infants as for growne men I answer truly Sir by as plaine I intended onely the truth of the rule that it may be as truly known as the other though possibly not so clâ—arely I deny not but I had spoken more fitly in saying the rule is plaine for Infants as well as for growne men and that I have proved abundantly My fourth Objection was That all who enter into Covenant must stipulate for their parts as well as God doth for his they must indent with God to performe the beleevers part of the Covevenant as well as God doth to performe his part My answer was The Infants of Jews were as much tyed as the Infants of beleevers under the Gospel every one who was circumcisâ—d was bound to keep the Law yet they knew not what it meant nor could have the same use of it with their Parents and others of discretion You own not this Objection nor say any thing against my answer onely you except That through my whole booke I suppose there is the same reason of the mixt Covenant made with Abraham and that it is the same with the pure Covenant of the Gospel and of every beleever as of Abraham and of Baptisms as of Circumcision I doe so and have justified these thing to bee true against your exceptions You adde also God commanded the one but no where commanded the other which whether he have or no by good consequence I leave the Reader to judge by what is already spoken I added in my Sermon God seales to them presently i. e. conditionally as I have before shewed and when they come to years of discretion they stand obliged to the performance of it in their owne persons in the meane time Jesus Christ who is the surety of the Covenant and the surety of all the
Covenanters is pleased to be their surety this I illustrated from things done amongst men thus when severall parties stand obliged in the same bond they may seale at severall times and yet be in force afterward together or even a child sealing in infancy may agnize and recognize that sealing when they come to yeares of discretion if then they will renounce it as done when they understood not they may free themselves if they please if they finde the former act a burden to them so said I is it here God is pleased to seale to infants while they are such and accepts of such as seale on their parts as they are able to give in their infant-age expecting a further ratification on their part when they are come to riper yeares in the meanâ— time affording them the priviledge of being reckoned unto his kingdome and family rather then the devils if when they are growne men they refuse to stand to this Covenant there is no hurt done on Gods part let them serve another God and take their lot for the time to come To this you answer First this is onely the spinning out the simile of a seale which whether it bee to the purpose or no I as willingly as your selfe leave it to the Reader to judge Secondly you say it is very inconsiderate boldnesse in meâ— to make every baptized person a Covenanter for whom Jesus Christ is a surety when as the Scripture makes Christ the surety onely for his redeemed ones I answer it is very true that Jesus Christ is the surety onely of the elect so farre as to performe all the conditions of the Covenant in them but he is also the surety of all visible Professors aliquo modo upon their condition of performing the Covenant looke in what respect your selfe will acknowledge Christ undertakes for visible Professors as they are visible Professors the same will serve my turne and I shall ask no more The fifth Objection was that no benefit comes by such a sealing as this is My answer was The same which came to the infants of the Jews who received the seale in their infancy You answer First you allow not that expression That God seales to every one that is baptized he seales onely to beleevers to whom be undertakes to make good his promise of writing his law in their heart c. And here againe you charge me with symbolizing with the Arminians who make the Covenant of grace common to elect and reprobates and left to every â—ans liberty to free themselves if they please and so nullifie all I passe by your scoffes of my frivolous supposing of Chimeraes and other such good language you have pretty well enured me also to receive the reproach of Arminianisme As to the thing it selfe I answer was not Circumcision Gods signe and seale which by his owne appointment was applyed to all the Jews and Proselytes and their children did it ingage God absolutely to every one of them to write his law in their heart c. And are not the Sacraments signa conditionalia conditionall signes and seales and did any Orthodox Divine before your self charge this to be Arminianism to say that the Gospel runs upon conditions I confesse it is Arminianisme to say any thing is conditionall to GOD this I never asserted but that the Gospell is both preached and by the Sacraments sealed to us upon condition of faith will passe for orthodox doctrine when you and I are dead and rotten You adde that you doe not well understand that God required of the Jewes Infants to seale in their Infancy I reply but I hope you understand that the Jewes Infants were sealed in their Infancy and by this they received not onely a priviledge to bee accounted as belonging to Gods family but it also obliged them to the severall duties of the Covenant as they grew up to bee capable of performing them I added secondly God hath other ends and uses of applying the Seale of the Covenant to them who are in Covenant with him then their present gaine it is an homage worship and honour to himselfe and it behooves us in that respect to fulfill all righteousnesse when Christ was baptized and circumcised hee was as unfit for the ordinance through his perfection as children through their imperfection being as much above them as Children are below them your answer is Baptisme is Gods worship Paedobaptisme a wil-worship Christs Baptisme was of a transcondens nature children are unfit for this ordinance not because of their imperfection but through defect of Gods appointment had God appointed it there were no doubt to bee made of their fitnesse all this hath been considered and weighed againe and againe and I desire not to burden the Reader needlesly I added thirdly the benefit and fruite of it at the present is great both to the parents and to the children to the parents whilst God doth thereby honour them to have their children counted to his Church and under his wing whilst all the other Infants in the world have their visible standing under the Prince and in the kingdome of darknesse and consequently while others have no hope of their childrens spirituall welfare untill they bee 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 untill they shew signes to the contrary God having both reckoned them unto his people and given them all the meanes of salvation which an Infants age is capable of You answer First all this passage is but dictates Secondly you say if I meane the unbaptized children of beleevers doe belong to the kingdome of the devill it is a harsh and uncharitable speech Sir I am glad to heare you give that censure upon your owne judgement it is your judgement that all Infants even of Beleevers as well as Pagans though they may potentially belong to the kingdome of Christ yet actually they belong to the Kingdome of the devill but for my selfe I meant onely the children of Infidells I doe not thinke that beleeving Anabaptists doe through their ignorance or errour put their children out of this priviledge You demand further What comfort doe I give more to beleeving parents that have their children baptized then belongs to them though their children were not baptized I answer if it bee not through the parents fault that their children be unbaptized but onely by the providence of God they may have the same comfort yet I conceive it a greater inlargement of comfort to enjoy the visible Seale an ordinance which they are capable of and which God uses to blesse according to his good pleasure but I say when parents doe therefore not baptize upon this principle that their children doe not belong to the Church of Christ no more then the children of Turkes and Pagans and consequently are without that pale where ordinarily salvation is onely to bee had it is easie to say that their