and let believing Gentiles be counted branches yet Infants then were some of the branches when they were in the Olive or root and so were branches cut off when their parents were cut off as long as the parents stood branches so long the Infants were branches nor were any parents branches but from that state they had when Infants Gentiles Infants therefore are branches with their believing parents and stand in the same state with them Secondly wee know that the Scriptures do not so appropriate the words root and first fruits as not to apply them to others besides the particulars Jerem. 11.16 God called the Church there an Olive and the people branches so she is called a Vine Isa 5 c. So others are called first fruits as 1 Cor. 16.15 Rev. 14.4 c. And if parents had no relation to children nor Infants to parents in this respect how could Infants being branches with their parents to Abraham the root be cut off with their parents seeing they could not be cut off for their own unbeliefe and their relation to Abraham was intire in respect of any thing on their part to the contrary This place therefore is not abused in the application of it but fully concludeth what I brought it for Next hee considereth 1 Cor. 7.14 which hee saith neither suppresseth roots nor first fruits nor hath it any such meaning as that the holinesse of the parent should cause a holinesse in their Infant In a word I reply root and first fruits are not expressed but necessarily implyed and so much is expressed as amounts to that For if the children be holy upon their parents believing and if the parents did not believe the children should not be holy it is as much as if he had said the root is holy and the branches are holy not in the parents believing any cause of their childrens holinesse but Gods free grace But not to strive about words in the view of the place it self before he comes to expresse his Reasons negative and affirmative he conceives it necessary to observe what I say which hee thus sets down I suppose it is mistaken when expounded of the same holinesse spoken of before of an Infidel person sanctified to a believing yoke-fellow And the Apostle speaking of a two-fold holinesse the one not in the thing it self but to another use the other of the thing it self it cannot but be sinfull to confound them Hee answereth he◠will not contend nor gain-say any thing of this Reply Herein he makes himself an Adversary to some of his judgment in this case of Baptisme who maintain that state of holiness to be meant in the children that was in the parent that is holy to the believers use Further he saith I say the Apostle saith two things that to the pure all things are pure Ergo a believing person may dwell with an Infidell yoke-fellow Secondly that by vertue of a believers state in grace all the fruit is holy and partakers of the same state in grace unlesse they do by some act of theirs deprive themselves of it as Esau and Ishmael c. In answer to this he grants the former but denies the latter wholly and that it is not the purpose of Paul so to speak and therefore he gives divers reasons First ¶ 1 the Apostle intends such a holinesse in the Infants as is inseparable from their very being or else it would not have been a sufficient proof of the sanctification of the unbelieving unto the believer Reply I deny that the Apostle intends to conclude such a holinesse as is inseparable to their very being for then it would be common to all Infants whereas this is appropriate to an Infant of at least one believer In a word there is a two-fold holinesse of a person one is externall and is the separation of him from common state to be the Lords and bound up in covenant with him which is foederall holinesse The other is internall and is the speciall separation of a man from the state of sin by inherent sanctificaon from justification in Christ which is inseparable from them that have it The other is separable as in the case of Jewes who by this were called a holy people when yet they were not really sanctified by inherent grace and the holy city called an Harlot and of this in his place which fully will prove what the Apostle intends as wee shall see afterward His second Reason follows which is this ¶ 2 If by a believers state in grace be meant the covenant that Abraham and all believers do possesse by faith then he saith first Ishmael Esau c. were never of it Rom. 9.8 and therefore could not by any act of theirs deprive themselves of it Reply First by the state of grace is meant that covenant that Abraham and all believers do possesse by faith Secondly I say Ishmael Esau c. were of that covenant dispensed on Gods part unto them and to be received on their part by faith at present or afterward And if Ishmael and Esau were not so in that covenant as well as Isaac and Jacob then how could they be circumcised with the seal of the righteousnesse of faith they had the same seal set unto them that Abraham Isaac and Jacob had and if it were not the same covenant then Abraham Isaac and Jacob were in one covenant and sealed to that and Ishmael and Esau and the like were in another covenant and sealed to that with the same seal that the others were sealed to the other Further whether or no shall Ishmael Esau c. be judged according to that covenant of Abraham and punished for refusing it if so as it is certain then they were under that covenant though they injoyed not the benefit of it which is the meaning of Rom. 9.8 and deprived themselves of it by hardening their hearts and had a spirit of slumber inflicted upon them as a just punishment of that their refusing Rom. 11.7 Secondly he saith that if Ishmael and Esau were deprived by some act of theirs then we must fall upon Arminius tenet of falling from grace which all understanding Christians do utterly abhor Reply First it is well known that many holding with the Consuter in this point of paedobaptisme do maintain that a man truly elected and in state of salvation may and do fall away and perish if he dissents in this I will not blame him 2ly What understanding Christian did ever deny that some men fall from grace and are there not many Scriptures that do testifie as much Christians do deny that any elect of God and made partakers of saving calling can fall away from that estate they thereby are made partakers of But there is another state of grace whereof many non-elected are partakers of by the covenant on Gods part dispensed and of many effects of Gods operation in their hearts some more some lesse and from this all of them may many of them do fall
which hath oft already been gainsaid by me Gods intention in entring into covenant with them was to have them all spirituall hee constituted them not a church as a naturall seed but as spirituall and if all were not spirituall it was their sinne And all now in Church estate are not spirituall many are carnall And the Jewes still remain naturall branches to be graffed in again though not as naturall seed but as beleeving c. Secondly he saith where I said A covenant acted by beleevers amongst themselves to become one anothers to be the forme of the Church and here arguing from the state of the Jewes to prove this form which did never form themselves so in so doing I overthrow my selfe and argue from my proofe to overthrow my principle Reply First let all observe that he constantly leaves out a part of my words and that of greatest weight viz. A covenant acted between God and themselves though I adde these words also Secondly I say the Jewes were formed a Church estate and only by such a covenant and this will bee evident by clearing those foure particulars I brought to prove that part of my argument The first is this The entrance into it with Abraham his family and seed was by a covenant acted visibly and outwardly This was that which distinguished them and made them differ from other people and whereby they became the Lords and the Lord theirs This was a visible and outward covenant because the seale of it was outward and visible and Ishmael and Esau were in it and reprobates as well as elect and this covenant was made with Abraham and his family at least 14 yeares before they were circumcised Gen. 17. that being but the renewall of the covenant made before onely let this be noted that Abraham and his family were all this time in covenant and a called people and so a church visibly formed for no man can think that he his were all that time under that covenant without a form A foederall form they had certainly that is a church forme and circumcision did not put the foederall form upon them but was added for confirmation on both parts Yet his answer is that this proves not the forme of the church to be such a covenant as is by me expressed acted by a company of beleevers to become one anothers For Abraham and his feed reprobates and elect enter into it now Abraham was but one believer Ishmael his seed who entred in with him was a reprobate Reply First it was a covenant acted between God and Abraham and his family because they were signed and sealed to the covenant fourteen yeers after Secondly though reprobates and elect were in the covenant yet that doth not disprove a covenant acted by believers to be the form of a church seeing many reprobates do believe for a time I do not mean they are known to be so but many prove so afterward and himself doth confesse that they have not infallible judgement but may be and many times are deceived and if hee should not confesse yet the Scriptures cleer it in Simon Magus case Judas c. Thirdly though Abraham was but one believer and Ishmael a reprobate yet they might joyn together in covenant because at first Ishmael was but an Infant and not presently known to be a reprobate and more then Ishmael entred into the first covenant as Sarah his wife and above three hundred males who therefore had the seal of the covenant set upon them which could not have been if they had not been in covenant Where I said circumcision was not the covenant but the token of it Gen. 17.11 He answereth it was not only a token of it but a part of the covenant it self being that whereby the parties were bound to keep the whole Law Gal. 5.3 and therefore God said Let every man childe be circumcised and hee that was not brake Gods covenant therefore the covenant here spoken of was such as was entred into by circumcision but not such as was acted by believers and so to be the form of the church Reply I deny circumcision to be a part of the covenant as without which the covenant is not intire and a reall formall covenant else Abraham Sarah and his family were not in the covenant all these fourteen yeers before circumcision he grants it is a sign of the covenant and I will grant him that as the signe of the thing may be a part of the thing signified so may circumcision be a part of the covenant and no otherwise and as a seal is a part of the thing sealed and not else and though it be called covenant oftentimes yet it is by impropriety of speech As in the Lords Supper bread and wine are called the body and blood of the Lord and baptisme regeneration because they signifie and seal those things to faith which are signified by them where hee saith the parties were bound thereby to keep the whole Law Gal. 5.3 it is a grosse mistake for it did seal to the righteousnesse of faith and not to the righteousnesse of the Law nor bound them more nor otherwise to fulfill the Law then baptisme doth us now It 's true the Apostle saith as much but First he speaks it in respect of the times then and after not with respect to times before Secondly hee speaks it in a certain sense that is when men make it an ingredient unto justification they that do so renounce justification by Christ alone and seek to be justified by their own righteousnesse and so they are bound to fulfill the whole Law or never to be justified how else could Paul circumcise Timothy Act. 16. Would he do that then which he condemneth here or did it oblige others otherwise then it did Timothy or David Isaiah c. It was Gods ordinance and institution it bound them to no such thing but that arose from their corrupt understanding of the things turning the covenant of grace into a covenant of works unto themselves and the same may be said of baptisme now Let this therefore be attended that God did never dispense a covenant of works to the Jewes but it was a covenant of grace and circumcision the signe and seal of it and not the covenant it selfe and the covenant was acted between God and Abraham and his family and seed believers they and theirs to be the Lords and to take God to be the God of them and theirs and so to become one anothers in the Lord whereby they were made the people of God and a visible church truly constituted My second particular was this the establishment of it in the plains of Moab but this establishment was by a covenant acted Deut. 26.17 18. and 29.10 15. In which God avouched them to be his people and they avouched him to be their God and their young children also with them nor could circumcision be the covenant here nor part of it or ingredient into it because
by Christs coming To which I answer though they offered sacrifices before Abrahams dayes and they after Abrahams dayes circumcised yet before Moses time God manifested not his will in a testamentary dispensation nor can we properly say that those were abolished by Christs coming being removed before by Moses at least altered by a new institution nor were the sacrifices of Melchisedec nor his Priesthood abolished which was before Moses as was Aarons but unto Melchisedec our Saviour succeeded so that these exceptions might well have been spared seeing the doctrine contained in the Propositions is sound and wholesome and the contrary unsound and hurtfull yet before I go from this Proposition let mee commend this unto you all that the reason why they would weaken this Proposition is because they would maintain that opinion that the Covenant made with Abraham was a carnall covenant and of the flesh applying all those Scriptures that speake by way of derogation hither when as they are spoken of the old Testament and not of this period from Abraham which was the everlasting Covenant of God continued with Jewes and now to us Gentiles and the same for ever and so my Proposition is not answred nor refuted To the fourth of childrens capacity to receive all grace necessary to union with Christ and justification to life thereby as well as men of yeers hee yeeldeth only denying it to be manifest to us which this or that nor of Believers children more then Infidels I answer I grant it we cannot conclude it of this or that but of all alike yet otherwise of Believers children then of the Infants of Infidels for as Infidell parents are without God in the world so their children are also and we have no ground to think an Infidell man or woman is elected of God adopted c. and so wee can judge no better of their children but as the faith of the parents professed is a sufficient ground to me to think according to the rule that he belongs to God so Gods taking hold of a Believers childe to be his as he doth and we shall shew it afterward is a sufficient ground to me to think a Believers child to be justified and sanctified which though I may be mistaken and my judgement in this case is not infallible yet it is as much as I can have of any man of yeeres of whose state I cannot judge infallibly To the fifth where I say Baptisme is not the first grace but a second being a seal of the righteousnesse of faith as circumcision of old Rom. 4.11 which must be presupposed or else baptisme not to be administred he answereth that it is well to be heeded of all especially those that maintain Infants Baptisme having no ground to conclude that Infants have a first grace Rom. 4.11 will prove no such thing it will only prove circumcision was in the nature of it a seal of the righteousnesse of faith and did seal it to Abrham that had faith but not to them that had no faith nor was it a ground why wee should presuppose faith in all upon whom it was administred or why it was administred To this I reply 1. Baptisme is not the first grace but something precedes it to which Baptisme is added as a seal and if children have not some former grace to which Baptisme doth seal then I cannot see that they are to be baptized This former grace though many other things might be expressed yet having so plain a Scripture I rest in it is this righteousnesse of faith which what ground we have to conclude children have I shall labour to cleer under these distinctions First the righteousnesse of faith is to be considered either as it is dispensed by God in an offer or as it is received by them to whom it is offered Secondly in applying this offer God makes some partakers of it before the seal is put to as in Abraham the men of yeers in his house and Proselytes at least in our judgement some he makes partakers of it at the time of sealing both concurring some after and some never at all 3. That circumcision was not in the nature of it but by institution and Baptisme is the seal of this grace and is to be attended either on Gods part or ours On Gods part signifying and confirming that hee will make good his offer on our part that wee believe this offer and abide in it And to apply all God offered Abraham the righteousnesse of faith he believed God sealed and Abraham both again God continued the dispensation of this offer to Esau and Jacob and so all Infants of the Jewes after was willing to bestow it upon them God sets his seal to confirm he is willing Esau had not the rites before nor was it conferred at that time nor ever after and so it was with most of the Jewes as is cleer in them in the wildernesse who had it not before nor at the time nor ever after for the Gospell was preached unto them but they believed it not and so it profited nothing yet they were circumcised Infants though they had no faith before nor then nor ever after what was then the former grace that this seal was set to nothing in them but the offer of righteousnesse on Gods part which he said and sealed he was willing to bestow on them so I conclude the like in Baptisme The seal now of the righteousnesse of faith and that there is the same former grace in Infants now that was in Infants then namely the continuance of the dispensation of Gods offer of righteousnesse with which their fathers at first closed and were partakers of and which was one speciall ground why those Infants were circumcised and is now a ground of Infants baptizing and though many then were not and many now are not partakers of that grace offered and sealed yet that doth not make it no grace but on Gods part offered and sealed it is the same without alteration that it is to them who receive it and the difference lieth only in the subjects for I suppose no man will deny but God offered unto Ismael the righteousnesse of faith and that he shall be punished for refusing of it and so the rest of the Jewes that sleighted Gods grace so offered nor will any affirm that Simon Magus and others had not the offer of righteousnesse made unto them but they that refused shall surely perish for it as they Acts 13.38 Further it is not right which is said of them that circumcision to them was a sign only and to this end administred to distinguish them and to interest them in those Lawes and Ordinances c. which were means to typifie and lead to Christ that was to come wherein they were to be trained up For though this were one end yet not only nor all for as it was a sign distinguishing so it was a sign of justification and that God would thereby circumcise their hearts yea it
was a seal as well as a sign and did not only signifie but confirm And may I not say the same of Baptisme mutatis mutandis and for that end to be administred to Infants now that they by this means may be distinguished and thereby interested in all the priviledges of Lawes and Ordinances and Ministers c. which are means to set forth Christ come and to minde us of his obedience to the Father and that they may be trained up therein where I adde that by Baptisme I mean that outward part of Baptisme by a lawfull Minister with water in the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost which is often separated from the inward in the party baptized and conclude this to be true Baptisme else Simon Magus and those false brethren Gal. 2. were not baptized having not that inward and if they had repented must have been baptized anew To this he answereth that it is true because false brethren are brethren though false and they seem to be true and make such a shew by manifestation of themselves and therefore according to us are to be judged true and therefore to be baptized though they be false yet their baptisme is true baptisme but to administer it to one no brother nor giving any manifestation of such an estate that is not commanded of God and so a humane devise to baptize such an one I grant this last but if hee mean Infants are no brethren nor can give any manifestation thereof and therefore God hath not commanded them to be baptized and therefore to baptize them is a humane invention I dissent wholly and in a word reply children are brethren for if God be their father as wll as to men of yeers then they are brethren as well as men of yeers but God is their God and calls them his children Ezek. 16.20 21. And though God hath not expressly said yee shall baptize Infants yet if by good deduction from Gods Word it may be made good it is sufficient to cleer it from being a humane invention but of these afterward Now I come to the sixt Proposition as more was required of Abraham and of men of yeers viz. faith before circumcision then of Isaac and other Infants successively circumcised so now no more is required of men of yeeres viz. faith that they may be baptized then of Infants of baptized persons To this he answereth that he grants more was in Abraham then in Isaac when circumcised but not more required of the one then of the other without which he might not be circumcised and therefore concludeth that all the males of Abrahams family were circumcised whether they had faith or no faith nor was any condition pre-required and so Proselytes that all males were to be circumcised before they might eat the Passeover but nothing required of them before circumcision Exod. 12.49 nor was there any ministeriall and teaching office ordained to circumcise himself and all his males and thereby become a proselyte without any other condition But now in the new Testament a teaching Ministery must precede the parties baptizing Matth. 28.19 and faith in the Word taught Acts 8.26 10.47 From whence he gathereth a double difference first then was required no Minister nor faith to go before circumcision secondly even in the constitution of the visible Church which then was constituted by naturall generation of Abrahams naturall seed but now is constituted by spirituall regeneration of Abrahams spirituall seed To all which I reply First if circumcision was the seal of the righteousnesse of faith then more was required of Abraham then of Isaac for Isaac could not actually believe and if Abraham had not actually believed before he had not been circumcised which was the seal of that faith he had before hee was circumcised Rom. 4. Secondly concerning Abrahams family that they were all to be circumcised and all the men of yeers also without any condition prerequired whether they had faith or no faith I might passe it by because hee saith it is but probable though far more probable yet in a word is it so much as probable had Abrahams males no faith at least in outward shew and manifestation so that Abraham judged they had 2. Doth not God give testimony that Abraham taught his house to feare him and keepe his commandements 3. And I conclude it very probable that they professed subjection to the same God and his Word with Abraham and were not Atheists or worshippers of a strange God which would ill beseem Abrahams family and faith To conclude this is unfound to say faith was not required of the grown males and yet all circumcised with the seal of the righteousnesse of faith which they had not Thirdly touching the proselytes that nothing was required of them before circumcision is taken for granted without the least proof and contrary unto the Scriptures which shew before they were accepted of God into the liberties of his House they were to take hold of his Covenant joyn themselves to God and the people of Abraham to feare the Lord and to love him c. 1 King 8.41 Ruth 1.16 Isa 56.3 c. Besides as before they should receive circumcision not as a seal of the righteousnesse of faith which were a great abuse and hereunto I might adde the testimony of Jewish Writers who record divers things to be done before they could be circumcised as Ainsworth relateth upon Gen. 9.4 Exod. 12.48 49. and other places the difference made therfore in this respect is void nor is that exception of teaching Ministers now prerequired but not then of any value the Proposition speaking of more required then of men of yeers then of Infans Touching the other difference he seems to make in the Churches constitution then of Abrahams carnall seed but now of Abrahams spirituall seed I conceive it very unfound For First were there not many proselytes in the Churches then and that of the constitution of it were they Abrahams naturall seed by naturall generation and all the males of his house which amounted to the number of three hundred and eighteen trained men born in his house besides others Secondly the Churches constitution then consisted not of them as Abrahams seed in the flesh but in being the people of God by covenant and thereby a peculiar people a royall priesthood though this state was continued by naturall generation from Abrahams dayes till Christ The Jewes indeed pleased themselves with the fleshly prerogative but our Saviour condemneth them John 8. and the Apostle cleareth this point fully Rom. 9.1 to 9. Chap. 10.2 3 c. 11.1 to 10. wherein the Apostle shewes plainly the reason why they were not spirituall as others were and they should have been because a spirit of slumber fell upon them so that the Churches constitution then consisted of many proselytes and all Jewes not as carnall or a naturall generation of Abraham in the flesh but as a spirituall seed of Abraham by following
the steps of Abraham in regard of Gods intention offer and dispensations but with many of them God was not well pleased because they were not spirituall as hee would have had them and now the Churches constitution is of the like spirituall seed though many be carnall the Church then and now consisting of elect and reprobates the elect only obtaining and the rest being hardened and let mee ask him now in his own words as he doth me in his first exception to my third Proposition How can God blame them for refusing his call c. were they not Abrahams seed in the flesh And is not this their true constitution according to his apprehension One thing more hee observeth and that is a contradiction betwixt the fifth and the sixth Proposition which he cannot but take notice of The contradiction is this that in the fift I should say faith and the first grace must be presupposed or else Baptisme not to be administred and in the sixth that in a man of yeeres faith is to be required and must be that he may be baptized but not the same of Infants and framing a solution which hee conceives I might make viz. that grace may be in Infants though not knowne but in men of yeers who are able to manifest what is in them such manifestation is to be required from them without which they are not to be baptized and concludeth this doth not reconcile but an apparent contradiction remaineth To which I adde this short reply First that I said not faith or a first grace but a first grace is to be presupposed nor did I mean it of faith for they are not capable of actuall faith though they may have habituall which cannot be discerned and I conceive that wee must look upon some known grace from which we may judge though not infallibly that baptisme doth belong unto them Secondly therefore as in my reply to his fifth Proposition grace is either foederall or covenanting grace or of the things contained in the covenant foederall grace is that whereby God out of his free love doth take a people and make them his without any deserts of their own that were not his Deu. 4.34.37.7 Ezek. 16.2 c. And Infants were partakers of this grace as well as men of yeers Grace freely given is either generall to all in covenant as the offer of all spirituall good contained in the Covenant which hee is willing to make them partakers of nor doth their refusall derogate from the grace of God on his part offered unto them or proper to some and that either common to many or particular to some namely the elect as all grace accompanying and compleating salvation Heb. 6.4.9 God in all preventing the creature in beginning with them and going before them without which they neither first nor last would seek after or receive any thing in the least of all Now then to apply this by first grace I do and did mean foederall grace and the dispensation of the offer of the benefits in the Covenant and to this grace he sealeth and thereby confirmeth that hee is willing to make all good unto them all on his part and if they be not partakers of it it will prove their own fault and sin and thus the contradiction was but imagined and not really in my expressions And then hee cometh to my arguments whereby I prove that Infants now are to be baptized The first whereof is taken from the onenesse of the covenant from Abraham to this day and lieth thus If the covenant made with Abraham and continued to the Jewes and since to the Christians be one and the same then as Infants were in the covenant then and received the seal of it circumcision so are Infants now in the covenant and must receive the seal thereof baptisme but the first is true therefore the second To this he answereth by denying the Antecedent that the covenant is one and the same and to cleer the grounds of his deniall hee undertakes to shew concerning the covenant of Abraham 1. What it was not 2. What it was 3. That we have no such covenant since Christs coming concerning our seed In shewing what it is not hee lieth down three things First that God did never promise to save any of Abrahams seed for Abrahams sake Secondly nor yet for his fathers sake I know none that say so and therefore this might have been spared yet Ishmael was partaker of the same blessing because he was Abrahams seed Gen. 17.20 and 21.13 And many times the Israelites fared the better for their fathers sake nor yet was Abraham or his faith any efficient or meritoriously a cause thereof but Gods free grace alone Thirdly hee saith that God did never promise to give faith to all Abrahams posterity in the flesh and sets down two reasons hereof 1. Because then God should lie because he did not that he promised but it 's impossible for God to lie 2. Because it is a contradiction to say that God had promised to work in them that he required of them and yet blame them for not profiting in respect of the means vouchsafed them To which I reply first what is the meaning of the promise Deut. 30.6 and Ezek. 11.19 and the like doth not God promise here that hee would give them faith and what is the meaning of that threatening Gen. 17.14 where God denounceth cutting off all such as did not circumcise themselves for breaking his covenant doth it not hold out their despising and neglecting the righteousnesse of faith which God thereby sealed his promise of making them partakers thereof And for the first reason that God should then be a lier I see no force in it for did not God promise to bring them into Canaan yet not one of them came in being shut out by unbeliefe Heb. 3.7 Jer. 18.9 At what instant I shall speak to any which is by promises to build and plant and yet to repent of the good wherewith hee had said hee would benefit them I hope no man will say God is a lier nor in threatening Nineveh to destroy it in forty dayes yet spared it was he a deceiver To say no more the Apostle Rom. 3.1 c. and 9.5 cleereth that Gods faithfulnesse in promising them all good was not blemished on his part promising though they came short by unbeliefe nor is there any contradiction in Gods promising to work faith in them and yet blame them for not profiting for he was willing to work it in them but they resisted his holy Spirit in the Ministery Act. 7.5 only this I desire all to consider whether in denying God promised to work faith in them and yet blaming them for not profiting he doth not intend they had power of themselves to do what he commanded without any concourse of his in the work but only perswasion the words seem to conclude of much and others do stiffly maintain the same with whom he consents in denying
Infants baptisme Next he proceeds to shew what this covenant made with Abraham was and he saith that it was Gods command of circumcision upon Abrahams posterity in the flesh whereby hee did separate consecrate and distinguish them to be by his favour possessed of the land of Canaan and divers priviledges therein which he particularly describeth and thus hee saith hee declareth what it is I reply first he shutteth out Abraham Isaac Jacob and all his posterity many hundred thousands that never were possessed of the land of Canaan nor any of those priviledges mentioned they being not brought into the land nor any of those priviledges instituted or revealed till four hundred yeers after this covenant made with Abraham and what was Gods covenant with all these all the time or was it disanulled as soon as it was made Secondly hee seems to confound the covenant and circumcision the sign of it as if there were no other covenant but circumcision in the flesh God calls it indeed his covenant but it 's sacramentally the signe for the thing signified for the Lambe is called the Lords Passeover which was but the signe of it so the bread and the wine are called the body and blood of Christ being but the sign of the Testament and of communion of his body and blood so likewise the Lord himself Gen. 17.11 calls circumcision the token and the signe of the covenant betwixt him and them and so the Apostle calleth it Rom. 4.11 Circumcision is asign and a seal c. Thirdly the covenant was that God would send his Son in the flesh and by his righteousnesse called the righteousnesse of faith justifie all that would believe it and receive him and his righteousnesse This God preached to Abraham hee believed and injoyed Christ and righteousnesse by him and was justified thereby Rom. 4. Gal. 3.8 God preached this to all the posterity of Abraham in the wildernesse in the land of Canaan till Christ came all that believed and received Gods offer were justified as Abraham all that did not believe and were not justified should have been justified if they had believed and were not justified because they believed not the Gospel being preached unto them and God promising hee would justifie them if they would believe but it profited them not because it was not mixed with faith in those that heard it Rom. 9.31 Gal. 3.18 Heb. 3 c. 4.2 Joh. 1.11 12. And all these particulars which hee expresseth were added by Moses from God to typisie and lead them to Christ which was to come so that it was Christ and his righteousnesse which was held out unto them and offered and that properly and principally God intending not the sacrifices and the rest for themselves but Christ by them and circumcision first and last was the sign and seal hereof on Gods part administred whereby he signified unto them and confirmed his gracious readinesse to justifie them and sanctifie them in and through his Son so that all that hee saith in this case though in some sense it is true yet it is but a part of the truth and so he cometh to the third conclusion which is this That wee have now no such covenant since Christs coming in the flesh concerning a fleshly seed as was that of Abraham This he laboureth to prove by a pretty large discourse the summe whereof is gathered into these Propositions First that the fleshly seed of Abraham was a type of Christ to come which he proveth from Gal. 3.16 19. where hee saith by seed there is meant Christ and therefore spoken in the singular number Seed as of one that is Christ and not Seeds as to many and shewes that the word Seed may bee interpreted of Christ two wayes mystically for true beleevers in Christ 1 Cor. 12.12 or typically or ceremonially for the fleshly seed not beleeving as the Lamb c. were types of Christ To this I reply First the fleshly seed was not a type of Christ what was instituted by God are to be acknowledged but God never instituted the naturall and fleshly seed of Abraham to bee a type of Christ to come Some of that naturall seed did typifie Christ as Aaron and his sonnes but not as naturall seed Not as naturall seed but as Officers in their offices and administrations But neither they nor the rest were ceremonially Christ and types of him it is a doctrine of mans invention Gal. 3.16 will prove no such thing First by seed we are to understand Christ individually and not collectively for by him alone individually we have the blessings of God upon us it cannot be communicated unto mysticall Christ and to make the members of Christ sharers in the worke of blessing of us Secondly interpreting the seed to be Christ either mystically or typically he excludes all true beleevers that were mystically Christ beleeving now being no otherwise but mystically from being a type of Christ though Abrahams fleshly seed Thirdly in saying the not beleeving posterity of Abraham by fleshly relation was a type of Christ he concludes it of Esau and all after him in all their idolatries witchcrafts c. to bee types of Christ throughout their whole state till he came which cannot be true of them before Moses till when there was no institution of types of Christ nor yet safely nor honourably propounded The second Proposition is This fleshly seed not beleeving were in the Covenant and a true Church till Christs time and death the absence of the thing typified necessarily requiring the presence of the type Reply First as I said before they were not a type of Christ and therefore in that respect were not necessarily to be in Covenant and a Church till Christ came Secondly If the fleshly seed not beleeving as such were in the Covenant and of the true Church then Abraham Isaac and Jacob with all beleeving Jews were not in the same Covenant and parts of the same Church being not homogeneall parts i. of the same but of a diverse kinde Thirdly If the fleshly seed were typically Christ and a true Church then either those many hundreds in Abrahams family Isaacs servants and all Proselytes after being circumcised were not of the Church or else should typifie Christ with the Jewes and yet not Abrahams fleshly seed so as the conclusion of Abrahams fleshly seed being ceremonially Christ is not right The third Proposition That when Christ came and died then they were no longer in the Covenant nor a Church but were broken off by unbeliefe and he makes this to be the reason in answer to a second objection he makes why then the presence of the thing typified necessarily requiring the absence of the type Reply This is no reason of their breaking off they being no types of Christ and the Apostle gives a certaine and a sure reason Rom. 11.11 19. c. That salvation might come to the Gentiles for to provoke the Jews to jealousie c. 2. Himself confesseth
their lawes receiving circumcision as a seal thereof that being not the first but a second grace not the covenant it self but the sign of the covenant Secondly I deny that all the males were to be circumcised or else their parents might not be admitted but only Infants were admitted and circumcised with the parent and those of yeers were not admitted and circumcised but upon their owne voluntary acceptance of and submitting to the covenant and so the believing proselytes yoke-fellow For if they had no faith though they had circumcision yet how could they partake in the Passeover or sacrifices to the remission of sin And therefore though there were no Sacrament for females entrance yet there must be faith either potentially by being under the covenant with their believing parent or actually by their own profession And as I have answered before to the like allegation they should receive the seal of the covenant which in order of nature followes it and were not in it and be admitted to circumcision the seal of the righteousnesse of faith which they had not Thirdly touching a president or rule of a believing proselyte admitted with his Infants leaving out the yoke-fellow I need say no more then this Whatsoever is not of faith is and ever was sin Rom. 14. ult and without faith it is impossible and ever was to please God Heb. 11.6 But this answer saith that a proselyte might be admitted and circumcised with all his males and females by vertue of his admission though neither hee nor they believed quite contrary to these Scriptures and so some should become one with Abrahams people neither by flesh nor faith which himself hath said are the only two wayes whereby any may be instated in such a condition As therefore in that state proselytes were admitted by faith into the fellowship thereof and therein Infants with them by vertue of Gods covenant accepted for themselves and their seed but those of yeers and their yoke-fellows excluded unlesse they did believe So in this state now abeliever and his Infants are admitted into fellowship of it but such children as are of yeers and unbelieving yoke-fellow excluded till they believe A 4th reason of this is this ¶ 4 The Apostle speaks indefinitly of children as children and in that relation to parents whose children they are whereof some of them might be twenty or thirty yeers old but children of twenty or thirty yeers old apparently wicked are not holy in such a sense as by vertue of their parents state in grace to be partakers of the same state with them and for that cause to be baptized Therefore holines here cannot be so understood by the Apostle Reply First the Apostle speaking indefinitely I grant children of any or no yeers may be understood Secondly children of twenty or thirty yeers or Infants have a state of holinesse upon them by vertue not of naturall relation but of foederall as children of a believer for that must be noted that one of them must be a believer that being the case that the Apostle resolveth Thirdly children of twenty yeers more apparently wicked were born either before the parent believed or after if after then they are holy seep a seed of a believer and so remain notwithstanding their wickednesse till they be cut off from that relation by God in his usuall way and then that holinesse is taken away from them their naturall relation stil continuing they are children stil of those parents whose they were if they were born before I say then they are unclean notwithstanding their parents believing and are not holy at all nor can be partakers of it but by their own faith in Gods covenant but for Infants as I said before they are holy and by vertue thereof may be baptized as a holy seed and so remain till by some act of theirs they be cut off and deprive themselves of it as Ishmael and Esau This exception hee excepted against saying the Apostie speaketh positively of a conclusion drawn from the state of the relation which can admit of no exception For if it could then will it be of no absolute validity to enforce the conclusion Again if the children do deprive themselves by some act of theirs of their state in grace then their believing parents can have no sanctified use of the believing yoke-mate but that may be whether the children be in the state of grace or no. Reply First the Apostle speaks positively of a conclusion drawn from the state of the relation that is not naturall as children but foederall as holy children of a believing parent Secondly it may and doth admit of an exception and yet is of absolute validity to enforce the conclusion because the exception lies in a diverse respect of the thing if it lay against the thing it self viz. as a believers childe then indeed it would not force but it lies here that when it comes to yeers and stands by its own faith in regard of personall relation acted to the covenant also by personall sin deprive it self of the personall state it had by personall relation to the covenant yet though the children cease to be and deprive themselves of that foederall holinesse which they had in regard of their personall the relation they had of children of believers and thereby holy remains still they were holy as born of them as is evident in the Jewish Infants cut off with their parents who were a holy seed before they were cut off But more of this afterward The fifth answer he makes ¶ 5 stands thus The holinesse here spoken of is such as must prove the unbeleeving parent sanctified to the beleeving yoak-mate But the holinesse of Infants in such a state of grace inward or outward will not prove an unbeleeving parent to be sanctified to the beleeving yoak-mate therefore it cannot bee meant of such a holinesse and hee gives this Reason of this Assumption Because it answers not the Corinthians scruple nor proves the thing in question by them Reply To cleer this discourse two things are to be attended First what was the Corinthians scruple and the state of the question amongst them Secondly by what argument the Apostle answers this scruple and question To the first hee saith The scruple that troubled the Church was whether their marriage were lawfull or no and sheweth that such a state of holinesse of Infants in grace whether inward or outward will not prove whether the parents were lawfully married or no because the childrens state in grace cannot prove the unbelieving parent sanctified to the believing yoke-fellow Reply First Grant the holinesse here spoken of must be such as must prove the unbelieving parent to be sanctified to the believing yoke-fellow yet to argue that such a holinesse of children in a state of grace will not prove that is but a mistake For if the children be holy then certainly the believing parents from whom they proceed must needs be holy For no man can bring
things succeed one another many wayes and there is not the same consideration of all things that succeed one another The sense that I intended it in is this That baptisme succeeds circumcision by Gods institution as a signe of Gods covenant and a seal of the righteousnesse of faith held forth in the covenant and if baptisme succeeds circumcision in this sense as it doth then necessarily followeth that look who were subjects of the covenant then and received the seal of it under those fignes administred the same subjects are now in the covenant and are to receive the seal of it under these signs administred unlesse therefore it can be proved that God by some manifest word hath excluded Infants now the consequence cannot be denied and the argument fully concluded Secondly the instance that he brings to shew the inconsequence of this by the inconsequence of them are not paralleled and subject to exceptions that this will not admit of As first the Gospel succeeds the Law therefore Aarons sons are to be Ministers of the Gospel as they were then of the Law Reply This comparisons suits not the Law and the Gospel succeed one another not as circumcision and baptisme nor will it follow because baptisme succeeded circumcision therefore Infants are to be baptized as they were circumcised so the Gospel succeeds the Law Ergo Aarons sons are to succeed themselves under the Gospel For I do not say cirumcision succeeds circumcision but thus it will follow As then there were sacrifices and services and none but Aarons sons might not administer so now no man must administer these services appointed but such as are called as Aaron was His second that circumcision was administred to grown males that had no faith is false as I have shewne before more then once nor were females excluded then from circumcision no more then they were excluded from the covenant but should have been circumcised if they had been capable as the males that females had the inward circumcision cannot be denied and whether they had not something analogicall to the outward may be questioned although it be not expressed Last of all it is true that the Lords Supper succeeds the Passeover but that all Infants did eat the Passeover with the rest will be denied many being not naturally capable by reason of age and none but such as were able to understand the nature of the ordinance might partake of it as now none but such inay partake in the Lords Supper and therefore they were required to instruct their children in the nature and use of the ordinance and although every family were to eat a Lamb together in a house yet after they were setled in the Land they were to eat it at Jerusalem and it was to be killed at the Tabernacle first Deut. 16.6 7. Nor was every family bound to eat it alone if they were too many or too few they were to have so many and no more nor might any uncircumcised or unclean or apostate eat thereof and females might although not circumcised for there are many objections to be made against these instances that cannot lie against the consequence of my Proposition A second answer hee gives is this The body of the Jewes were subjects of circumcision according to the Law even when Christ dyed yet the same were not subjects of baptisme according to the Gospel till they gladly received the Word Acts 2.4 Reply First they were not circumcised before but as they gladly received the Word and thereupon circumcised and their Infants with them by vertue of Gods promise Secondly it is true no Jewes of yeeres were baptized till they received the Word but that was not because any might be circumcised before without receiving the Word but because of the change of the manner of adminstration of one and the same word in a different manner as the parents receiving the Word under that dispensation they were circumcised and their Infants with them so now parents receiving the Word are to be baptized and their Infants with them His third answer is this as baptisme succeeds circumcision so the command and subject of baptisme succeeds the subject and command of circumcision the command of circumcision was of males only and that on the eighth day the Proseylte must circumcise all his males although they have no faith the females must not be circumcised although they have never so much faith but the commandment of baptisme is only of Disciples men and women a description of whom yee may see Luke 14.26.27.33 therefore the consequence followeth not Reply First it is the command of God that sanctifieth circumcision and baptisme in their severall times to be administred Secondly Gods command must sanctifie the subjects to whom they are to be administred and therefore to circumcise any then or baptize any now but such as God commands is a sinfull error Thirdly it is not the command of circumcising why wee baptize any but a command of baptizing them why they are baptized and therefore the commandment of baptizing being not to baptize at any set time wee do not baptize any on the eighth day as they circumcised wee likewise baptize females the command including them though they were not circumcised being not capable of it as I said Fourthly Then the case is this Whether Gods command be to baptize Infants now as it was to circcumise Infants then this he denies upon this ground circumcision was not administred unto them as Disciples but Disciples only are now to be baptized and a Disciple is hee that denies himself father c. takes up his crosse daily and followes Christ Luke 14.26 But then they that did none of these yea Proselytes and their males were circumcised though they did not believe Reply First that Proselytes and their males were cirumcised though neither he nor they believed hath been often said but never proved nor ever can be and I have shewed the contrary Secondly That none are to be baptized now but Disciples I grant it but I say also none but Disciples were then circumeised as is evident from the description of a Disciple Luke 14. For whatsoever is required of any to be a Disciple agrees to them then as may be seen Psal 44.22 with Rom. 8.36 Psal 45.10 Heb. 11.8 with this Luke 14. Gen. 4.8 with John 1.3.18 Gen. 21.9 with Gal. 4.29 where the Apostle saith as it was then so it is now and as it is now so was it then and therefore there is no difference in that respect although the word was not then used yet the matter being common we may make the word common also and if all were not true Disciples then but many degenerated so it is now also Thirdly Disciples are now and were then of two sorts First such as begun when God as I may so say first set up his School in in any place as Abraham and his grown males Heb. 11 c. taking in their Infants with them for upon this condition
prove that it is the form of a church now Reply He denies not what I affirmed to wit that they could not stand in a right and pure church estate without renewall of their covenant hee denies that they could not stand in a church state without it and great difference there is between a church and no church a pure and impure church he saith nothing therefore to what I said and proved yet I am willing to heare what he saith First they were a church before and I say so too but much degenerated and much transgressing the covenant Secondly he saith they did no more then they were bound to doe by their circumcision Reply I have answered that Gal. 5. before that it did not engage them to keep the whole Law it being the seale of the righteousnesse of Faith nor did the seale bind them to any thing but as in relation to the covenant which onely bound them Hence Levit. 26. where God threatned to send a sword to avenge thequarrell of his covenant he did not plead with them about circumcision but for not beleeving circumcision of the heart as Jerem. 9. last and testifying their faith by obedience and so they did now mend this by attending to the covenant and thereby setting themselves visibly in a right church state again which therefore proves that the forme of the church was a visible covenant for that which makes a church impure to be pure according to the right constitution that is it which gives it the constitution but the renewall of the covenant maketh an impure church pure according to the right constitution Ergo the covenant giveth it a constitution Again if failing in the covenant causeth a true church to bee otherwise then according to constitution then the covenant gives her her constitution But the first is true Ergo the latter and circumcision the seal remains the same without any alteration As in mens covenants the seale annexed remains the same though the covenant to which it is adjoyned may in many things be violated My fourth and last particular to prove a covenant acted by them as beleevers was the forme of the Jewish church was this That which being taken away made that church cease to bee a church that was the form of that church But the dissolving of their covenant made that church cease to be a church Ergo. The first Proposition he meddles not with and I raise it on this ground That nothing can cease to be that hath a being but by annihilating the matter and form of its being nor can any thing cease to be that it is but by taking away that form of it whereby it is such a thing rather then another And therefore if any thing cease to be that it was it must be by taking away the form of it The second Proposition that the dissolving of their covenant made that church cease to be a church which I cleared from Zach. 11.10 14. take a view and you may see it clearly the chapter declares the rejection of the Jewes from being a church no man can deny it and that at Christs time and for rejecting of him and upon their rejection they ceased to be a visible church and Gods people as they had been First therefore it is to be observed how God will effect this that they shall be no church nor his people and that is by breaking his covenant with them vers 10. That I may break my covenant which I had made with this people Secondly this covenant had two branches one the staffe of Beauty and this is the covenant between God and them mutually called Beauty because God making a covenant with them did adorne them with all excellencie and comelinesse whereby they became beautifull above other people Ezek. 16.8 c. yea in the eyes of the Heathen v. 14. which could not be circumcision nor any invisible covenant but outward and visible The other branch of the covenant is called Bonds and that is the covenant on their parts one with another whereby they joyned together in a brotherhood to worship God called Bonds because they were thereby knit and bound together to be a compact body and brotherhood Ecclesiasticall Thirdly that God by breaking these two staves did break his covenant with them and thereby they ceased to be his visible people and a brotherhood amongst themselves all these are evidently foretold in the Text and accomplished after our Saviour his death when they were wholly rejected of God and never since enjoyed that estate From whence it followeth plainly that their constitution in that Church estate was by that covenant which being disanulled their Church estate and constitution is altogether annihilated Now let us see what hee answers to this reason First hee saith the covenant of Gods grace is eternall the Kingdome or Church state that comes by it cannot be shaken Heb. 12.28 baptisme the fruit of it a church constituted by it remaines eternally John 11.26 He that beleeves in Christ shall never die Reply First I grant that the covenant of grace is eternall and that as well in the time before Christ as since but I speak of it as it is made with men in which respect though it bee eternall in it selfe yet it is not eternall to all that it is made with but may and doth cease to this or that man to this or that Church Secondly the Kingdome shaken and that cannot be shaken is not the covenant of grace applied to the Jews or Gentiles but the manner of administration of one and the same covenant in it selfe but from the divers administration of it one way to them the old Testament another way to us now the new Testament the former is shaken and removed and changed into this that cannot be shaken or changed but shall remain till Christs coming 1 Cor. 15. yet this or that church may be shaken out of it and many have been and that this shaking is meant of the former manner of administration only is evident by the Scripture it self and not of the covenant else the covenant with them was not the eternall covenant of grace but a covenant of another nature this particular church therefore may be disanulled yet the covenant remains eternall and unshaken Again the kingdome of Heaven is taken two wayes in Scripture First as before for the manner of administration of the covenant and so it may be and hath been shaken and of this Heb. 12. Secondly for the church-estate and the covenant of grace by laying hold whereon a people became a church This can never be shaken so as that there should not be a visible church visibly in covenant with God and of this Matth. 21.43 which may be taken from one company and given to another as from the Jewes to the Gentiles but never cease to be with one people or other hells gate being not able to prevail against it Matth. 16. Thirdly baptisme the fruit of it or church-estate by partaking
thereof not by baptisme but by the covenant is eternall to all the elect and so hee that believeth in Christ shall never die but these are not eternall to any else at all for reprobate members dying remain not members c. so that here is nothing in this answer that proveth the Jewes were not a church-estate by an acted covenant Secondly he answereth the covenant is a ground of a churches being a visible church that the visible participation in the covenant is by some visible thing which was circumcision then is baptisme now other visible participations there was not nor is any therefore by circumcision then and baptisme now they are a visible church And as the taking away of the covenant causeth the church to cease so it causeth their circumcision and baptisme to cease also whereby they had visible participation in the covenant and church Reply First he saith a covenant is the ground of a visible for the question saith he speaks of a visible church and so say I and a visible ground of any mans being circumcised then or baptized now if it be a ground of a visible church then a church cannot be a church without it and so constituted a visible church by it Secondly there must be some visible thing whereby a man may have visible participation in the covenant I grant it but saith he there is no other visible thing whereby any are partakers of the covenant but circumcision then and baptisme now I deny it and affirm there is some visible thing preceding circumcision then baptisme now For when they baptize a man do they baptize him as out of covenant or in it If in covenant then it is as hee is invisibly in it or visibly not invisibly that they cannot know therefore visibly by something they can discern and know and upon that baptize him and that is the profession of his faith in the covenant which as it must go before baptisme so it makes him partaker visibly of the covenant before he be baptized or circumcised therefore circumcision then baptisme now is not the only visible participation in the covenant nor indeed any participation at all but a visible sign and seal of his visible participation and this appeareth further from the description of a Sacrament an outward and visible sign of an inward and spirituall grace which must be there or the outward is not to be applied but it cannot be concluded to be there but by some outward evidence therefore something visible and thereby visible participation in the covenant must go before visible baptisme As then the covenant must be taken away before the church cease to be a church and not circumcision nor baptisme which cannot cease untill the church ceaseth all which himself granteth so as long as any continue visible profession of faith so long the covenant continueth and visible profession must cease before the covenant ceaseth in respect of men Ergo by visible profession of faith in the covenant is obtained and declared visible participation in the covenant and so is the church-estate constituted thereby Further hee saith the covenant before Christ did ceremonially lead to Christ and in that respect is dissolved and circumcision by which they had participation in that covenant is dissolved and therfore the visible church ceased as was prophesied Zach. 11. and accomplished at the death of Christ the partition wall being broken down Ephes 2.13 c. the covenant since Christ ratified by the death of the testator cannot be dissolved as I affirm in my third Proposition and fourth poriod and so baptisme by which they have true visible being in the covenant cannot be removed nor the visible church-state Reply Here is nothing said that hath not been said before again and again and so answered yet in a word First hee confoundeth covenant and testament there is but one covenant but yet two Testaments and the covenant was dispensed to Abraham before there was any testament instituted and the Scriptures that speake of abolishing the old and establishing the new are not to be understood of two covenants there being but one but of two Testaments as I shewed in my third Proposition and fourth period and he much mistakes himself abuseth his Reader and cannot but know that he speakes not truly in saying I affirmed the new covenant cannot be removed when as I said the new Testament cannot be removed Secondly the covenant before Christ did not ceremonially lead to Christ for the covenant alwayes from Adam held forth Christ the same yesterday to day and for ever but the old Testament before Christ did ceremonially lead to Christ and was abolished at Christs coming that the new confirmed by his blood might be established Thirdly the covenant and visible church-state thereby did not cease at Christs coming in it self but was taken away from the Jews and given to the Gentiles and that not because the covenant and church-estate typified Christ but because they believed not for had they believed they should have injoyed the covenant and church-state still though the old Testament should have ceased and the new be put in the room and now it shall be taken from such Gentiles so oft as any of them cease to believe as is already fallen out to many churches Yet without any prejudice to the covenant of God or visible church-estate which ever remain Last of all I have shewed before that circumcision did not give them a visible being in that covenant and church-estate nor baptisme us but outward profession of subjection to the covenant gave them and gives us a being in the covenant and visible church-state circumcision then and baptisme now being but signes and seals of it Further against his conclusion that the true visible church in respect of the ground of it cannot be removed or dissolved he putteth two exceptions and seeks to cleer it from them The first is this The true Church may possibly die and none survive them in that estate Ergo the true Church may cease to be His answer to this is the true Chrch ceaseth to be but only to our outward view for to our faith it is no more ceased then their relation to the covenant ceaseth which doth not cease to the faithfull when they die but it remains as the covenant it self which is as firm as God that made it Secondly as their outward view to the church ceaseth so their relation to the church by baptisme ceaseth by which they had visible participation with the body of Christ therefore the exception hinders not but that the true visible Church remains undissolved Reply Whether this were mine or no I cannot say as also many other things the which hee puts forth in my name a word or two First he changeth the State of the Question speaking of a visible state whereas he speaketh of an invisible state and of the elect only whereas himself will confesse that many may be in a visible with whom the covenant ceaseth
and church-estate when they die if it cease not before Secondly this or that true visible church may die and none succeed them and then the visible church ceaseth for ever the outward covenant also and baptisme the seal of it ceaseth and that not only to the outward view but to our faith also For I suppose none have so much faith as to believe that a company of dead men and ceasing to be are a visible church in covenant and baptized that they were such may be believed but that they are such and hold their relation still with the visible church by their baptisme as members thereof is but his dream as any that are dead and saved may be accounted a part of a church it is of the church predestinate from all ages from the beginning to the end a part whereof are in heaven triumphant and a part on earth militant and otherwise to make them in heaven a part of any church or of this or that visible church is but a devised thing Nor doth it follow that this or that visible church ceasing and none surviving Ergo the visible Church of Christ ceaseth so this his exception might have been spared Nor doth his answer cleer his Proposition from it but it is wholly overthrown thereby A second exception is this persons may seem to be true members of a visible church and yet not be so and may shew themselves not to be afterwards and so the church may cease He answereth that when such do manifest themselves what they are they declare thereby that they never were in covenant nor church at all nor baptized So the church thereby cease not to be by being dissolved but they are discovered never to have been in that covenant nor church and so never were baptized 1 Joh. 2.19 Reply This exception savoureth of himself but briefly where hypocrites discover themselves to be such they thereby declare they never were of the number of Gods elect and so not in the covenanted visible church and baptized as the elect of God but that they were not truly members of that visible church to which they belonged in the covenant and truly baptized is not true but crosse to Scriptures affirming such to be branches in the Vine Joh. 15. or else now cut off and members of the church as in the Epistles to the churches in Asia c. And if such an hypocrite after his discovery should repent and be truly converted then he must be joyned to the church not by restoring but by a new covenant and be new baptized having no covenant baptisme or membership before for that place 1 John 2.19 it doth not say they went out from us because they were not with us for how could they have gone out from them if not with them and really with them or else they seemingly went out from them but because they were not of us that they might be made manifest that they were not of us the Text therefore doth not deny them to be truly members with them visibly but they were not true members of them so that all hee hath said doth not wave the exception From all which it doth appeare that baptisme even of God himself cannot be the form of a church but only it is a seal of the covenant by which the church is constituted it is constituted by participation and visibly by visible participation and that is only by visible and outward acting to subjection in the covenant the continuance also in a church is by the continuance of the manifestation of the same participation possessed their visilbe profession of subjection to the covenant therefore baptisme of believers is not the constitution of church visible but a covenant acted as from all these four particulars I argued gathered up into this summe If a covenant acted by believers was the form of the visible church before Christ then it is the form of visible churches since Christ but the first is true as will appeare by all these four particulars therefore also the latter This he answereth by denying both Antecedent and Consequent his Reason against the Antecedent is because if God himself was not the form of the church of the old Testament much lesse can it be said that an outward covenant acted by the people of Israel was the form of the church as is manifested by what is above said his Reason of denying the Consequent is least of all nor doth it prove such a thing to form the churches now Reply This Reason of denying the Antecedent is not reasonable for what was the covenant of God himselfe but an outward covenant acted between God and the people of Israel I know no other covenant of God but that which he made with Abraham between Abraham and his seed and himselfe which was also continued to his posterity and that covenant was acted between God and them and one with another and so the form of that Church is evident from the former four particulars considered together notwithstanding all that he hath said to the contrary The covenant God made with Abraham his family and seed was an outward acted covenant the renewall of which by them in the plains of Moab was such so was that in Asa's Josiah's Nehemiah's dayes all these were outward and visible covenants acted outwardly Of this covenant under which the Jewes stood doth Zacharias speak Zach. 11.10.14 This Zachary shewes how it was in two branches the staffe of Beauty acted betwixt God and them and the staffe of Bonds acted between themselves to be a brotherhood by which title a Christian Church is frequently stiled in the new Testament by all which it appeares that it was such a covenant spoken off by which they were Gods people and church and by the dissolution whereof they were no Church Besides there was a visible Church from Adams restitution till Abrahams time by their profession of faith in Gods righteousnesse and neither circumcision nor baptisme yet a true constituted visible Church out of which Cain was ejected and cast out The consequent from hence is this That a covenant outwardly acted by beleevers with God and one another is the form of the visible Churches in the new Testament because it was the form of the Church before Christ and there can bee but one form of one and the same thing as a man grown and a child is but the same man and hath the same form that makes him a man now when he is grown that he had when he was a child Even so the church before Christ is compared to a child under age and churches since Christ to grown men Gal. 4.1 c. Further to prove that we have the same Church-estate not in number but in kind I alledged Matth. 21.43 where it is said The Kingdome of Heaven shall be taken from them and given to another Nation that Church estate was not dissolved but taken away from them Heb. 12. speakes not of the covenant as Church estate but
my self towards him I leave to him to manifest or to be revealed when all secrets shall be made known The issue was that he had nothing to say only for his better consideration he desired that I would pen down those arguments that had passed betwixt us on my part I willingly not suspecting such an event yeelded and in a piece of paper sent them unto him expecting that he would have attended a further conference with mee about the matter but having got my paper and transcribed it he communicated it to some that were contrary to my apprehension in these points and either himself or some other by his means sent them into England whether to this confuter or who else I know not but this I am certain it hath been thus divulged and not written with my own hand nor subscribed by my name so far as I can remember And concerning the Propositions themselves and arguments here exprest I cannot say that here is all I writ or that I wrote all that is here having not the writing I gave him nor a copy thereof that I can find with me only so far as I shall question any thing I will give notice thereof as I shall meet with it And having premised thus much I come to the Book and therein pasfing by the title page First to the Epistle prefixed and secondly to the Discourse it self Concerning the Epistle I observe these things First the means of Gods glory and mans happinesse Secondly the order how these means are o be improved and dispensed Thirdly the grounds of his writing this Book with the conclusion Touching the first the means of Gods glory and mans happinesse these things are noted first it is Religion secondly that mens care and study should be principally how they should exercise themselves in Religion that they may attain that end Thirdly that this Religion must be pure and true Religion otherwise men may not only misse the right end but effect a quite contrary Fourthly that this true Religion is only to be Gods appointment in his Word Lastly that the Word sets forth Christ the Mediator as principall and all other subordinate unto him for the attainment of the end Gods glory in mens happinesse from all which in the generall and according to that sense they seem to bear I see no reason to dissent Nor from the intimation of Satan and his ministers policy to corrupt true Religion and counterfeit a false Religion under pretence of the true to cousen cheat and deceive poor souls with chaffe instead of wheat c. It being a certain truth as the Scriptures and experience of all ages and of this wherein wee live do too wofully manifest And I wish him self were none of the number as heartily as I pray for my self From this Discourse hee deduceth nine Conclusions to which I can subscribe under these Considerations To the first taking Religion and pleasing of God in a strict and peculiar sense otherwise I do not see a ground of difference between sins and duties materially To the second and third the bond of obedience lieth upon all men who therefore are to be taught in the law that they may become dead to the law through the law and so glad to flie to Christ for righteousnesse and life To the fourth the word Commission added to the rest seemed to make all actions of Religion common to all as to preach baptize c. or to restrain acts of Religion to them in office only To the ninth If hee intend by these words no man ought to perform any act of Religion unlesse Christ be all in all in that action that therefore no man may or must pray c. be exhorted thereunto c. I agree not with him And so I come to the second thing in the Epistle The order how this Religion is to be wrought in mens hearts and this is set down thus First preaching the Gospel to convert men from sin to grace and then to baptize men converted professing their Faith and not before by which as the end of baptisme they may be distinguished as by a badge or livery to belong to the Church of Christ To this in a word I say thus much that there is a distinction to be made between a company to be converted and to be constituted and a Church now constituted in a company to be converted and to be constituted that which is said is true the Gospel must first be preached and by faith received and professed and then they are to be sealed and not before but in a Church now constituted the like is not required but the Churches are propagated by continuall succession till God out them off Thus was it with Abraham and his family the Gospel was preached to him and his he and his believed and were circumcised and after they did not believe before they were circumcised but were propagated and continued a Church till Christs time and so when the Gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles they were not to be baptized till they believed but believing they were joyned to the Church and then baptized and that Church continued by succession till God cut them off again But because this is the point in difference I shall spare farther speech till I come to reply unto the answer in the Book And touching the complaint is made again of Satan and his Ministers Policy and Malice to set up a false religion I joyn in it only I dare not account that to be any part of humane religion or of Satan the baptizing of Infants and I hope I shall prove it is no humane device for any thing wee cannot prove to be divine in the administrations in England I suppose our former practice and present state doth fully acquit us from giving our allowance therto but I shall have occasion to speak something likewise about this afterward And in a word concerning the occasions of his writing this Treatise he expresseth amongst others the miserable witchery and delusion of Satan which he had spoken of before and intends to wrap up my self and all other Gods servants and Saints in old England and here in new with all our way of religion and worship wherein we desire to glorifie the Lord To all which I shall spare to answer leaving any that desire satisfaction in the case as it concerns us here or them there to a Discourse I have written about that matter in justification of Infants baptisme with the calling of Ministers here and there and their adminstrations and leave him to the Lord who shall judge us all only I wish him to consider his own words that if it be without cause that hee thus traduceth and powres out his distaste against us he hurts himself more then hee doth us and will be found to kick against the pricks and it may be he shall not find it so easie a matter to answer all that hee hath here at randome written and in his Confutation
they were broken off by unbeliefe which necessarily implyes that either they had not been cut off if they had beleeved and so were not types or else if types they should have been cut off though they had beleeved Two Objections he raises First Were they not under unbeliefe before and he answereth yes no doubt Secondly Why were they not broken off before and why then He answereth because till Christ came they were in the Covenant and a true Church typically by being circumcised and observing the ceremonies of the Law This is his answer I reply to both First They were in unbeliefe before Secondly most of them were broken off many hundred yeares before as the ten Tribes in Hezekiahs dayes And God said Lo-ammi no peaple Hos 1.6.8 And Lo-ruhamah no mercy I will no more have mercy upon them but will utterly take them away But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah these ceased before Christ was come and therefore are not a type and so that no reason of their continuance But thirdly The Scriptures give us a true reason besides the former Rom. 11. why any of them continued till Christ came and were not cut off before First Because a remnant of them were to be saved Isa 1.9 Mat. 24.22 Secondly Because Christ was to come of them according to the flesh and borne under the Law Gal. 4. which he could not have been if the Church estate had been disanulled Thirdly Because they were to be rejected for casting off Christ Zach. 11.10 to 15. Mat. 21.33 to the end and 22.1 At last he comes to his inference from all this discourse and concludeth the Covenant then and now is not the same that was typicall in the fleshly seed and this of spirituall seed and not typicall To this I have replyed enough Secondly The standing of them in that Church and Covenant was by Circumcision and observing the rites of the Law the standing in this Covenant and Church is by faith and Baptisme and so upon different grounds I reply First Circumcision and observing of Rites being not the Covenant but additions to the Covenant and profession of Faith and Baptisme also being not the Covenant but additions the Covenant may be the same though the circumstances differ As the covenant made with Abraham till Moses and after to Moses and the people though to the latter were many additions which were not in the former Secondly their standing then and our standing now is the same in substance though much differing in circumstances viz. faith in Gods covenant this is cleare Rom. 11.20 they were cut off by unbeliefe thou standest by faith if they continue not in unbeliefe they shall be ingraffed again v. 23. We stand by faith and so should they have done if they had beleeved and shall stand again when they shall beleeve They were cut off for unbeleefe and we shall be cut off for unbeleefe if we give way to it their falling and ours from Gods covenant and the Church estate our standing and theirs in the covenant and the Church-estate is not upon different but the same grounds Thirdly if the covenant under Christ be the same with that before Christ then by the same right Abraham and his posterity possessed the Church estate then and circumcision by the same right they might possesse the Church estate and Baptisme now But they could not possesse the Church estate Baptisme now by the same right they possessed it Ergo. I answer they might and that right was and is partly the grace of God offered and partly their acceptance of that grace by faith working by love though I might deny the consequence for that the covenant may be the same and yet in some respect the right to be a member in the one and in the other might not be the same But I have said enough before to cleare my Argument and to make it good notwithstanding any thing in his answer against it In his further proceeding in this Argnment he granteth two things First the covenant of God makes a Church then and now a Church being nothing else but a people in covenant with God and that as the covenant whereby a Church is made differs so the Church differs which is made by that Covenant but the covenant then and the covenant now differs therefore the Church differs for the covenant which made them a Church was Gods taking them being circumcised to participate of all those outward meanes which leads to Christ who was to come That covenant which makes a Church now is Gods admitting men to be baptized making profession of faith in Christ I reply in one word I consent that the Church then and now is made by a covenant Secondly I say that circumcision was not baptisme is not the covenant but signes and seals of the covenant circumcision then baptisme now Thirdly that the covenant then was God would bee their God justifying and sanctifying them through his Sonne whom he would send if they would beleeve in him and the same is the covenant now Fourthly the signe and the seale of it then was circumcision whereby God confirmed hee would circumcise their hearts in his Sonne by cutting away their sinnes in justifying and sanctifying the signe and seale of it now is washing with water c. whereby God confirmes he will wash away their guilt and stain of sinne Fifthly the people then that were of years did restipulate and make profession of faith in Christ before circumcised And let any one shew me any one of Abrahams family or one Proselyte ever after that was admitted into the Church estate without some restipulation which is necessary in the nature of a covenant and subjection to God his righteousnes so circumcised without it In a word then as the covenant differs the Church made by it differs if the covenant differ essentially then the Church differs essentially but if the covenant differ but circumstantially then the Church differs circumstantially and not essentially And so much is cleare as I said unto which also himselfe consenteth in the next passage granting it as that Christ is and ever was the Mediator and meanes of salvation both before and since Christs coming dispensed by the covenant of God Christ being called the Covenant Isai 42.6 In whom also the promises are Yea Amen 2 Cor. 11.18 It is true that he saith that the outward meanes of making Christ known doth depend differently upon his being yet to come and upon his being come the one being more dark and carnall the other more plain and spirituall and therefore the participation of these means doe make the state of the participants to differ but this difference is not in regard of the thing it selfe but in regard of the manner of the thing more darke and more cleare doe not change the thing or make it diverse but onely circumstantially the substance is the same the circumstances differ And thus much all his eight differences
following which he sets forth to be between those two states agree to also they being not substantiall but accidentall differences yet so as they are not to be distinctly limited to one time in respect of the substance and things themselves and the effects thereof for all that he saith belongs to the new Testament were communicated unto many of them under the Old as Moses Aaron and all the elect of God and none of them are made good to many in the New But on the contrary all that is spoken by him of the Old may bee verified of men in the New as experience witnesseth the Scriptures affirm Gal. 4.29 The fault why all did not enjoy all these priviledges in the new Testament dispensed under shadowes in the Old being in themselves 2 Cor. 3.13.14 Heb. 3.7.8.22.4.2 8.8 and many now deprive themselves of these priviledges Heb. 4.1 and attaine to no more then they in the Old to establish their owne righteousnesse onely Rom. 10.3 And therefore as none are to be admitted to the priviledges of the new Testament or Gospel now but such as are sutable though many prove otherwise So none ought to have been admitted nor were in the Old Testament the same Gospel preached unto them and the new Testament shadowed under the old to enjoy the priviledges of the Old shadowing the priviledges of the New but such as were sutable even such as are required in the New though few of them proved such with this difference they were to beleeve in Christ to come to whom the Law and shadowes directed them we are to beleeve in Christ already come to whom the Ordinances doe direct us And therefore what he further repeateth having said the same all before that whosoever circumcised themselves and their Males and observed the Rites of the Law they and their children though Proselytes were the seed fleshly seed too for so he saith all this time and in that covenant and of that Church But now onely such as beleeve in Christ and be thereby regenerated are the seed and in this covenant and of the Church might well have been spared and have been answered before yet seeing hee addeth six other reasons to prove this latter clearly proving as he saith I shall bee willing to follow him And he saith First beleevers regenerate onely are in this Covenant and of this Church because none of the naturall seed of Abraham are in this Covenant by vertue of naturall relation though they remained in the Jewish Churches till Christs death But their being in the Churches by naturall relation then ceased as the Church ceased I reply First I have shewed that their standing in that Covenant and Church was not by fleshly relation but by spirituall who were counted for the seed Rom. 9.8 2dly Those few that were added to the Gospel Church were not cut off as the rest but remained naturall branches still in their owne Olive tree and what naturall relation they had they put not off and when the rest be added the Apostle saith the naturall branches shall bee ingraffed into their own stock For if the root be holy the branches will be so too Rom. 11.16 17.24 3dly The Scriptures by him quoted prove not the thing he alledgeth them for Acts 10.28 Rom. 9.8 Gal. 3.7 9 28 29. 4.28 His second Reason The Gentiles have no naturall relation to become his seed by and therefore their infants cannot become the seed of Abraham by being the seed of a beleever but must beleeve themselves otherwise they cannot be partakers in the Covenant made with Abraham Reply First there needs no such relation naturall nor were the Jewes as naturall seed onely without faith counted for the seed Rom. 9.8 Secondly the Gentiles Proselytes need not that naturall relation before to be in the covenant then but were ingraffed into the body by faith and therby their Infants Thirdly all now are not children of promise but many alwayes are deceivers and deceived as many then but not all only this may be noted that he yeeldeth that Believers now are partakers of the covenant of Abraham and therefore that then and now is the same And yet in the next and his third Reason hee denies the covenant under Christ to be the same with that which was made with Abraham because the three thousand converts Acts 2. when they were baptized did not baptize their Infants this he saith is plain Acts 2.41 and 8.12 where it is they that gladly received the Word were baptized they and they only which the Infants could not do Reply In the old Testament they that submitted themselves to the Jewish covenant and would take their God to be theirs were circumcised but Infants could not do that yet they were circumcised Secondly it is not said they were baptized and then it is not a perfect relation Reply It followeth not for all is not written that was done they might be baptized though it is not said they were For were not Christs Apostles baptized yet it is not written where when or who baptized them it is no argument to say it was not done because it is not set down but take it for granted their Infants were not baptized then which yet I will not grant for some considerations I shall afterward set down in another place doth this difference make that the covenant with Abraham and now is not the same It is not the same in this respect as all can be concluded which is but a circumstantiall difference The fourth Reason followeth if Paul and others writing to the visible Churches calls them Saints faithfull Brethren the Sons of God by adoption Rom. 16 c. and the Prophets notwithstanding they were led by the same Spirit were wont to speake otherwise of the visible Church of the Jewes as Isa 1.16 Jer. 1.2 Ezek. 3.4.4.12 Chap. 16.48.51 then naturall Infants were not in the covenant and of the Churches which the Apostles wrote unto as they were in that covenant and of that Church the Prophets spake to But Paul calls them Saints and the Prophets the other sinners yea grievous sinners and bids them wash themselves c. therefore naturall Infants were not in the Churches which the Apostle wrote unto as they were in the Jewes Reply I deny the consequence in the Reason as no way following and the proofe of it as invalid For as the Apostles do call the Churches Saints c. and the Prophets the Jewes sinners in the places alledged yet in other places the Scriptures call those sinners Saints Believers Brethren adopted c. as in many places may be made evident one or two may be enough Exod. 19.6 A kingdome of Priests a holy nation Deut. 33.2 3. Psal 22.22 and 122.8 Rom. 9.3 4. c. And the Apostle 2 Thes 2. calls them sinners carnall bids them repent c. to whom they wrote unto as Saints as Galat. Corinth where were many grosse things and sinfully amisse and most of the
this since Christ is the same This I proved by three Reasons The first this the Gospel is the Doctrine of the covenant but this was preached to Abraham to the Jewes in the wildernesse and in Davids time Ergo the covenant is the same in all To which he Answreth is this a good proof that the covenant is the same surely no For then to whomsoever the Gospel is preached they are in the covenant though they be scoffing Athenians as Act. 17. and concludes that there is no more in my proofe Reply First is this a good answer and doth this confute what I said that the Gospel was preached to Abraham c Surely no for there is no more in all hee sayes then this that it was not a covenant to scoffing Athenians who received it not by outward subjection unto it Secondly there is therefore a difference to be put between people to whom the Gospell is preached to some it is preached to be received so to Abraham Athenians c. to some as having received it so to the Jewes succeeding and to the Churches of the Gentiles Thirdly the Gospell is the promise the promise is the covenant he grants this afterward the summe wherof is I will be thy God and the God of thy seed if thou wilt accept of it and will blesse thee and thy seed with forgiveness of sin and life in my Son whom I will send in the flesh if you will believe in him This God preached to Abraham and the Athenians Abraham accepting he was in the covenant if he had not accepted it he had not been in the covenant as the Athenians were not because they accepted it not yet should have been if they had received the offer of God as well as Abraham Fourthly the Gospel is the doctrine of the covenant or materially the covenant it self and being from first to last but one Gal. 1.6 on Gods part dispensed to Abraham and his family to be received and on their part received continued to the Jewes till Christ on Gods part being that which made them his people in covenant and of the Church in all Apostasies and Idolatries c. till God cast them off and after derived to the Gentiles and believed by them it cannot but be really the same covenant on Gods part to all to whom it was offered and on their part who receive it as offered by God and they that receive it not will be guilty of refusing Gods covenant of grace and life and perish justly More therefore there is in the proofe then he would take notice of or knew how to answer and therefore thought it his best way to say nothing My second Reason to prove the second covenant was the same in all the three periods is this If Abraham be the father equally of Jews and Gentiles as hee believes and they his children equally as believing the righteousnesse of faith then the covenant is the same But Abraham is equally father of Jewes and Gentiles equally as he believes and they his children equally as believing Rom. 4.11 Gal. 3.7 Ergo The covenant is the same because the promise of the righteousnesse of faith is the covenant on Gods part held forth To this hee answereth The argument hath no force at all to prove that the covenant made with Abraham and his posterity before Christ and this since Christ is the same Reply What force there is in this argument let others judge and that they may more fully do it I shall set it down in cleer terms thus If the matter of the covenant and the conditions required of all that will be partakers of the covenant be the same then the covenant is the same in all the three periods But the matter of the covenant and the conditions required of all that will be partakers of it are the same in all the three periods Ergo The covenant is the same The first Proposition is evident For as all to whom the Law is prescribed and the condition of works and self-righteousnesse is required of them they are all under the covenant of works so all to whom the righteousnesse of faith is held forth and the condition of faith is required of them they receiving it and submitting are all under the same covenant of grace The second Proposition is as manifest Rom. 4.13.14.16 that faith was required of Abraham Isaac and Jacob will not be denied and was performed by them Heb. 11. That Gods righteousnesse was offered and faith in it required of the Jewes in Moses time and after is evident because they were blamed every where for not believing and the Apostle Rom. 9.31 32. shewed that they came short of Gods righteousnesse because they sought it not by faith and himself hath said before and presently after saith again that they were cut off by unbelief If they were cut off by and for unbelief then certainly they stood by faith and that was required of them and so they in the wildernesse were shut out of Gods rest that is Gods righteousnesse in Christ because they mixed not the Gospell with faith where they heard it Heb. 4.2 That the righteousnesse of God is preached to the Gentiles and faith required of them himself every where affirmeth therefore the conclusion that the covenant in all the three periods is the same is undeniable Yet seeing he sets down sundry considerations upon which he said as he did I shall attend to heare him And first he saith if none be Abrahams children but such as believe the righteousnesse of faith then none but such as believe are within the covenant and to be baptized but the first is true Ergo the second Reply First What is this to the argument How doth this cleer that there is no force in it to prove the covenant now and then to be the same If I should grant him all this yet my argument is of force the covenant may be the same though none but such as believe in the righteousnesse of God be in the covenant and so to be sealed for secondly any are said to be in the covenant in a twofold respect First as to take God to be their God and of their seed to work faith in them who can never believe of themselves unlesse God give them to believe which hee works in all in whom it is wrought in the first instant without any actuall concourse of power to make the dead sbul live and become active through his assistance Secondly as none actually believing and professing the same which to men-ward may seem to be true but is not alwayes so indeed If hee mean that none but of the second sort are in the covenant and are to be baptized I deny it and do affirm that Infants of such as do actually believe and professe are under Gods covenant and promise with their parents to work the faith in them that he hath wrought in their parents as I shall make further proof of afterward Secondly he saith the
body of the Jewish nation were the posterity of Abraham according to the flesh were commanded to be circumcised as so in the covenant and otherwise could not have been of the Jewish Church They were not to bring their sacrifices to the Temple nor eat the Passeover therefore these were legally in the covenant though but the posterity of Abraham according to the flesh yet none of the uncircumsion might before Christs time partake of those priviledges though they did believe The difference therefore was very great Reply That the Jewish Nation was Abrahams posterity according to the flesh who knowes not yet that they were thereby of the Church is not true and that they were in covenant before and Church-members is certain though he affirm the contrary never so often without any proof at all for circumcision followes the covenant at Church state being a sign of it doth not go before it as is evident in Abrahams case and his families as also in Isaacs case and all following him who were not circumcised at the 8th day but as in the covenant before and how could a Jew being uncircumcised be cut off from his people and despise Gods covenant if he had not interest in that estate before And were not those many hundred in Abrahams family and all proselytes after in the covenant and of the Church though not of Abrahams posterity in the flesh This is not required therefore to make them of the Jewish Church nor was it sufficient to be Abrahams posterity and circumcised to make them in the covenant and in the Church and no more required as in Esau's case and the rest of Abrahams children by Ketura where hee saith they were legally in the covenant though but Abrahams posterity I reply More was required of them to be in the covenant then to be Abrahams posterity in the flesh even to be the Lords to have Abrahams faith wrought in them without which they could not be or continue in the covenant If he mean by legally in the covenant they were in a legall covenant a covenant of works it is contrary to the Scriptures Galat. 3.17 18. Now was there any such covenant dispensed unto them by God But if he mean they were in the same covenant we have but legally being perverted by them contrary to the doctrine of God he grants what I said and contradicts himselfe Further he saith none uncircumcised before Christs time may partake in those priviledges though they did beleeve Reply It is not true For Enoch Noah Melchisedec and many others were partakers of some of them before circumcision was instituted and all they in the wildernesse during the fourty years travell there Though therefore the difference was very great in many circumstances yet it was the same in substance which is that I said A third consideration he hath is this No Gentiles are Abrahams seed at all but by beleeving the righteousnesse of faith although he be the child of beleeving parents Reply First I deny it For the infants of beleeving Gentiles in covenant are Abrahams seed though they doe not actually beleeve as the infants of Proselytes Gentiles before Christ were Abrahams seed with their beleeving parents Secondly none of the Jewish parents or children were Abrahams seed but by actually beleeving the righteousnesse of faith or under the promise of God to work it in them Rom. 9.6 8. But what is this to the disproof of my Argument That the covenant with Abraham then and now is the same I see not a word to that purpose A fourth consideration he thus sets downe None of the Jewes themselves Abrahams naturall seed and partakers of all the orders of the Old Testament by vertue of that naturall relation could bee admitted to be baptized but upon manifestation of faith Therefore the covenant before and this since is not the same Reply First all Abrahams naturall seed were not partakers of all ordinances of the old Testament by vertue of that relation as Esaus posterity nor was that relation necessary for then no Proselyte could have enjoyed them Secondly the natural posterity of Abraham did partake of those ordinances by vertue of the covenant or their actuall faith and therefore enjoyed them no longer then their covenant and faith continued Thirdly it followeth not that the covenant now and then is not the same because the Jewes of yeares were not baptized without manifestation of their faith for the difference onely is circumstantiall viz. the manifestation of their faith in Christ the Messiah now come which before they beleeved should come nor will he ever prove that the infants of those Jewes beleeving and baptized were not also baptized with their parents And this of his considerations to my second Reason my third Reason followeth The standing of the Jewes and of us Gentiles in the grace of God is the same with Abrahams therefore the Covenant is the same To this he answereth First distinguishing of the word Grace which is taken saith he particularly for the covenant of life generally for any effect of Gods goodnesse whereby he freely communicateth any benefits unto the sonnes of men which must needs be by grace seeing no man deserveth any thing Secondly he applieth this distinction and saith that if grace be taken in the first sense and particularly for the covenant of everlasting life unto free justification hee denieth that the Jewes were required to manifest their interest therein before they could be admitted to stand members of the Jewish visible Church state as all both Jews and Gentiles must now since the death of Christ and yet none saved but by grace in this first sense But if grace be taken in the latter and more generall sense for some effect of Gods goodnesse communicated freely to any in any kinde of benefit then he granteth that the Iewes stood under the same grace of God with Abraham and had circumcision and other ordinances to lead them to Christ to come yea to be born of their seed according to the flesh And in these respects the Jewes standing was the same with Abrahams and these respects are spoken of by Mary Luke 1.54 55. and Zachary Luke 1.72 73 Rep. First the distinction is not necessary for though in a general sense any thing from God may be called a grace as it is a free gift of God to them them that never deserve it yet in this discourse and usually in the Scriptures it is not used in this larger sense Secondly to make those priviledges of the Jewes to be but effects of common grace he wrongeth the grace of God as dispensing nothing more of particular favour to the Jewes then to the Gentiles though they had more and larger matters then the Gentiles Yet being from common grace it alters not the state of them under Gods grace from the Heathens whom in this case God leaveth not without witnesse of himself Thirdly in that he saith the Jewes had circumcision and other Ordinances leading them to Christ and
that Christ should be born of their seed after the flesh And in these respects they stood in the same grace with Abraham Reply First Abraham had not those ordinances which they had their standing therefore in these things differ Secondly these were not all the respects for the passages in Luke 1. vers 54. speak of other things namely remission of sinnes justification and sanctification In a word did not Christ come of Terah as well as of Abraham yea of Noah Sem c read Luke 3. And did they not beleeve in him to come Heb. 11.7 and how can any exclude them before Abraham of this priviledge yea and the Gentiles also with them before the time of distinction of the people more then them after in the due and proper consideration of the thing it selfe But to say no more I come to the other sense of the word Grace and did and doe intend my reason in that acceptation But here he denies that ever the Jewes were required to make any such manifestation to make them members of that Church before Christ as all Jewes and Gentiles since must doe to make them members of a Church now Reply First Abraham and his Males made such a protestation and all Proselytes that ever after joyned without which they had not been members as having no other relation and besides the seale should have been set upon them as the seale of the righteousnesse of faith which they had not Secondly the Jewes after Moses time were required first and last to make such manifestation of their faith in Gods righteousnesse and they sinned and were liable to Gods displeasure when they failed were often punished and at last cast off for want of it which could not have been if it had not been required of them Thirdly suppose that there was not the like manifestation required of them that is now yet the same thing was required of them that was of Abraham and is now of us namely faith in Gods righteousnesse And therefore though they then and wee now should differ in this respect that there was not such a manifestation of faith required as is now yet the covenant may be is the same now and then the manifestation being not the covenant but a circumstance about the covenant To conclude if the matter propounded in all these three periods not excluding the first in the time before Abraham be the same viz. Gods righteousnesse the Word of Gods grace and the Gospel if the condition required of all bee the same viz. faith in Gods righteousnesse And if the effect be the same in all that doe beleeve viz. that they that beleeve are freely justified by Christ without the deeds of the Law though the elect onely obtaine and the rest refuse are hardened and perish for ever for their sinfull unbeliefe then the covenant is the same in all these three periods as I first propounded and my proofes are full and cleare for this purpose come not short at all nor are taken away as hee would perswade himselfe but I question not but others will see that he is much mistaken many of the things he speakes being not onely unsound but absurd and uncongruous to wholesome doctrine It followeth that I next goe on with him about the consequent from this antecedent which he supposeth he hath taken away and so the consequences therefrom will fall and faile also and certainly so they would if he had taken away the antecedent and therefore hee might have spared his labour in seeking to disprove them and the proofes I added But it seems he thought not as he said and therefore he setteth down my consequence and the proofes thereof and seekes to overthrow them all as he hath done my antecedent My first consequent was that seeing the covenant with Abraham the Jewes and us Gentiles is the same Therefore as infants were then in covenant so they are now in covenant since Christ To cleare this consequence to be just I added as hee sets them down foure reasons The first Else the covenant were not the same in all as I have proved it is He answereth he hath disproved my proofes of that particular and therefore this reason is nothing Reply How hee hath disproved my proofes others shall judge and I have removed those disproofes of his and therefore this Reason is something and the Consequence thereby certain My second Reason Else the state of Gods grace should bee straitned and made of lesse extent by Christs comming then it was before whereas it is more enlarged and of greater extent there being then no more in the state of persons to interest infants into the covenant then now To this he answereth diversly denying the consequence that is that unlesse infants be now in the covenant as they were then the state of Gods grace is straitned and made of lesse extent by Christs comming First saith he because the preaching of the Gospel is as full as large and ample a testimony of Gods grace as any of the fleshly seed of Abraham had by the covenant and larger The Gospel preached now is a fuller declaration of the grace of God and the benefits that come by Christ then ever circumcision and the ordinances of the old Testament did declare to them The fleshly seed had but the declaration of the grace of God by the covenant now the seed of the Gentiles beleevers and unbeleevers are made partakers of the preaching of the Gospel though they be not in the covenant Reply First he seemeth to oppose the preaching of the Gospel now to the former times as if the Gospel were not preached unto them all that time for in this passage Gospel now preached and Covenant then is a direct opposition And so in the next branch he opposeth Circumcision and the Ordinances of the old Testament to the Gospel preached now as if the Gospel preached were peculiar to the new Testament contrary to the Scriptures Secondly I affirme and none can deny that there is not any point of doctrine held forth by the Gospel in the New Testament nor any grace of God or effect thereof but it was held forth then in the Old though more darkly then sparingly yet the same in both And therefore it is not right that he saith The Ordinances of the Old Testament did not make so full a declaration of Gods grace as the Gospel preached now doth unlesse he mean it of the measure and manner and then it is not to the purpose hee should aim at Thirdly I suppose it is evident that since Christs comming for many hundred yeares under the state of the Apostles there was a little preaching of the Gospel and declaration of the grace of God as ever was by the dispensation of the old Testament for the most part Fourthly whereas he saith that Abrahams fleshly seed had but a declaration of Gods grace by the covenant adding though the beleeving seed of Abraham had the grace of God in Christ
declared them of which I confesse I can make no sense and besides they include a flat contradiction but now the seed of the Gentile beleevers and unbeleevers have the Gospel preached to them though not in covenant Reply First I understand not what difference hee would put between the declaration of the grace of God in Christ and preaching of the Gospel in my apprehension there is no more then in preaching the Gospel and preaching the Gospel for surely the preaching of the Gospel is the declaration of the grace of God in Christ and declaration of Gods grace in Christ is preaching the Gospel and Circumcision and the other Ordinances together with the Word preached did as truly hold forth Gods grace in Christ and the benefits thereof as the Gospel now preached doth and the Ordinances of the new Testament onely the difference lies in Christ to come and now come as also in the measure and manner of the dispensation and not altogether in the matter Secondly he saith that the seed of the Gentiles beleevers and unbeleevers are made partakers of larger graces in having the Gospel preached unto them being not in covenant then the fleshly seed had been in covenant Reply First Abraham had the Gospel first preached unto him when he was an unbeleever and not in covenant But was it larger grace to have it preached unto him when he was not in covenant then when he was Surely no. 2dly that the Gentiles were made partakers of greater grace by being out of covenant then the Jews by being in covenant is an unreasonable speech for in that respect they are set one against another the Gospel was preached unto them both and therefore unlesse he deny this he cannot avoid the blame of the former Besides the Jewes had the Oracles of God the adoption the promises c. Rom. 9.4 by being in covenant but the Gentiles had nothing visible wherby they might be accounted partakers of Gods grace till they were in covenant and therfore the Jews had larger grace then the Gentiles beleeving or not beleeving not being in covonant c. A second answer he gives to overthrow my Consequence That if infants be not in the covenant now the grace of God is straitned by Christs comming is this The grace of God is now revealed to more people then before Then it was confirmed to the people of the Jewes onely but now it is commanded to bee preached to all Nations Therefore the exclusion of Infants doth not straiten the grace of God at all Reply 1. That the declaration of the grace of God was limited to the Jewes but now is common to all Nations I grant as also that there is a more full and clear declaration of that grace of God now then in former times Yea if he can lay down more respects wherein Gods grace is enlarged now above what it was then I should well approve of it yet this toucheth not my argument that I alledged and still affirm that the grace of God is now more straitned then it was then if infants be not now in the covenant as then they were And that besides others in a twofold respect First in respect of Infants themselves who in this abounding of grace dispensed are excluded and shut out by the God of that grace when before they were not and therefore to them it is straitned Secondly in respect of Parents who then looked upon their Infants as the Lords equally with themselves but now they look upon their Infants as aliens without God and Christ and have no more interest in them then an Indian child hath nor are any Parents or others to account of their children any otherwise then they doe of the Infant of an Indian So that this discourse medleth not with my Argument nor the scope of it nor are his answers to the purpose that should cleare this that the grace of God is not straitned now more then then though Infants were excluded which were not then It may be yet his third answer will doe that which is this If by extension of grace I doe conceive that ever God accepted any into the covenant of everlasting life as the fleshly seed of Abraham without inherent faith and thereupon conclude that much more now are the seed of beleevers taken into the covenant by their parents faith I erre and hee absolutely denies any such thing then or now c. Reply First here is not one word to my argument hee forgets what hee was a doing and falls into a suppofition hee doth not shew that if Infants bee not now in the covenant the grace of God is straitned because then Infants were Secondly that Infants were then in the covenant is not cannot be denied That the covenant on Gods part dispensed was the covenant of everlasting life is evident because it was an offer of God unto them to become their God and their seeds God to blesse them with the forgivenesse of sins in his Son called the righteousnesse of Faith Though it was not a covenant of life to all through their own default and they will be guilty of refusing everlasting life offered unto them That all Infants had not inherent faith in them when they were Infants and yet accepted of God into covenant of everlasting life to work that faith in them yea though elect as Paul for instance but had it wrought in them afterward by God in the mean he vouchsafed and that from and according to the covenant he had taken them into And if God then did thus dispense his grace as to take Infants into that covenant the covenant of everlasting life not having inherent faith in themselves but that he might work it in them Then if now Infants be excluded it argues that Gods grace is not so large as it was then he doth not give himself to be the God of our Infants to blesse them in his Son as hee did give himself to them to be the God of their Infants for to blesse them That God received none of Abrahams posterity into any covenant as his fleshly seed and in that respect because they were so is so certain that I conceive it to be a certain error to affirm it Abraham being set forth as the father of all nations in that transaction between God and him and not as the father of the Jewes only who were his fleshly seed Nor do I think that Infants now are received into covenant as fleshly seed of Gentiles nor by their parents faith as being any cause of it but only as Isaac c. were of old by Gods free grace taking the believing parents with their children into a covenant in whom he worketh faith to close with him and undertakes to work the same in their children after for which purpose bee taketh hold of them by his covenant and let all that know the truth judge whether hee or I do erre I in affirming or he denying these things though he do it never
so absolutely Last of all to this consectary which I added that there was nothing then in the state of persons to interest Infants in the covenant more then now hee giveth this answer Though there was nothing in the state of persons yet there was something in things and order of times Christ being yet to come and here hee concludeth two things First that the whole fleshly seed of Abraham separated by ceremoniall holinesse was a type of Christ to come and therefore Infants then in the covenant and but ceremonially holy Secondly that Christ the thing typified being come all that typicall state is utterly abolished c. Infants now not to be in it Reply First I deny that the fleshly seed of Abraham was a type of Christ and have spoken to it before and do conceive it a very erroneous conceit and full of absurdities Secondly wee must then exclude grown men also upon the same ground from the covenant and Baptisme now for if they were a type therefore children then in covenant and circumcised but now not in covenant and baptized men also being a part of the type must now not be in covenant nor be baptized or else Infants may Thirdly all proselytes could not be a type of Christ because not of the fleshly seed of Abraham nor Abraham and his family with all those succeeding till Moses time because the ceremoniall ordinances were not yet instituted nor doth the circumstance of things and time put any essentiall difference between them and us it being the same Christ then by those things and in that time dispensed that is now by these things and in this time not any other nor any thing else but I have said enough for this in some Reply before and so much to his answer to my second Reason A third Reason whereby I proved Infants to be in the covenant now as they were then was this as he hath set it down for I cannot remember that I used it here Abraham being the root and Jews and Gentiles the branches as when the Jews were broken off as well Infants as men of yeers were broken off so the Gentiles being planted in their stead they must be Infants as well as men of yeers And so the Jews when they shall be again implanted as well infants as men of yeers shall be so To this hee answereth First hee conceives Christ to be the root here meant Reply Then they were in Christ with of and from Infants also without actuall faith or unbelief Again that Christ is the root of Abraham himself and all else I question not but that Christ is not meant here Rom. 11.4 I am confident and no man will affirm that reades the Chapter with understanding Rom. 11.28 they are said to be beloved for the Fathers sake not that Abraham or Christ are equally a root or at all in the same respect and sense but in a diverse Christ the reall and efficient root Abraham but foederally and in regard of Gods covenant made with him as a father of many nations but I shall say no more hereto because himself admits it and answereth Secondly the Gentiles are not branches in a naturall relation nor the Jews branches in a spirituall relation but by personall faith To make Jews and Gentiles equally branches therefore of the root of Abraham wee must make the relation spirituall which is proper to them both Reply First he contradicteth himself in these words saying the Jews are not branches by a spirituall relation and yet they and the Gentiles cannot be equally branches but by a spirituall relation Further if he mean by faith personall habituall as well as actuall and excludes not habituall I consent for Infants may have habituall that cannot have actuall while Infants and many men may seem to have actuall saving faith that have not true saving habituall faith Secondly if he mean by spirituall relation foederall I also grant what he saith but if he mean by personall faith actuall and by spirituall saving faith I reply all the Jews had not actuall faith then nor Gentiles now who yet professe actuall faith then and now nor had Infants their actuall faith no more then they can have now and yet they were branches of the Olive then which hee concludes cannot be but by personall faith it being not by naturall relation which now Gentiles Infants may have as well as they had or whatsoever else those Infants had whereby those Infants were branohes of their own Olive tree To that I say that when the Jewes were broken off as well Infants as men of yeeres were broken off hee answereth it is true because the naturall relation in the covenant ceased when Christ the promised seed came and now there is no relation in the covenant with Abraham but by faith in Christ Reply First this contradicteth that which in the foregoing answer he seemed to set down that there must be such a spirituall relation as is possible to them both and that is faith for no otherwise can the Jewes and Gentiles suit nor could they have been broken off by unbeliefe which maketh not the Jews cease to have a naturall relation to Abraham unlesse faith was required of them and yet here he saith they were in covenant by naturall relation Secondly the Jewes were not in covenant by naturall relation and as a type of Christ which hee said before and I have disproved but Abraham was the father of Jewes and Gentiles as hee believed and they his children as believing and no otherwise as is cleer Rom. 4.9.14 the Apostle shewing that hee was heir of the world not through the Law but the righteousnesse of faith to the Gentiles though uncircumcised and not to the Jewes though circumcised but as they walked in the steps of that faith of Abraham which he had being yet uncircumcised besides if they had been in the covenant by naturall relation how could those many hundreds in Abrahams family be in the covenant who were not of Abrahams flesh or how could Ishmael or Esau cease to be in the covenant being Abrahams naturall seed Whereas I said when the Jewes be again implanted as well Infants of such as believe as men of yeeres shall be implanted He answereth as unbelief did break them off so faith only must graffe them in but that Infants of the Jews being members of that Church before Christs coming shall be planted so as to be members of a Christian Church without manifestation of faith lawfully can no way be proved but is an absolute error Reply Dictator-like but first Why may not Infants be now implanted without manifestation of faith and so be of a Christian Church as then they were of that Church without such manifestation of faith Secondly such a faith may graffe Infants in again as is opposite to the unbeliefe that cut them off that faith therefore or whatsoever it was that made them branches of that root and for want whereof they were cut off the same may
graffe them in nor can any man render a reasonable cause why hee should deny it It is therefore too peremptory to say it is an absolute error and his bare saying will never prove it to be so but himselfe to be too rash and unadvised My fourth Reason to prove Infants are now in the covenant as they were then is thus If the Jewes and Gentiles be incorporate into one body in Christ and the Jewish Infants were in the body then so may and must Infants of believing Gentiles now be verum prius To this hee answereth two things First the Jews had means before and some of them faith by those means and so true members of Christ hee the head and they the body there being no other members known but the Jewes The Gentiles by Christ coming had this speciall benefit to have the means and faith by the means and thereby united to Christ the head and so to Jews the body and the Jewes had no other relation to Christ the head but by faith and the Gentiles to Christ nor them but by faith Reply First where hee saith some of the Jews had faith and were true members if hee means saving faith and savingly his argument runs not because the faith of the Gentiles and their union with Christ was not saving and savingly in all as Simon Magus Judas c. If he means it generally according to charity then more Jews had faith then some that had true faith and were true members even all foederally in regard of profession nor is it true that there were no members known and of that body then but Jewes for the many hundreds in Abrahams family and very many proselytes were known members of that body and yet were not Jewes Secondly there is two wayes of being united to Christ the head and to the body Jewish then and of the Jews and Gentiles now the first is foederally sacramentally outwardly and visibly so all the Jewes were then the body and all of it as is cleer 1 Cor. 10.1 c. all baptized all eating and drinking one and the same Baptisme Manna Rock as the Apostle saith we are one body by being baptized into one Christ and by eating and drinking one bread cup by one Spirit a body mysticall 1 Cor. 12 13. Acts 7.38 The second is really spiritually and effectually inwardly and invisibly In the first sense the elect and reprobate are both considered so many as the Lord calls by means In the second sense the elect only are to be considered whether of Jews or Gentiles that there are these two sorts of being in Christ is evident from many Scriptures Joh. 15.1 two sorts of branches one fruitfull and shall be saved the other unfruitfull and shall be damned Mat. 22.14 Many are called but few are chosen Many are called and not chosen many are called and chosen and all this is true of the Jewish state before Christ as is cleer in the seven first verses and all is true likewise of the state after Christ as is plain in the rest and of both 14. All the Jewes therefore though not savingly from Abraham to Christ were that body successively and the Gentiles since Christs time added to that body by being made neer no alteration of the Jewes as the body in the reall and essentiall consideration of it but an accesse of the Gentiles to them which our Saviour also in another place expresseth John 10.16 Other sheep I have which are not of this fold and I must bring them into it that there may be but one fold and one Shepherd For Rom. 11.17 some of the branches were broken off not all and thou wert graffed in amongst them therefore as Jewish Infants were then in the fold and members of the body all along so it must be granted that the Infants of Believing Gentiles now added to the body and fold are in it His second answer is this First that the Gentiles by conversion did not enter into the Jewish nationall Church Secondly if neither Jews nor Gentiles were the body of Christ considerably as a nation but only by consersion then were not the Jews as Jews of the body and consequently not their Infants But neither Jewes nor Gentiles were the body of Christ considerably as a nation but by conversion therefore neither Jewes as Jewes were of the body nor their Infants and consequently not the Infants of the Gentiles Reply First he seemeth to restrain the being of the body to the present Jewes in Christs time which is erroneous and denies it of the former Secondly the proselytes of the Gentiles before Christ did by conversion enter into fellowship with the Jewish nationall Church and their Infants with them Thirdly the Jewes were not the body as a nation yet the nation was the body and that foederally God taking hold of them by his covenant and making them unto himself an holy nation as well Infants as others Exod. 19.6 Deut. 29.11.14.15 at the first constitution they were the body by conversion at least appearingly But ever after all succeeding were the body for to be truly converted on Gods part promised though on their part not alwayes injoyed through their own default Next he comes to my other consequence which is this seeing Infants are now in the covenant as these were then in the covenant therefore Infants ought now to be baptized as then they were circumcised sealed with the sign of the covenant now as they were sealed with the sign of the covenant then To cleer this my first Reason was thus else the covenant were not the same and Infants in it Hee answers that it is not the same in respect of naturall relation to Abraham as hee had shewed and therefore Infants not in it Reply First he here holdeth the Jewes to have fellowship in the covenant before Christ by vertue of naturall relation and yet he said before that they were not the body which they were by covenant as Jewes that is by naturall relation Secondly I have shewed before that the Jewes were not in that covenant by naturall relation but by faith which is the only condition of the covenant Thirdly it no way followeth it is not the same in respect of naturall relation therefore it is not the same at all nor doth it hinder Infants being in it because they now have no naturall relation to Abraham for the proselyte Infants were taken in of old into fellowship with the Jewes in that covenant but not in respect of naturall relation which they have not the reason there remains firm and unanswered My second was this if they had the thing and substance they cannot be denied the seal and circumstance if the first grace then the second and confirming Hee answereth it is true when they or any other for them can manifest that they have the thing and substance then let them have the seal and circumstance Reply First he denies not that they have the thing though they cannot manifest it
others unto them Now a Church I conceive to be an institution of it whereby a company of men and women called by the word of Gods grace and some work of Gods Spirit upon them doe joyn themselves unto the Lord and one to another by entring into covenant with the Lord to have him to be the God of them theirs and they and theirs to be the Lords and his Christs as also one with another to meet together to worship God for his glory their mutuall edification to life according to Gods revealed will Now as I tie no man to my expressions so I shall be willing to learn of any that shall help me to a better understanding in this point yet in this description all the causes concurre The efficient an institution of Christ with the instrumentall the Word in some effects upon their hearts the materiall a company of men and women so called and from thence Saints and beleevers the formall joyning themselves to the Lord and one with another by entring into covenant whereof there are two branches one called Zach. 11. The staffe of beauty taking the Lord to be the God of them and theirs and giving up themselves and theirs to be the Lords the other called The staffe of bonds or brotherhood and both the covenant the finall to meet together to glorifie God the supreme and edifie one another to life with the meanes worshipping God according to his own appointment revealed in his word onely I would be understood of a Church in the constituting of it which is continued in the same state by succession till the Lord the efficient dischurch them But to proceed this confuter next saith That I make this quaere Whether baptisme be not the form of a church and answering No giving reasons of my deniall I affirm a covenant acted is the form of it To all which he answereth first in generall And here he distinguisheth between the form and the thing formed and saith That a Church being an Assembly the form or fashion thereof is the relation that every member possesseth from Christ their head and each with other wherby every law and service is communicable and executed concluding that neither a covenant or baptisme is the form of a Church but baptisme of a beleever is an instrumentall meanes by which a Church is made partaker of that forme which it hath as by which it becomes a Church Further that the instrumentall meanes of the being of a Church both of matter and form is by consent of love issuing forth from the covenant of grace made in and from our Lord through one Spirit one Faith one Baptisme Ephes 4.4 5. And if any of these be wanting and be not supplied the Church can have no visible existence and being From whence it followeth though baptisme bee not the form of a Church yet being an essentiall meanes and the last too of the visible Church where true baptisme is wanting there can be no true visible Church Reply First to let passe his distinction onely this I say that he confoundeth forme and figure as one thing which are divers For water in a round glasse or square hath this or that figure or fashion but it is not the forme whereby water is water and not another thing and therefore form differs from figure and fashion Secondly whereas he denieth a covenant or baptisme either to be a Churches form he contradicteth what he said before in his answer to my first argument to prove the covenant before Christ and after to be the same It is true said he that the coventnt of God maketh the Church both in the time of the Law and Gospel too and a Church is nothing but a people in covenant with God That saying of his here and there cannot be both true Thirdly he saith that the form of the Church is that relation that each member possesseth from Christ the head and each with other which is by consent of love Reply First the relation that each member possesseth from Christ the head and each the other is either internall as Spirit Faith Love or externall the manifestation of these as they are internall they cannot be the form of an externall visible church as they are manifested outwardly they cannot make the churches form because they may manifest these graces and yet be no church nor members of a visible and this particular church And indeed they are neither matter nor form though hee makes them both but the manifestation of these maketh them to be fit matter for a church which yet cannot be a church without the form added to the matter and that is a covenant or as he calleth it a consent which indeed is a covenant by which alone every Law and Service is communicable and excecuted Last of all he saith that consent of love from one Spirit Faith and Baptisme are essentially necessary meanes of the being of a church for matter and forme Ephes 4.4 5. And if any of these bee wanting then there can be no visible church Reply First in making all these to concurre to the matter and form of the church as meanes thereof hee necessarily yeeldeth the form and matter to be something else differing from them all Secondly he confounds baptisme with faith and love which are internall graces unlesse he means the externall profession of them flowing from the covenant of grace which if he doe then I conceive he yeelds as much as I require that in a covenant or mutuall engagement of all parties and one main part by profession of faith and love through one spirit without which a covenant cannot be in the state we speak of it Thirdly that of Ephes 4. intends not to describe the forme of a church but perswades to unity by a sevenfold unity that they are already church-members were all partakers of Lastly if baptisme may be wanting for a time and yet a beleever essentially a church-member as Abraham and his many males and females were before circumcised for the space of at least 14. yeares between the covenant and circumcision and therefore doth not concurre to the constitution of a churches matter and form but for the confirmation of a church constituted in matter and forme before And when a man of yeares is baptized in a church is the baptized a visible Saint or no If yea for he may be no reall Saint then his baptisme doth not give him matter and forme but hee hath both before or else hee ought not to be baptized And thus much to his generall discourse In particular he goeth on and saith First as it is in natural birth so it is in spirituall but in naturall birth we have the beginning of our natural being among the world and in the affairs of this life by our birth from our parents therefore wee have the beginning of our spirituall and visible being among the church as in the affaires of life eternall by our spirituall birth and this spirituall
all these ends which he hath appointed it for and so for those ends it is to be administred and the omission of it is a grievous sin But none of these ends is to give them a visible being in a visible church but by way of signification and confirmation Ergo baptisme is not the form of the church A 5th Argument is from the nature of Baptisme as it is the seal of the Covenant if there be no visible Ordinance before Baptisme to note out their visible being in the covenant whereby they may be known then it is baptisme that doth it But there is no other visible ordinance before baptisme to note out their visible being in the covenant whereby they may be known Ergo it is baptisme that doth it and so it is the form of the Church Answ 1. If he really grant it is the seal of the covenant then it is not the covenant it self for which hee hath formerly argued Secondly it must be considered to whom baptisme must note out their visible being in the covenant if to themselves they may know it before for he that believeth hath the witnesse in himself if to others either Christians they must know it before or not baptize them or else the world and baptisme can no way notifie such a thing unto them they cannot take notice thereof nor will they they know them not because they have not known Christ nor the Father And if a man truly baptized fall off from his profession to whom doth it note that he is in the covenant though it be known he was baptized And our Saviour giveth a rule wherby all men shall know his Disciples not if baptized but if they love one another and keep his commandements and if any say he hath fellowship with God and doth evill hee lies and all the world may know it though they know he was visibly baptized Ergo baptisme cannot be the form of a church seeing it doth not note out their visible being in covenant which is notified before and by other means both before and after Last of all again he contradicteth himself in saying here that baptisme is the form of the church and yet before denying baptisme or the covenant either to be the form of it The 6th Argument is taken from the commission given to the first Matth. 28.19 where the Participle baptizing concurres to making them Disciples and Mark 16.16 Faith puts a man into the state of salvation before God Baptisme before men the reason runs thus If from commission to the first planters baptisme was required to make a person a Disciple in a visible state of salvation and stated in all other ordinances of Christs kingdom then baptisme so administred is that which gives being to a true visible Church I answer First the Scripture requires first that they be made Disciples and then being Disciples to be baptized and therefore baptisme doth not make them Disciples Again faith makes them Disciples in the state of salvation before God and profession of that faith and not baptisme doth make visibly and outwardly Disciples in the state of salvation before men Rom. 10.9 10. They that baptize any must know them to be visibly such before they baptize them else not baptize them as himself hath saith from Acts 2.21.8.12 Secondly Baptisme is required to state them in the observation of all the ordinances of Christs kingdome not by making them a church or member to whom only such ordinances yea baptisme it self doth belong but to make them fit to observe them being members and there are other things though they be baptized that may hinder them from observaton of those ordinances as in the old Testament circumcision did not make them a church but being a church they were to be circumcised without which they might not observe the Passeover but there were other things also which did hinder them from observation of the Passeover though they were circumcised And thus of his Position and the grounds of it That baptisme is the thing that formeth the church only if I understand his close hee flatly contradicts himself in saying baptisme is the means and thing that formeth the church and yet it is not the outward form of our church formed For either it formeth the church withan outward or inward but not inward before God Faith doth that and therefore the outward form it must be and so hee said in his last Argument baptisme puts a man into the state of salvation before men Again hee grants the church to be formed with an outward form without baptisme in saying baptisme is not that outward form of the church formed If a formed church it hath a form that formed it but the form is not baptisme Ergo he overthrows all that he hath argued for or else the church hath two outward forms one he grants the church hath without baptisme the other by baptisme which these six arguments plead for It were well if he agreed with himself Next he answereth the Reasons I set down as he saith to prove that baptisme is not the form of a visible church The first whereof is this That which giveth being to a church must be removed to make a church cease to be a church but Baptisme cannot be removed from a church whilest it remains a church Ergo. Hee answers It is as easie to remove baptisme from a church as to remove a church from being a church Reply First this is a very easie answer and toucheth no part of the Argument Again a church is unchurched not by unbaptizing the baptized as it must be if it were the form of a church but by destroying the church it self The church must first in reasan be made no church before ordinances can cease to be ordinances in that church but destroy the church and baptisme will not be baptisme as the Edomites circumcision was not circumcision when they were not the church the Jewes circumcision and all that they do are nullities to this day since they ceased to be a church A second Reason is this That which being wanting to a church constituted doth not cause the church to be no church that cannot be the form of the church but baptisme may be wanting to a church constituted and yet it be a church As circumcision to Infants seven dayes alwayes to all females to them in the wildernesse forty yeers Josh 5. Ergo Answ He denies the second Proposition That baptisme may be wanting to a church constituted his Reason because a church is constituted by baptisme and so Josh 5. hee saith that case was extraordinary having speciall dispensation from God himself supplyed by miraculous Sacraments during the time of their necessary forbearances of circumcision and the Passeover while in travells unlesse wee can shew a like case and supply of miraculous Sacraments we cannot conclude that a church is a church or men members of a church without baptisme by which they are constituted Reply First the Reason he gives
which he only seemed to have and no faith Christ c. can be said to remain being neither believer nor baptized nor member indeed because hee forsaking the grounds and ends of his baptisme he forsaketh baptisme which was administred upon these grounds and for these ends Fourthly hee that by the renewall of his repentance returneth to his faith again by which hee is to be restored to communion with the church again after excommunication returneth thereby to his baptisme and membership again Reply Granting the first Proposition that faith possesseth a man of Christ c. and likewise this in the second that some have faith in Christ c. really and saving in the truth of all but where he saith some have but seeming faith and yet baptized c. and seem to have Christ baptisme and membership but have none in truth I deny that these are seeming unlesse as opposed to saving spirituall and supernaturall thus indeed many have not nor can any have these things but only elect persons and so their saith and all is seeming But faith considered in it self it is certaine that many have that faith they professe they have as the devills and do believe as they say they do nor do I think that if a man knew one to be a reprobate unlesse in the case of fin unto death yet having and professing faith hee is not to be rejected without some speciall word of God Thus Abraham and Isaac circumcised Ishmael and Esau though they knew before they were reprobates And our Saviour put Judas into Apostleship when he knew what hee was to the full Secondly a man having such a faith is in Christ in a sense John 15. hath baptisme and church-membership indeed and in the truth of it though not spiritually and savingly I cannot say these are all or any of them seeming but in opposition to saving so they seem to be indeed but are not Heb. 6.4.9 they are really enlightened they tast of the heavenly gift and fall away and perish for ever but they had no part in those as accompanying salvation these are distinct one from another The one sort are acquired by naturall powers and are morall only those will never save them the other are infused spirituall supernaturall and alwayes accompany salvation To the third Proposition I say that a believer to salvation excommunicate for some sin is not deprived of the faith he had but that he is cut off from membership and so from baptisme if it be the form of his membership it is most certain as much as the other is and it is more then a seeming to be cut off being ratified in heaven his everlasting estate remaining with God inalterable and he that seemed to have saving faith c. but had not is not deprived of that faith he had by excommunication nor cut off otherwise from his baptisme and membership then the former in foro humano being things that hee had as really as the former though not of the same kinde nor to the same benefit And if all were but seeming in the Refuters sense certainly his excommunication will be but seeming roo and doth this seem to be a seemly thing to speak thus of the things of God To the fourth he that by repentance returneth to his faith again that is in true meaning to an intire standing in the profession of faith returns to his baptisme and membership again I grant that by renewall of repentance hee is to be restored from under the censure unto communion with the church again And hence I gather that faith and repentance professed are the means whereby hee was stated in the covenant and membership and therefore now required of him again to set him in his former state and not baptisme which certainly would have been under some prejudice by excommunication and must have been cleered as well as his profession if that had constituted his membership especially if he had but seeming faith baptisme and membership before for let mee put this case which certainly may and sometimes doth fall out that a seeming believer having seeming baptisme c. to speak his language is excommunicated and so is cut off from all that he only seemed to have he had no baptisme and membership indeed but seemed to have and from all that is really and wholly cut off nothing remaines this penson was not before really converted but under the state of censure he is really converted and gives full satisfaction to the church shall he be restored to his seeming baptisme and membership that he had before by his seeming faith rather he cannot be restored to that seeming state because he saith nothing remains Or shall hee have a new membership and reall in the truth of it for his reall faith and repentance but this must be by a new reall baptizing the former not remaining and therefore though repentance of him that was a true believer recovers his former standing in the covenant and so his baptisme which he was not really deprived of yet it must needs be that he that did not truly believe being now really converted can not receive his former seeming baptisme nor were it worth the recovering by his repentance but must have a reall baptisme added to him for his reall faith instead of that seeming baptisme that he had by his seeming faith The truth is neither true believer nor seeming as he speaks have either of them their baptisme taken away by censure but both their memberships really and not seemingly and by repentance are restored to their former rights and membership That therefore that must be to make a man a member and the destruction whereof makes a man no member and the renewing wherof must be to restore him to be a member again that is the form of a church-member and so of a church but baptisme doth not make a man a visible member nor is baptisme nullified to make him no member but remains still true baptisme nor is it to be renewed to restore him to his membership again therefore baptisme is not the form of the church For to make a thing to cease to be that it was must necessarily be by taking away of the form by which it was that it was for so long as that form remains you cannot make the thing to be any other or not that it was but in making a member no member there is a destruction of that form whereby he was a member that is a reall casting him out from being the Lords or having the Lord to be his and to be delivered up to Satan likewise a casting him out from being one of Gods people to be of the world again as Demas and the contrary hereunto must be reacted to restore a member Therefore this alone is the forme of a member and so of a Church And this is no other thing but a Covenant acted as before I described therefore a Covenant is the form of the Church This I affirmed
they had not circumcised in forty yeers ever since they came out of Egypt nor did they circumcise any now nor afterward till Moses was dead and Joshua had brought them through Jordan into the land Joshua 5. To this he answereth divers things First that this was but a renewall of the covenant made with Abraham Isaac and Jacob before which they entred into with God in behalf of them and their children by being circumcised and therefore they being before did not now begin to be a church and therefore this doth not prove that a covenant acted by a company of believers should be it that did constitute them a church now Reply First I grant this was but a renewall of the covenant made with Abraham c. and upon his grant inferre that this was a spirituall covenant and not carnall and the same with Abrahams and ours which before he opposed mee in Secondly hee saith they entred into the covenant by circumcision Reply It is false Abraham and his were not circumcised till fourteen yeers after and now few of them in yeers were circumcised before nor any now Thirdly they did not now begin to be a church being one before It 's true but the renewall of their church estate here after many provocations of God and many declarations against them of Gods anger whereby they might feare that God would own them no more being by a covenant acted formally and outwardly between God and them as is cleerly expressed in the Text doth fully shew that both now and then they were found Gods people as believers acting a covenant betwixt God and them and one another and seeing hee grants this to be the same with that of Abraham c. that was also thus acted is out of question as this here though therefore a covenant acted now did not constitute them a church yet a covenant is acted now and is for the renewing of their church estate therefore much more was it so in the first constitution every thing decayed in the true forme of it being made the same it was by renewing the same form and otherwise cannot be the same Nor did circumcision here concurre nor any thing else and yet perfectly stated a church and so called Acts 7.1 Secondly hee answereth whereas I say circumcision was no ingredient here having not circumcised during the forty yeers nor now Hee conceives notwithstanding that circumcision was an ingredient in their parents who thereby entred into covenant for themselves and these their children as the covenant here expressed did comprehend the posterity to come Reply First howsoever they stood intire in the covenant and church-estate without personall circumcision for except Moses Caleb and Joshua there was not a man of those 600000. that came out of Egypt alive and all born in the wildernesse during the forty yeers were uncircumcised and at the time of this covenant making not one was circumcised and so the church consisted of a company of men personally uncircumcised and performed services to God and each other which ought to have been done by circumcised persons only In like manner men and women believing the Word of God and doing as these did may become thereby a true visible church though they were not baptized before nor are baptized at present covenanting and perform services to God and each other Secondly if they injoyed their perfect church-estate being not personally circumcised by vertue of their parents circumcision before them then certainly as much may be granted now that by vertue of a parents believing and being baptized their Infants may be counted and really are in the covenant before they be baptized If it be said these were grown men and expressed their faith in God I answer All were not grown men many were Infants yea posterity for and with whom this covenant was made were not yet born and for the rest what faith the most of them had may be seen Deut. 29.4 Thirdly hee answereth it was an extraordinary case and they had miraculous sacraments in stead of circumcision and the Passeover c. Reply To all this I have spoken before yet a word or two First hee calleth them miraculous sacraments here and before but he found fault with me for calling them ordinances which is all one sacraments they were therefore though extraordinary nor did the sea continue with them all this time being a transient act and many hundred thousands never past through the sea nor did the cloud baptize them all till circumcision was administred to them all Josh 5. The cloud ceased on the other side Jordan and continued not till they came into the land therefore all the members were not personally constituted members by that miraculous sacrament of baptisme which gives them hee saith their imitation Further he saith that the acting of a covenant by a company of believers was not the same of that church then but the communication of Gods covenant by circumcision ordinarily with the whole nation believers and Infidels and whosoever of any nation that would be circumcised and joyn with them to worship much lesse hath it any consequence to prove it so now Reply First I have proved that a covenant acted by them as beleevers did make them to be the people of God and circumcision was ordinarily added as a signe and seale thereof But in that hee saith the whole Nation beleevers and infidels it is an unchristian speech nor ever will he prove that any of the nation were infidels nor any of any nation joyning with them though many of them did not beleeve as they should yet beleevers they all were and God manifested it in accepting their sacrifices pardoning their sins and making an atonement for them by the Priests administrations It is therefore injurious to the grace of God so to speak and justly to be blamed Nextly he comes to my third particular by which I conceived the form of the Jewish church state outwardly was by a covenant acted by a company of beleevers c. which is from the renewall of their estate after some apostasie 2 Chron. 15.12 13 16. 34. chap. 30 31. Nehem. 9.3 10.1 from whence I collected that without which they could not stand in a right church estate visibly that was the forme of that church but without the renewall of their covenant they could not stand in a right or pure church estate but without renewall of circumcision they might Ergo. His answer hereto is First he grants they made a covenant and did well in so doing but secondly that they could not be in a church estate without so doing nor have I proved it and he will prove the contrary first because they were a church before secondly this covenant was but an animating them to doe that which they were engaged to doe before by their circumcision Gal. 5.3 Ergo. As the renewall of their covenant is not by me proved to bee the form of the church then much lesse hath it any consequence to
and covenant Ergo a covenant acted is the form of a church His answer first granteth the comparison and proportion also But secondly denies that a covenant acted by beleevers or agreement mutually is necessary to form the church to be one body and concludes that persons may be united to Christ by faith and baptisme and so stated in the covenant of grace and members of the visible church proportionally as the form of the candlestick is the joyning together of the shaft and branches Reply First where he denies mutuall agreement or a covenant acted is the forme of the church hee doth it without any reason given which is an easie way of confuting for where he saith it may be by faith and baptism he should prove it is and must be or else he shewes himself to heare himself speak Secondly in saying faith in Christ and baptisme may unite them to Christ and so state them in the covenant of grace I affirm faith alone doth it But it is faith professed that may make a man capable of baptisme in those that they themselves will admit members and therefore it must be faith professed that unites a man to Christ visibly and so he is a member of Christ visibly before baptisme comes nor could be baptized without that visible union and therefore hee is not made a visible member of Christ by baptisme but is so before Thirdly though by faith professed a man is visibly united to Christ and may be so acknowledged yet this doth not unite him or make him a member of this or that particular church but there must be something whereby he may be united to this or that church and make him a member thereof rather then of another baptisme doth not so make him for then all baptized should be of one and the same church and not of Ephesus more then of Smyrna nor can they be any other things then mutuall agreement or covenant acted aâ— we know it to be certain in all consociations a mutuall covenant is the bond and form of them as in marriage common-wealths 2. Rev. 17.21 and so of other societies and bodies incorporate so also in this mysticall body of Christ a church visible being an Ecclesiasticall body politike consisting of many members consociated it must needs be by covenant acted mutually and by this comparison of marrying the Apostle sets forth the relation of Christ and the Church the bond tying the members each to other that uniteth them all to the head which is a marriage covenant Ephes 5. baptisme being but the seal of it And thus wee are come to the last Argument If the removing of the candlestick and so unchurching of a church be by dissolving the covenant and their fellowship as to them by dissipation Zach. 11. then a covenant acted is the form of a visible church But the removing of the candlestick is the dissolving the covenant and their fellowship thereby as to them by dissipation Ergo a covenant acted is the form of it To the second Proposition hee answereth two things First because the covenant in the new Testament established in Christs blood is everlasting and cannot be shaken and dissolved and differ from the covenant which was before Christ which was shaken dissolved and taken away therefore their kingdome of Heaven was shaken and church-estate was taken away but the kingdome and church-state now cannot be taken away Heb. 12.27 Matth. 21.43 Reply Here is nothing which is not said before and answered yet observe that he declines the true question which is of a visible church and flies to the invisible state for to visible churches there is an end many times of their visible state and yet the covenant of God remains eternall to all the elect of God and never is taken away from them nor indeed is the visible kingdome of Christ altogether taken away but it hath and doth remain somewhere upon earth though many particular churches are often ruinated and destroyed Again he speaks to the state before Christ and the difference of this since Christ whereas the Proposition speaks of this since Christ only and the argument is taken from the state of churches since Christ as the expressions fully declare Rev. 2. 3. where churches compared to candlesticks are threatened dissolution for their faults Ephesus Rev. 2.5 I will remove thy candlestick that is I will make thee no church Rev. 3.16 I will spue thee out of my mouth noting an utter undoing of them and an allusion was made to Zach. 11. to intimate the way how God would unchurch them not by taking away their baptisme but by destroying them and dissipating their fellowship in the covenant nor was that of Zachary any part of the argument that hee could have nor advantage from that to fetch in the state of the old Testament in his answer And whereas I say the destruction of the church of Ephesus or Laodicea was not by taking away their baptisme from them so that who so remains alive of them at the time of dissipation should not be accounted baptized persons having received baptisme though it will do them no good in the state they are in for let me put this case a whole church is dissipated and unchurched yet one or two of them that live still after a few dayes are truly converted from their hypocrifie and apostasie justifying the Lord and seeking the one to joyn to Philadelphia the other to Smyrna and each give such satisfaction to the church of their faith and repentance as they dare not deny the right hand of fellowship Shall these two be now anew baptized having received true baptisme before whilest they were members of Ephesus before shee was destroyed If any shall say as hee did before in his answer to the first Reason against baptisme being the form of the church that all before being but seeming was nothing indeed and so account he was not baptized at all and never had any capacity of being baptized truly till now Besides what hath been replied there I adde that the same state must be then of a man that is a member but an hypocrite in the church unknown so to be who in continuance of time by Gods Spirit in the Word is convinced of his unsound estate repents of it manifests this to the church and so cleers it that the church is satisfied that she was before mistaken and he was but seemingly a believer and so had but a seeming membership and baptisme I say likewise that this man also must be baptized if he were not before truly baptized And how fearfull a thing is it thus to dally in Gods matters and to make Gods ordinance descend upon our apprehension to be or not to be humanus intellectus non est mensura institutionum Dei the ordinance administred to such a man before was Gods ordinance and true baptisme but he did not receive it savingly which now upon this work of grace he doth and baptisme in it self applied
unto him is not truer baptisme now then it was before it proves only unto him more profitable But I go on further where he saith the covenant before Christ might be and was dissolved shaken and removed this covenant since Christ cannot be dissolved shaken or removed All may easily see that either wilfully or ignorantly hee confoundeth covenant and testament which are divers things for the kingdome before Christ spoken of Heb. 12. is not the covenant but manner of administration that before Christ the old Testament to be shaken and removed this since Christ the new Testament established and never to be shaken nor removed and this kingdome shaken was not taken away from the Jewes and given to the Gentiles but utterly abolished and a new kingdome given and set up that shall not be abolished nor end till Christ shall give it up to the Father 1 Cor. 15. Last of all the covenant before Christ was the eternall covenant of God and remains the same for ever and cannot be shaken this covenant God made with Abraham continued to the Jewes till Christs time and this also is called the kingdome of God Matth. 27.34 which cannot be altered nor was it disanulled nor abolished then but only taken away from the Jewes whereas kingdome in the other sense was utterly abolished and given to the Gentiles and a new or another but the same and therefore though the Jewish people were cut off yet the covenant and church-state remained and was given to the Gentiles yet so as that many of the Gentile churches have been cut off and may be and shall be cut off for the same cause that the Jewes were cut off viz. if they continue not in faith Rom. 11. His second answer is this the removing of the candlesticks and unchurching of them is only by discovery or manifestation of a people to be void of any participation in the covenant which formerly they professed were esteemed and had a name to have 1 John 2.19 Rev. 3.1 and not dissolving or taking away of covenant which once they had and enjoyed much lesse is it a dissolving of an outward covenant acted by believers such a covenant is will-worship and the churches constituted thereby meerly Antichristian the dissolving of such a covenant cannot be the unchurching of any true churches Jesus Christ having no true visible church so constituted Reply All hath been said and answered before that here hee speaks yet a word here If the removing of the candlestick and unchurching of such be nothing but only a discovery that they were in no covenant before then the Jewes before Christ were in no covenant but only seemed to be so c. Ephesus and the rest were in no covenant but had a name only to be in it who are long ago rejected nor were the Saints in Rome graffed branches into the true Olive but only were esteemed so to be and the cutting breaking off dissolving of all those and the like is but a declaration and manifest discovery that they were never in covenant and what great punishment is it for these and the like to have that taken away from them which they never had But I doubt not but that all that have any judgement to discerne of things aright will easily see as the unsoundnesse so the unreasonablenesse of what hee faith Secondly the places alledged by him are not to his purpose the first not speaking of their membership and state in the covenant which they had and departed from but of the soundnesse of their state therein and of saving grace from the Father election in Christ which they had not and hereby manifested that they had not in that they departed from the fellowship of faith The other place Rev. 3. speaks not of them as having a name to be a church for that they were and Christ so called them and would not have so acknowledged them had they not so been but it speaks of the condition they were in in this church-estate as having a name to be alive in faith and holinesse but indeed were in this respect dead and yet not quite dead but almost and therefore are bidden to strengthen the things that are ready to die these places therefore do not at all speak of their being in covenant or church-estate but only of the unsoundnesse of their estate in faith and godlinesse Thirdly whereas he opposeth a covenant and a covenant acted by believers as divers things or contrary if hee understood himself hee should have done well to expresse himself what he meant by them both that others might understand him For can there be a covenant and not outwardly acted Is not a covenant between two parties Or is it a covenant unlesse all parties agree there is no covenant of God but it is outwardly manifested to men and by visible means made known to such as hee would have to be in it nor is that a covenant made with them but as they outwardly receive it and by some visible act answer the Lord therein and so make themselves partakers thereof and visibly by visible participation which cannot be but by acting or passing consent to the covenant whereby God and they become one anothers and they visibly Gods people which being once done they remain a church and Gods people as long as this state continues and when it ceaseth then they cease to be Gods people forsaking each other again mutually which also is further evident in that God useth this expression to note out his dissolution giving them a bill of divorcement and so dissolving that marriage covenant which they were joyned together in Jerem. 13. I cannot but therefore conclude that hee doth speak unchristianly in saying an outward covenant acted by a company of believers is will-worship and churches so constituted are Antichristian or the dissolving of such a covenant cannot be the unchurching of any true churches because Jesus Christ hath no other true visible churches but those only that are so constituted A Discourse of the Verity and Validity of Infants Baptisme in it selfe considered As also it hath been administred in the Church of ENGLAND WHEREIN Besides the Arguments duly propounded and clearly explained for the proofe thereof occasionally The calling of the Ministers in England and here administring that ordinance Likewise the manner of administring it by sprinkling and not dipping is handled and justified AS it hath ever been the fruit of Satans malice to pervert the right wayes of the Lord and if not utterly to abolish yet greatly to corrupt the worship and ordinances of God So there have never wanted men of evill minds who give themselves to promote his sinfull designes A proofe whereof beyond exception is that man of Sin with all that Apostasie wherein the prevailing efficacie of Satan is not so much to be wondred at as the severe judgement of God is to bee adored who thereby punisheth the wanton spirits of men giving them up to make and beleeve lies because they
to believe and repent may and should be baptized and that none of yeers are to be baptized till they be converted and believe and repent nor doth the baptizing of Infants prevent the baptizing of men of yeers where any such are converted from Paganisme to Christianity no more then circumcising Infants of old prevented the circumcising of men of yeers which were converted from Gentilisme to Judaisme though it prevents the baptizing of believers children when they come to yeers because they are baptized Infants As the Jewish Infants circumcised when they were Infants could not be circumcised when they came to yeers It is a weak and feeble consequence to say where wee maintain baptizing Infants who do not actually believe that wee can never baptize any that do actually believe being only true of them that are baptized Infants and Infants of believers So wee come to the other sort of persons to be baptized viz. Infants where I shall indeavour two things 1. What Infants are to be baptized 2. That infants are to be baptized First Infants briefly are either of Infidels or believing parents The Infants of Infidels under which term I comprehend Jewes Turks Pagans and all but those that are true visible Christians are altogether strangers to the covenant of God in Christ and so can have no right at all to this ordinance yea though the parents consent much lesse against their consent Notwithstanding others undertaking for them I except only two cases 1. Slaves and servants bought with money these being Infants may be baptized for ought I know 2. When Infidell parents are converted and desire church-fellowship and thereby themselves and Infants are to be baptized I conclude in these two cases that Infants born of Infidell parents may be baptized and therefore I judge that Infidell Infants are in no wise to be baptized because they are unclean 1 Cor. 7.14 therefore such are to be deferred till they be converted and give testimony of their own faith and repentance Two Questions may be here resolved 1. In case of excommunicate persons Whether an Infant born of parents both under the censure of the church and the state of excommunication may be baptized if any will undertake for them I answer No. First because they are in that estate as Heathens and neither of them in visible covenant Secondly if by others undertaking why not Infants of Indians also Thirdly if by faith of fore-fathers as I see no Scriptures for it so where will you limit it Suppose a converted childe of Esau in Davids time could prove successively and to all evidently that hee came of Esau the son of Isaac whether should it have been circumcised as a Proselyte or as Isaac's seed A second Question is concerning Infants baptized of Heretikes whether lawfull I answer If the person baptizing had a true calling though stained with some corruption in the person or calling and in the administration of baptisme nothing essentiall omitted in matter or form those persons are not to be baptized again because baptisme is not to be administred twice to any But if any of the essentials were omitted such persons are to be baptized as not baptized before And now I come to the other particular that Infants of Believers and visible professors are to be baptized yea though but one of the parents be in church-fellowship which I shall prove after I have premised a few things 1. The Scriptures containing the books of the new and old Testament are full of perfection containing a most perfect rule of all things concerning faith and order So that in these respects nothing is to be urged as necessary nor allowed as lawfull but what is justly comprehended in them 2. There are two wayes whereby we may finde what Gods will is in all cases concerning the premises either in expresse terms or by just consequence drawn from thence So that whatsoever is not literally expressed or drawn from the letter by necessary consequence is to be rejected as not the Lords minde 3. Whatsoever can be collected by true deduction from any part of Scripture expounded in the largest sense is as truly contained in them as that which is set down in expresse terms and so is of the same force with that which is expressed So our Saviour urgeth the Devill Matth. 4. with that word only from Deut. which yet is not in the Text but truly drawn from thence So the Protestant urging justification by faith only oppose the Papists yet only is not expressed but necessarily drawn from thence For if there be but two wayes of justification as there is not and we be not justified by works as the Text saith then by faith only And Exod. 21.28 c. under the case of an Ox in all those particulars cleerly by consequence any other creature that may do hurt in the like case is intended as Cowe Dog Goat c. 4. The tender of immortality and happinesse of God to mankind hath been two wayes dispensed First to Adam and all mankind in his loynes by the Law upon condition of perfect obedience thereto in mans own personall righteousnesse Secondly Adam transgressing lost immortality and happinesse in himself and all man-kind and involved them and himself in sin and eternall wrath thereby God the Father for the praise of his grace having predestinated some to that adoption of son-ship in his Son and given them to his Son to be saved by him that hee might be glorified with the Father and hee receiving them at his Fathers hands because they were partakers of flesh and blood hee himself also took flesh and blood upon him and in that humane nature fulfilled the Law for them actually and so reconciled them all to the Father in himself that so God might be just and the justifier of the ungodly that should believe in Jesus From hence the Father maketh a new tender of life setting forth his Son to be a propitiation through his blood offering him and his righteousnesse in his humane nature and performed by it in obedience active passive to his holy will to all which shall believe and by that faith be found in him having his righeousnesse upon them accounting them thereby righteous and no sinners and making them from thence through the life of his Son manifested in them by sanctification of that holy Spirit partakers of life and immortality again This tender being one and the same in substance for ever from the first promulgation to Adam and Eve in Paradise till this day and to the end yet hath it admitted of variation in the circumstances thereof as is cleere from four severall and remarkable periods 1. From Adam fallen to Abraham under a promise of the seed of the woman to break the Serpents head Gen. 3.15 2. The second from Abraham to Moses time in the wildernesse in substance the same with the former yet differing from it First in promising the seed of the woman to proceed from Abrahams loynes according to the
flesh successively Secondly by passing the promise into a solemne formall visible covenant as the father of the blessed and all-blessing seed and of all believers of all nations Thirdly confirming it by circumcision the sign and seal of the righteousnesse of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised 3. The third from Moses to Christs coming in the flesh this is the same in substance with the former the same Christ and doctrine and grace dispensed but differing from the former in the manner of dispensation in divers circumstances First in adding these ten words in tables of stone and drawing a vail of shadowes over it consisting of all those Lawes and Ordinances delivered to Moses on the mount according to the pattern shewed him and by him communicated to the people Secondly in adding the Ordinance of the Passeover with divers rites thereto belonging all which were to continue till the time of Reformation and this and not the former is the old Testament ratified by the death of Bulls and Goats c. Shadows of better things without the application whereof the other purified the flesh and not the conscience 4. The fourth begins with the manifestation of the Son of God in the flesh and still continues and is the new Testament ratified by the death and blood of the Lord Jesus the testator who being come the vaile of shadowes was utterly removed and the Mosaicall administrations quite abolished the old being done away that the new might be established which cannot be removed And this is to be attended that all the Scriptures that speak of the removall of the old and setting up of the new Testament or that declare the abolishing of the old and establishing of the new as was foretold is to be understood of these two periods from Moses to Christ and after not of that from Abraham to Moses and he opposition in this case made in the Scriptures is of that under Moses and Christ only 5. The covenant that God made with Abraham and continued to his seed the Jewes and us Gentiles hath two parts in it the first respecteth God the other respecteth us In the first concerning God is contained all that concerns our good temporall and eternall and himself held forth as the sole efficient of all preventing us with his grace freely and performing all the good pleasure of his grace in us according to his own will nor doth any thing that hee is pleased to work depend on us nor requires he any thing of us by way of efficiencie or causality yet so as that hee worketh something in us without us even being meerly passive in the act of working till it be first wrought something he works by us stirring up and assisting that which hee hath first wrought in us nor can we at first do any thing till hee hath principled us by supernaturall grace nor first or last more then hee helpeth us who worketh all the will and deed according to his will 6. Infants are passively capable of the dispensation of God and of the Spirit and grace of the covenant and what ever men of yeers are capable of though not wrought in the same way or by the same means yet the same things and by the same Spirit so far as is necessary to union with Christ and his justification to life thereby else no children dying Infants are elected or shall be raised up again in their bodies and saved nor is the judgement that we can have of men of yeers infallible as in Simon Magus c. 7. The Lord having taken hold of any man or woman by outward dispensation of means to call them out of Infidelity into visible profession of faith in the Word of his grace and obedience to his commands they are hereby made partakers of his covenant and all the priviledges outwardly belonging thereto yea though they have not saving faith but be hypocrites and so themselves and all that ever proceed from them continue in the same state parents and children successively so long as the Lord continues the course of his dispensation nor can any alteration befall them whereby this estate is dissolved but some apparent act of God breaking them off from him 8. Baptisme is not the first grace but the second nor doth it confer grace but confirm the former which therefore must be presupposed and it is the seal of the righteousnesse of faith in the new Testament to all that receive it as circumcision of old was to them Rom. 4.11 By baptisme I mean the ordinance of the church administred by a just calling which is too oft though it never should be separated from inward grace yet remains true baptisme so administred else Simon Magus and those false breathren Gal. 2. being not inwardly baptized were not truly baptized and if they had repented must be baptized anew 9. Last of all as of old more was required of Abraham and of men of yeers turning Proselytes when they were to be circumcised then of Isaac and their Infants continually afterwards circumcised So now in administring baptisme to persons more is required of men of yeers then of Infants God required faith of Abraham in the blessing seed before circumcised but hee required not faith of Isaac nor of any one of Abrahams seed after him before circumcision but that they should believe afterward which he promised to work in them So now of men of yeers faith is to be required and must be that a man of yeers be baptized but not so of Infants of baptized persons who are to be baptized that they may believe afterward c. Having premised thus much I come to the proof of the question that Infants of believing parents and in covenant with God by visible profession may and ought to be baptized ARGUMENTS ¶ 1 IF the covenant now under Christ be the same that it was with Abraham and the Jewes before Christ then as Infants were in that covenant and partakers of the signe thereof circumcision so are Infants now in the covenan and should receive the signe thereof baptisme But the covenant now under Christ is the same with that before Christ with Abraham and his posterity in the flesh Therefore as Infants were then in the covenant and signed with circumcision so are Infants now in the covenant and are to receive baptisme the signe thereof In this Argument three things are to be cleared First that the covenant made with Abraham and his posterity before Christ and this under Christ is the same And secondly that Infants were then in that covenant so they be now in this And thirdly that all Jewish Infants were then partakers of the signe and circumcised and so should Infants now receive baptisme the signe of it Of each of these I will set down particular grounds 1. That the covenant with Abraham and the Jewes before and the Gentiles now is the same is evident by these reasons First the Gospel is the doctrine of the covenant but this is but
one Gal. 1.6 and was preached to Abraham Gal. 3.8 Rom. 4.11 and to the Jewes in the wildernesse Heb. 3. 4. and in Davids time Heb. 4.7 from Psal 95. and during their whole state Rom. 9.31 10.2 This Gospel is now preached to us Heb. 4.2 Therefore the covenant is the same in all and it is an injurious thing to Gods grace and utterly against the Scriptures to affirm that that covenant was of nature in the flesh and of earthly things This is of grace in the spirit and of heavenly things And as little understanding doe they shew in Gods word that say Gods covenant was in their flesh because circumcision outward was in their flesh For though God calls it his covenant yet it is not but the signe of it as he after expresseth and outward baptisme is no lesse on the flesh then it and so may be called Gods covenant on the flesh Secondly if Abraham be the Father of the Jewes and Gentiles equally as he beleeves the righteousnesse of faith and they his children equally as so beleeving and no otherwise then the covenant is the same But Abraham is the father of Jewes and Gentiles equally as he beleeves and they his children equally as so beleeving Rom. 4.11 12 16 17 23 24. Gal. 3.7 9 26.29 Therefore the covenant is the same By beleeving I mean the profession of Faith Thirdly the standing of the Jewes under the grace of God was the same with Abraham as is cleare from Gods often expressing himselfe to be the God of their Fathers Abraham c. and dispensing himselfe according to the covenant made with Abraham c and to his posterity Exod. 2.24 2 Reg. 13.23 And their praying to the Lord to remember his covenant made with Abraham c. acknowledging the accomplishment of it to them Luke 2.54 and 72.74 And let not any say it was a covenant of giving the Land of Canaan For if that were all why did David so long after Joshuah possesse them of Canaan when they had rest there yet still provoke them in his time to enter into Gods rest lest they should be shut out as their Fathers were in the wildernesse as the Apostle argueth Heb. 3.4 was this the land of Canaan unlesse as a type was it not Christ and Gods free grace Now our standing is the same with the Jewes as is evident Matth. 21.4 chap. 22.1 2. That the Infants of the Jewes were then in the covenant will not be denied That Infants are now in the covenant whose parents professe the faith I prove thus 1. Else the covenant was not the same with the former but another But it is the same with the former and not another diverse from that as I have proved Ergo c. Else the state of the grace of God should bee straitned and made of lesse extent by Christs comming then it was before whereas it is more enlarged and of greater extent 3. If Infants be not now in the covenant as well as then either it is because God hath excluded them expresly or there was something more in the persons of beleevers then then now to interest Infants in it But God hath no where expresly excluded them nor was there any thing in the persons then more then now to interest them Therefore Infants are now in the covenant as then 4. If Jewes and Gentiles bee incorporated into one body in Christ and the Jewes Infants were in the body before and so continued then so must the infants of Christian Gentiles be now But the Gentiles and Jewes be incorporate into one body in Christ by the Gentiles being made neere and Citizens which they were not before as the Jewes were but strangers and farre off Ephes 2.11 13 20. 3.6 and the Jewes Infants were and continued in that body therefore so are the Infants of beleeving Gentiles 3. Infants should now be baptized as then they were circumcised To cleare it further I adde these considerations 1. Else the covenant was not the same then and now nor Infants in it now as then which I have proved to be otherwise 2. If they have the thing and substance they cannot be denyed the signe and circumstance if the first grace then the second and confirming But Infants have the thing and substance for they have the same covenant and the Kingdome of heaven which was taken from the Jewes of which Infants were subjects as well as elder men is now given to the Gentiles Therefore as Peter Acts 10. so say I Who can forbid water that Infants should not be baptized as well as men of years seeing they are subjects of the Kingdome as well as they 3. Else there should be no difference between the Infants of Gentiles beleeving Pagans and Infidels as there was before between the Jews Infants and the Gentiles which as it is uncomfortable without just ground to say so so it is contrary to the word of God which affirmeth that the Infants of beleeving Gentiles are holy and not as the Infants of Infidels which are profane This is manifest 1 Cor. 7.14 where the Apostle resolving this scruple Whether a beleever might continue to cohabite and enjoy marriage-fellowship with an Infidell yoke-fellow and not be polluted and he affirming it cleareth his affirmation by three Arguments 1. First from the priviledge of the state of grace to a beleever himselfe that being by faith pure himselfe all things are pure to him and so the society of marriage with an Infidell And this to be so hee cleareth viz. That an Infidell is sanctified to a beleeving yoke-mate 2. From a priviledge of the state of grace to their children that they themselves being pure by faith their children are thereby born pure of them and holy in that estate which could not be if the society of marriage was polluted This is the true meaning of the words yet what holinesse is here meant hath troubled men who have travelled with variety in expounding or torturing these few words Some will have them understood politically and that two wayes 1. In respect of the present children born of them which could not be legitimate if their marriage was not lawfull 2. In respect of those children they might have by others if they should forsake this marriage and betake them to another those children would be bastards Some ceremonially of uncleannesse of children begotten in time of the womans disease and are holy when the Infidell partie forbears that time which is absurd and groundlesse Some take it religiously But here they differ some will have it to mean future holinesse which the Parent by cohabitation may make the child partaker of either obtaining it may bee baptized or by counsell when they come to age But if they forsake the Infidell party then the children will remain in infidelity still Others take it for present holinesse yet not in one sense for some conceive thus That the beleever abiding and gaining the Infidell party the children