in theirs through Christ Iesus in whom it was confirmed In adding that the Old taught that Christ was not come in the flesh nor into their hearts at their Circumcision They make the Lords Covenant negatiue as teaching what is not and not what is A Covenant is a promise upon condition and a Testament or Will that in which Legacies are given But by this doctrine here should be nothing either given or promised It is besides very ungodlily said that Abraham in whom principally we are to consider both of the Covenant and seal thereof Circumcision had not Christ in his heart when he was circumcised Both Moses in Abrahams historie and the Apostles who well understood it affirm the contrary and that he was justified in uncircumcision by beleeving in Christ In which respect he is called the father of them that beleev not onely circumcised but uncircumcised also Haue his children that which he for substance had not even in that wherein he was their father This thing they grant in the very next page and that Abraham had the covenant of grace promised him by which promise he had salvation in the Messiah to come and therein that the Covenant made with Abraham whereof Circumcision was a seal was the Covenant of the Gospell and the same with ours now It is strange that these men who so magnifie Baptism as they will haue men made Christians by it should so vilifie Circumcision as to make it of right to appertain to godlesse and wicked men for such were and are all at all times since Adam sinned that had and and haue not Christ in their hearts Was it not an holy Ordinance of God and therfore not to be prostituted to the unholy and unpure as all unbeleevers that is all into whose hearts Christ is not come are and unto whom nothing is pure or holy Could it be to any a sign that God was their God a seal of the righteousnesse of faith a pledg of Gods protection and note of distinction between Gods people and others And yet belong to such as were wholly without Christ and so without God in the world When any of the Heathens became Proselytes they chose God to be their God came to trust under the wings of the Lord God of Israel and separated themselvs from Idolaters to the Law of God and of all this they made solemn profession by Circumcision which they must either do without faith and so not please God therein which is absurd to say they did which did it lawfully or else with faith by which Christ though not come in the flesh was come into their hearts Of the Ceremonies of Moses and so of Circumcision which Moses took of the fathers into the body of the Ceremoniall Law and of their divers considerations I haue elsewhere written at large and doe refer the Reader thither for satisfaction in that point That none of the Church of Israel called by them affectedly Abrahams seed in the flesh had the Ordinances of the new Covenant is not true They had Iohns Baptism which even now these men avowed as the Baptism of the new Testament and Christs also who baptized more Disciples then Iohn and with them the twelv had the Lords Supper also and all these whilst the Iewish Church and Ordinances stood in their full strength It is true that Iohns was not in the Kingdom of God as Christ speaks Math. 11 that in the state of the Church and Ordinances dispensed under Christ glorified Otherwise the Iews had the Kingdom of heaven which else could noâ— haue been taken from them and given to others neither could Christ haue been as he was the King of Sion So the Patriarks received not the promise that is Christ come in the flesh to which purpose the Apostle saith Before faith came c. Shall we therfore say that before Christs comming in the flesh none had true faith to salvation or that true beleevers received not Christ though to come as we now receiv Christ come in the flesh They Christ promised and prefigured by the Word and Ordinances then we Christ manifested and remembred by the Word and Ordinances now properly called the New Testament as founded in the actuall death of the Testator ADVERSARIES HEre follows an exception against me in particular which is that by the old Covenant mentioned Ier. 31 Hebr. S is not meant as I affirm that which was made on mount Sinai Exod. 19 but the Covenant mentioned Exod. 3. v. 6 c. Their reason is for that God made that Covenant with them when hee took them by the hand to bring them out of Aegipt which is mentioned Exod. 3 and not Exod. 19. For then say they did God appear to Moses and commanded him to take them by the hand and lead them out of Aegipt where the Covenant is mentioned I am the God of thy fathers Abraham c. DEFENCE FIrst to let passe that though they bid mark the words yet they cite them not I answer that these words in that day as the Text hath it cannot be restrained to that particular day when God appeared to Moses seeing the Lord did not that particular day take them by the hand to bring them out but divers daies after as is expresly affirmed ch 12. 51 Psal. 77. 12 105 27. 43. By that day therfore is not meant any particular day but indefinitely the time of their transporting out of Aegipt into Canaan as elsewhere by the day of their birth is meant the whole time of their fore-going misery So many hundred times in the Scriptures by the day or that day is meant indefinitely the time in which a thing happeneth or is done Besides where the Prophet speaks of the day in which God took them by the hand they speak of the day in which God appeared unto Moses and commanded him to take them by the hand which was whilst he was in the land of Midian God indeed then shewed his will to Moses but stretched not out his hand for their deliverance till many daies after They say further that Exod. 3 the Covenant is mentioned I am the God thy father Abraham c. But is every mentioning of a Covenant the making of it And did God make a Covenant with and become the God of Abraham Isaak and Iakob at that time That is when they were now dead divers hundred years before What can be more plain then that the Lord doth not there make a new but remembers the old Covenant made before with Abraham c. of which the bringing his posterity out of Aegipt into the promised land was an appurtenance God promised to be Abrahams God and the God of his Seed that is all-sufficient for the good things not onely of this world but also of the world to come as Christ expounds his fathers words Math. 22. 32. 33 and so gaue them accordingly the land of Canaan as a
store-house of earthly good things and figure of heavenly These men therfore in this place unskilfully transform the fulfilling of an old promise into the making of a new Which they also confesse in effect in the very same place in saying that the promise that is the Covenant on Gods part was made to Abraham Gen. 17. The word everlasting Gen. 17. I urge not further to proue the Covenant with Abraham perpetuall then as the nature of the same Covenant carries it It was that by which God became Abrahams God and more he is or can be to none and that which Christ himselfe extends to the very resurection of the bodies of Abraham c. whos 's God the Lord was and is Two reasons I will annex to justifie mine exposition of the Prophet Ieremy and Apostle after him and to proue that by the old Covenant they meant the Covenant of the Law given on mount Syna The former from the opposition between the old and new Covenant expresly made in the generall and particularly insinuated in these words I will write my Law in their hearts and will forgiue their iniquity and remember their sins no more which was not according to but most unlike to the old Covenant or Law given on mount Syna written in Tables of stone and by which sin and transgression was not forgiven but quickned and encreased A second reason is for that the old and first Covenant opposed to that in Christ had ordinances of divine worship and a worldly Sanctuary or Tabernacle wherein was the Table and Candlestick c. which no man that beleevs the Bible can make doubt to be meant of the Law and Covenant given on mount Syna to and by Moses By the old Covenant is meant that of the Law by Moses on mount Sina unto which the other is opposed Their exception that Abrahams children of 8 daies old could make no covenant nor agreement is too childish to exclude them from it and that by which they should haue been in no covenant at all with the Lord nor hee with them new nor old Legall nor Evangelicall for they could make none It is not required that every one comprehended in a Covenant should actually stipulate or promise Witnesse the Covenant with Noah in which both all his seed and every living creature both foule and cattell were included It was therefore sufficient to bring Abrahams seed into the Lords Covenant that God in grace made and Abraham by faith received the promise that he would be his God and theirs That every faithfull man and his seed is as Abraham and his seed the Scripture proue in teaching that every beleever is of the faith of Abraham and walks in his steps For if Abraham did by faith receiv the promise that God would be his God and the God of his seed without which no promise had belonged unto them then where the same faith is for substance there is the same promise for substance to every beleever though a son of Abraham as following his example yet as Abraham himselfe in beleeving as hee did And this is most manifest in that by this very covenant God was not onely the God of Abraham and his seed Isaak but of Isaak and his seed Iakob and of Iakob and his seed the Patriarks and so successiuely not by fleshly descent of the children from their parents as they absurdly cavill but by spirituall and divine promise of grace which they ungraciously despise for their children because they cannot be doing something to God again by their free-will to require him withall Next comes to be examined that notable place Rom. 4. 11. Abraham received the sign of Circumcision the seal of the righteousnesse of the faith which he had being uncircumcised that he might be the father of all that beleev though uncircumcised that righteousnesse might be imputed to them also ADVERSARIES THeir evasion is that by faith here is not meant faith in the Messiah by which he was and we are justified but say they Circumcision sealed up Abrahams fatherhood of the faithfull that is was a seal of his faith in beleeving God that he should be the father of many Nations DEFENCE AND this faith say we was the faith of the Gospell and faith in the Messiah which the Apostle expresly saith was imputed to him for righteousnesse and by which he was justified as is plain from v. 17 I haue made thee a father of many Nations compared with v. 22 where he infers therupon even upon that faith And therfore it was imputed to him for righteousnesse Which also that it was the same in substance with ours now the words following manifest Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him but to us also to whom it shall be imputed if we beleev in him that raised up Iesus our Lord from the dead who was delivered for our sins c. v. 23. 24. 25. This will yet the more clearly appear if we consider what is meant by these promises I haue made thee a father of many Nations and so shall thy seed be recited by the Apostle for the purpose in hand In these words I haue made thee a father of many Nations he opposeth many Nations to that one Nation of the Iews Of these many Nations hee was the father even of all that beleev though uncircumcised v. 11. And how a father By way of example that as hee was justified by faith in the promise of God and of the promised seed Christ even when he was uncircumcised So they beleeving the same promise of God in Christ now come of him though uncircumcised should in like manner be justified as he was Which is yet further confirmed where it is said that he is the father of all them though not of the circumcision that walk in the steps of the faith of Abraham which he had yet being uncircumcised Whence I gather that if we be justified by the same faith that Abraham was justified by and that he was justified by faith in that promise that then that promise was made of and in the Messiah Christ the blessed and blessing Seed as it is said So shall thy seed be and Abraham beleeved and he counted it to him for righteousnesse And again In thee shall all Nations or families of the earth be blessed Now of this faith the Apostle here speaks and of it he testifies circumcision to haue been a seal to Abraham It cannot be denyed but that the Apostle in this whole discourse speaks of faith to justification proving partly by the example of Abraham and partly by the testimony of David that we are justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the Law And to what end or with what order should hee thrust in an impertinent discourse of any other faith To affirm this is no better then to defame the Holy Ghost with equivocating Or to what purpose should he mention the
sign of Circumcision as a seal of faith if not of that faith of which he treats For wheras it might be objected that if Abraham were justified by beleeving before he was circumcised as is said v. 3. 9. 10 then what needed hee after to haue been circumcised The Apostle answers v. 11 that hee received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousnesse of faith vvhich he had yet being uncircumcised which faith v. 9 vvas reckoned to him for righteousnesse that by it the covenant of grace between God him might be confirmed as covenants among men formerly agreed upon are by the seals thereunto annexed Lastly who endued with common sense and modesty can deny that by the righteousnesse of faith wherof Circumcision was a seal is meant the righteousnes which is by faith as v. 3 Abraham beleeved God and it vvas imputed to him for righteousnesse and v. 9 faith vvas reckoned to Abraham for righteousnesse which righteousnesse of faith in this whole discourse he opposeth to the righteousnesse of works by the Law as is expresly to be seen v. 3. 14. 15. 16. But now what say our Adversaries to these things as men in a maze and not knowing how to finde the way out goe sometimes backward sometimes forward and sometimes leap unorderly from one place to another so doe they in expounding this Scripture In their out-leaps about Abrahams fleshly children I shall not need heere to follow them Where after they say that Circumcision was a seal of Abrahams faith in beleeving God that he should be the father of many Nations and that this was imputed to him for righteousnesse they say as much as we do or desire they should But where they say in the very same place that hee received not circumcision to seal up his faith in the Messiah they goe backward most dangerously to bring in a faith to justification imputed for righteousnesse which yet is not in the Messiah Was righteousnesse ever or is it imputed to any for justification but by faith in Christ then promised now exhibited The reason insinuated by them is a pleasant one namely for that Abraham had faith in the Messiah 24 years before he was circumcised Whereas on the contrary it could not haue been a seal of such faith except hee had had the faith before whether longer or lesser time it matters not but is as it pleaseth him who bestowâ—th both the one and other Signes and Seals are not to be set to blankes neither doe they make things that were not before to be but serv onely to confirm things that are These things thus cleared the Reader must be requested not to measure our arguments from Abraham and Isaaks circumcision to the Baptism of Infants by the crooked line which these men draw between them but by the right rule of sound reason applyed as followeth in three particulars First that the Covenant unto which Circumcision was annexed was the Covenant of the Gospell and not of the Law and old Testement as they take it For then it could not haue been to Abraham the seal of the righteousnesse of faith any way but of unrighteousnesse and condemnation every way for righteousnes is not by the Law which worketh wrath and by which sin revives and becomes exceeding sinfull And surely it is more then strange that any beleeving the Scriptures should beleev that the Lords Covenant made with Abraham and so with Israel in him by which he took them to be his peculiar people from among all other peoples because hee loved their father and them by which they were a blessed Nation having Iehovah for their God in remembring of which covenant with Abraham c. he so often shewed them mercy and did them good and in time gaue his Son Christ to saue them from their enemies and lastly by which Covenant they shall again be called when the fulnesse of the Gentiles is come in and so all Israel shall be saved as it is written There shall come out of Syon a Deliverer and shall turn away ungodlinesse from Iakob For this is my Covenant unto them when I shall take away their sins As concerning the Gospell they are enemies for the Gentiles sake but as concerning the election they are beloved for the fathers sake for the gifts and calling of God are without repentance that this covenant of loue and mercy making them blessed which are taken into it and procuring the giving of Christ and of salvation should be the covenant of the old Testament and Law Of the Law I say and old Testament which is the ministery of death the letter that killeth which worketh wrath was added for transgression by which sin reviveth and all die and are accursed What is this else but to bring the currant of gracious mercy into a channell of severe justice and to curse where God blesseth as Balaam purposed to haue done Secondly we conclude hence that the Church of the Iews and Church now is one in substance though diversly ordered one Uineyard in which there are both grown trees and yong plants one Kingdom which was taken from them and given to us the branches of one oliue tree holy in the same holy root Abraham from which most of them were broken off for unbelief and we by faith planted in their place one body and therefore having Infants in it now as then and the same therefore to be baptized there being also one Baptism as one body as they were circumcised of old Baptism as elsewhere I haue proved at large to their silencing in that point comming in the place of Circumcision Thirdly that all their disputes against Infants Baptism because they cannot manifest faith and repentance are but the same quarrels which might haue been picked of old against Infants Circumcision That there was something in Abrahams circumcision extraordinary is true for he first received it for his posterity and for the Proselytes with them which joyned themselvs to the Lord so was there also in his faith as he was the father by example to all that should beleev after him Their prophane assertion that faith was required of none to wit men of years for circumcision I haue formerly disproved How can it come into the hearts of reasonable men that the Lord in whose eies the prayers sacrifices and all other services of ungodly men were so abominable should like of their circumcision Lastly for Abrahams children of the flesh according to their misunderstanding of them they were by nature children of wrath as well as others and had thereby no more right to circumsion then the Infants of Sodom It was of grace and not of nature that they were within Gods Covenant Of Gal. 3. and Rom. 9. we haue spoken at large formerly and of their misconstructions of the Apostles meaning Lastly we neither run as they say nor goe to the old Testament Law or Moses for the baptizing of Infants but to
purposed in himself accordingly to loue the one and hate the other seeing whatsoever God in time doth by way of emanation or application to and upon the creature that he purposed to do as he doth it from eternity If the Apostle v. 13 Iakob haue I loved and Esau haue I hated confirm his former doctrine as they say then he confirms the doctrine of Gods eternall and stedfast election from eternity And their boldnesse is excessiue in calling them perverters of the words of Paul which will haue this to be before Iakob and Esau were born seeing the Apostle adds this Scripture out of Malachy to shew the reason of that contained in the former which both Moses and Paul with him expresly affirm to haue been before the children were born namely that the highest cause of the elder to wit Esau his serving the yonger to wit Iakob was Gods loue to Iakob and hatred of Esau. That following is partly true namely that v. 12. 13 is not shewed for what cause God loved Iakob and hated Esau for that is shewed so far as God would haue us see v. 15. 18. But fals where they say that they shew not when this was For this loue and hatred was and before when God said The elder shall serv the yonger and this he said when the children were not yet born the effect of which was that the purpose of God according to election might stand in after time and that both in respect of the two persons themselvs and of the bodies of the Nations to come of them though not of every particular And so indeed they are to be considered both as instances in their persons and heads of their Nations the Scriptures accordingly every where testifying that God loved and chose from the rest the Israelits in their fathers Abraham Isaak and Iakob according to the tenour of his gracious promise and covenant of being their God and the God of their Seed expressing his eternall and most stedfast purpose of will That which they adde in the last place of Gods not hating to wit actually and destroying without desert is most true But when we speak of Gods loving or hating any before the world we mean onely of his decree of loving which he actually exerciseth in time for Christs righteousnesse by faith applyed upon the so loved and so of his decree of hating which hatred he comes not to exercise actually but for sin deserving it God from eternity purposed in time to glorifie his justice in the deserved destruction of Esau and not of Iakob Of this different decree of God touching Esau and not Iakob and his leaving him in and to his own corruption and hardning him in the same rather then Iakob our reason is the will of God but of Gods actuall hating and destroying of him rather then the other the Scriptures shew sufficient reason to wit his obstinacy in sin the onely cause of his destruction Vers. 14 upon the premises that God of two alike in themselvs and without respect of good or evill in the one or other had loved the one and hated the other an objection is framed that by this injustice might seem to be with God which the Apostle denyes with God forbid This objection our Adversaries understand to be upon Gods rejecting the fleshly Israelites for contemning their salvation offered them by faith in Christ as Esau was rejected for contemning his birth-right But herein as children skip where they cannot reade they leav out the principall part of the objection which is not onely moved upon Gods rejecting some but withall upon his receiving of others The Apostle in the words before going which occasion the objection mentions not onely Esau the elder hated and serving but also Iakob the yonger loved and served so in answering the same objection he speaks first and most of Gods shewing mercy and compassion and last and least of his hardning any Now whether they have omitted this part of the objection in cunning or inconsideratenesse themselves best know This is certain that the adjoyning it qutie overturns their exposition For comparing together two such persons as whereof the one glories in his own righteousnesse as perfectly answering to the holinesse and righteousnesse of the Law justifying himselfe when the Law condemnes him despising the grace and mercy of God in Christ offered and making him a lyar in not receiving the testimony which he gives of his Son and joyning with these blasphemy and persecution and all injurious dealing against them that doe receive this grace of Christ all which those proud justiciaries and carnall Israelits did and the other as honoring Gods justice and holinesse in the sense and confession of sin and misery due therefore flying to the mercie of God in Christ and by receiving the testimony of his Sonn setting to his seal that God is true and therewith repenting with all his heart which every true beleever doth that God now should shew mercie upon the latter of these and not upon the former cannot minister to any man indued with common sense occasion of objecting injustice to God seeing the light of nature teacheth every naturall man the reason of a difference And if any should be so senselesse as to object injustice to God in such a case as they conceive the objecter to be yet was not the Apostle so witlesse as to fly for answer to the absolute will of God and to plead that God will doe so because he will or pleaseth to doe it as v. 15. 18. I will haue mercie on whom I will have mercie c. Which answer of the Apostle also ministers matter of further and more difficult objection as appeares v. 19. 20. Whereas if the objection had been cast in their mould a child could have answered it and sayd that it had been a most just and equall thing for God to have received and loved the one rather then the other considering how the one honored the holynesse justice truth and mercy of God which the other dishonored and despised They erre therefore in applying to this purpose Rom. 2. 4. 5. Neither doth the Apostle there speak of a mercy and bounty to be shewed to them that beleeve and repent as they conceive but of that which goes before repentance as a means to lead unto it But here he speaks of a higher work of Gods shewing mercy namely the purpose of his will according to election to glory and the means thereunto And truely these mens boldnesse is too great in putting for God hath mercy on whom he wil have mercy God hath mercie on them that seek him by the means that he himselfe appoynts For though it be most true that God hath mercie on such yet the Apostle here speaks no more of Gods appoynting or commanding will for his shewing of mercy then of his appoynting or commanding vvill for his hardening v 18 whom he will he hardens He speaks of that will
such Heathenish men of yeares as became Proselytes then of their Infants to be circumcised with them The ground of this errour in so many is that they understand not the true nature of the Gospell and Ordinances thereof The Gospell aymes not at the exacting upon man as made after Gods own image obedience due as a naturall debt from the creature to the Creator as the Law doth but considers him as a most miserable creature drowned in sin and altogether unable to help himselfe neither yet servs it and its Ordinances primarily to declare and manifest what man in right owes and performs to God but what God in mercy purposeth doth and will perform to man being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a joyfull message or glad tydings of salvation by Christ. So to apply this for the baptizing of Infants albeit they on their part can for the present make no manifestation or declaration of obedience or thankfulnesse or any other goodnesse yet sufficeth it for Evangelicall dispensation that God according to the Covenant of grace I will be thy God and the God of thy seed can and will make manifestation and declaration of his gracious minde of washing them with the bloud and spirit of his Son from the guilt and contagion of sin they also being bound in their times to reciprocall duties Let us not think scorn as proud free-willers doe of Gods taking both of us and our infants to be his people going before our or their taking of him to be our God But let us rather magnifie his mercie in this regard both towards us and them ADVERSARIES NExt they undertake to proue that Infants are not regenerate and so not to be baptized Their reason is because they haue not faith and repentance This Regeneration they define to be a turning from sin to God which they would proue from Rom. 6. 11. DEFENCE THE Apostle Rom. 6 speaks not of regeneration it self which is Gods work but of our living to God as an effect therof For as our naturall life is an effect of our first generation or begetting by our parents so is our spirituall life an effect of our regeneration by God and his Word and Spirit Turning from sin is mans work by Gods grace Regeneration is Gods work not mans So for Repentance they roav about it on all sides but scarse touch the true nature of it Repentance to wit Evangelicall required for Baptism in men of years is neither a sight and knowing of sin by the Law for that the wicked also doe nor a confessing of sin for that is outward and follows repentance in the heart nor a sorrow for sin for that goes before it nor a promise to forsake sin for that follows after it as an outward effect no nor yet properly an endevour to forsake it though that come nearest Repentance is properly a growing wise afterwards and changing of the minde from sin to God in the purpose of the heaâ—tâ— having an effectuall endevour to forsake sin accompanying it as the effect thereof Now their argumentation in this place that because Infants haue not faith and repentance to wit actuall and that in manifestation also which are the conditions required in men of years for their Baptism and the inseparable fruits of regeneration therefore they are not regenerate and so not capable of Baptism is as if some idiot would affirm that infants are not born nor to be reputed reasonable creatures nor endued with the faculties of understanding and reason because they make no manifestation thereof no more then bruits doe Their proofs against the Regeneration of Infants thus disproved I manifest the contrary as followeth Christ the Lord teacheth that except a man be born or as the word more properly imports begot again hee cannot enter into Gods Kingdom Either therfore regeneration is to be granted Infants or Gods Kingdom to be denyed them If any say this is meant of men of years onely the Text convinceth him which opposeth the first birth or generation which is of Infants to the second regeneration The first as v. 6 being of the flesh making them so born uncapable of Gods Kingdom without the second by the spirit Secondly they confesse else-where that all by Adams fall haue that weak flesh Rom. 8. 3 by which they cannot keep the Law c. Now I demand whether Infants to be glorified carry this weak flesh hindring thus effectually true holinesse into heaven with them or no If not as is certain then it must be purged out of their soules and hearts as the seat and subject therof But nothing can purge out that which is contrary to holinesse saue the holy Spirit of God the Spirit of regeneration which lusts against the flesh and is contrary unto it either therfore they must be regenerated or not glorified Thirdly the Scriptures teach that by the spirit of Christ which is the spirit of life for righteousnesse dwelling in us our bodies shall be quickned and raised up unto glory Children therefore by their grant being to be raised again and glorified by Christ must haue Christs spirit which is the spirit of sanctification and regeneration dwelling in them Lastly joyn with these things that all are by nature I say by nature with the Apostle not by act alone as say the Adversaries children of wrath having right to wrath as children to their fathers inheritance and therewith that baptism is the lavacher or washing of regeneration it will follow that children if to be freed from the wrath to come and glorified are to be regenerated and baptized also Christ saues and so glorifies his body onely which is the Church which he sanctisies with the washing of water and the word and there is one body and one baptism ADVERSARIES THeir Answers to the Scriptures brought for the baptizing of the Infants of beleevers follow To Act. 2. 38. 39. Repent and be baptized every one of you c. for the promise is unto you and to your children and to all that are a farre off even as many as the Lord shall call they answer that this is meant of such fathers of the Iews and their children and fathers of the Gentiles and their children as beleev viz. both fathers and children and that by children are oft meant men of yeares in the Scriptures specially Abrahams children DEFENCE THat such are sometimes meant wee grant but deny that meaning in this place And first by them a far off are not meant the Gentiles far off in state as Eph. 2 but the Iews far off in time as the originall carries it Besides neither was Peter himselfe as yet sufficiently perswaded of the calling of the Gentiles Act 10 neither if he had was it as yet seasonable to mention that matter to the Iews Secondly in saying the promise is made to you and your children hee speaks of some solemn promise made to them all and the same to haue its fruit and effect
he that the Spirit makes a materiall print in the soule as a seal doth in Wax Or not this onely that it helps to confirm and comfort a Christian inwardly in the loue of God and hope of salvation And are not the Sacraments outward helps of comfort and confirmation of a beleevers heart in the same loue of God and hope of glory Vpon the same ground that the Apostle cals it a seal inwardly we call them seals outwardly ADVERSARIES TO shew that the Covenant in question was the Covenant of the Law and old Testament and not the covenant of salvation and so Circumcision the seal thereof and not the sign and seal of life and salvation they discourse at large upon Gal. 4 and of the two seeds of Aoraham the one after the flesh unto which the covenant appertained whereunto circumcision was annexed DEFENCE FIrst they err greatly in denying the very Covenant of the Law to haue been the Covenant of life and salvation For the commandement was ordained to life And the man that doth the workes of the Law shall liue in them And if the Law promise not life and salvation then neither doth it threaten death and condemnation The Covenant then is of the same things but the condition divers The Law exacting perfect obedience of and by our selvs the Gospell requiring true faith and repentance which it also worketh in the elect Secondly it is most untrue that Circumcision was the sign or seal of the old Testament or Law taking it properly as they doe The Apostle expresly cals it the seal of the righteousnesse of faith opposed to the righteousnesse of works or of the Law of which more hereafter else where shewing that the same Law was given foure hundred and thirty years after the covenant or promise to Abraham and his seed confirmed before in Christ through the peaching of the Gospel that they which are of faith might be blessed with faithfull Abraham How preposterous are these mens waies who will haue the seal so long before the Covenant Thirdly Circumcision was the seal of that Covenant by which Abraham and his posterity became the Lords peculiar people seperated from all the uncircumcised heathen unto him for his inheritance and therein blessed For blessed is the nation whereof the Lord is God the people that he hath chosen for a possession to himself and blessed is the people whose God is Iehouah Now will these gainsaying spirits have men blessed by the law whether God will or no Saith not the scripture that by the law all are accursed and that as many as are of the works of the law are accursed as being unable to keep it The Covenant then by which Israel became Gods people and therein blessed of which Circumcision was a sign and seal was not the Covenant of the law but of the gospell and so of grace and salvation by grace Lastly how wyde and wilde are they in expounding the allegory of Abrahams two sons Gal. 4 makeing Abrahams children after the flesh the Infants of the faithfull never considering the Apostles generall scope unto which the particulars are to be applyed Doth he in that place deal against the Infants of the Galatians or against the men of yeares though children in knowledg who had begun in the spirit but would be made perfit in the flesh that is would be justified by the law specially by circumcision in the flesh by which they made Christ of none effect and fell from grace Were they Infants to whom he saith Tel mee ye that desire to be under the law c. So where he addeth He that is born after the flesh persequutes him that is born after the spirit doth he mean that Infants are persequuters Or is not his meaning plain that such as glory in the flesh and in circumcision and other fleshly prerogatives and so despise the free promise of grace in Christ and them that rest under it as Ismael did both in truth of person and type of others are these persequuters at all times to be cast out with Ismael as having no right to the inheritance of grace or glory Are the Infants of beleevers to be cast out for their persequutions Out of what I marvail and for what persequutions These men in opening this Allegory or Parable verify that of the Wise-man As a thorn goeth up into the hand of a drunkard so is a Parable in the mouth of fooles That the Covenant Gen. 17. whereof circumcision was a sign was the same which we haue now in the Gospell we haue not onely said as they say we haue done but proved by so clear arguments as that had they onely set them down there had needed no further confirmation of them notwithstanding any thing that they could haue excepted But they haue cunningly passed them by in silence as if no such thing were in the book and doe onely repeat over and again the same things with great irksomnes specially to those that haue formerly confuted them ADVERSARIES BVT they tell us that the Covenant under the Gospell is a new and better Covenant then the old c. DEFENCE WE grant it but affirm withall that the Covenant with Abraham was not the Covenant of the law or old testament as they mean The Covenant with Abraham was confirmed of God in Christ that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles thorow Iesus Christ. The Covenant of the Law or old Testament was 400 and thirty years after and was added for transgression til the seed should come to whom the promise was made that is to detect and manifest mens sins and cursed state thereby that so they might fly the more earnestly to the promise of Christ the blessed and blessing Seed made formerly to Abraham Neither do the Scripture in this matter ever oppose Abraham and Christ but Moses and Christ. The Law was given by Moses but grace and truth by Iesus Christ. So Hebr. 10 the Law of Moses and Covenant of the Son of God are opposed and Moses made the Mediator of the old testament and Covenant established in the blood of bulls and goats and Christ the mediator of the new by his own blood And I would know of these men where the law is ever called the law of Abraham as it is every where the law of Moses which law or old testament opposed to the new was written and engraven in Tables of stone and had therefore not Abraham but Moses the mediator of it Lastly for the ceremoniall part of the Law old Testament or Covenant the Authour to the Hebrews makes it plain that it was received under the Leviticall Priesthood having a worldly sanctuary and ordinances and divers washings for the purifying of the flesh but not of the conscience from dead workes whereas by the promise and Covenant to Abraham and his seed the blessing of justification came both upon the Iews in their time and Gentiles
Gods appoyntment who hath allotted to every one his portion Their second answer is of admirable devise that as the preists might meddle with all the services of the old Testament So all the saints being preists unto God no men excepted may meddle with all the services of the new Testament But why might and may and not ought and must The Preists under the Law were bound leaving unto the high Preist his function and to the Levites theirs in their courses to all the services of the Tabernacle and Temple So by their crooked rule every Christian no men excepted not onely may in liberty but must in duty minister not onely baptism but the Lords Supper also and all other ordinances in his turn and so all must be alike for publicke ministrations for all are Preists to God alike All the congregation are holy every one of them and the Lord is among them and you Moses and Aaron take too much upon you said Korah of old They err grosly therefore in making all Preists for all publique ordinances in the Church whereof some appertayn to Christs Propheticall administration as the sacraments which are seales of the Covenant dispensed by preaching others to his kingdom as the appointing of officers and censuring of offenders Our Christian Preisthood stands onely in our offering of spirituall sacrifices to God our selvs first and so consequently the sacrifices of prayses and prayer from a broken heart works of mercy and the like That baptism is a service of the Temple that is an ordinance of the Church we haue formerly proved And surely strange it is that I should need to proue that there is any ordinance of religion which the Church is not to administer Paul and Apollos and Cephas are the Churches and is not their baptism theirs This whilst they compare to the hewing of stones in the mountains they lay in common for ministration to very unbeleevers with disciples for the Zidonians or other of the Heathens as well as Israelites might either square stones or hew wood for the Temple Lastly touching my similitude As it cannot be denyed but that the setting of the seal unto the Kings pardon granted to a malefactour is a matter both of more solemnity and authority then the bare manifestation and making known of the same pardon which any ordinarily may do to any as oportunity servs So haue I proved long agoe against these Adversaries by many Arguments hitherto by them unanswered and I assure my self unanswerable that the outward baptism of which we speak is an outward seal of the Covenant of grace that is an holy outward signe ordained of God as a means by the work of the spirit to confirm the faith of the Church in her washing both from the guilt and contagion of sin by the bloud of Christ Iesus More then this we mean not in calling the Sacraments Seals with the Apostle and lesse none can yeeld them that hath learnt their right use either from his own fruitfull experience or the Scriptures information Glory be to God and good to men FINIS Courteous Reader take knowledge that the Author being absent through oversight these faults mostly materiall haue escaped which I pray thee correct as thou readest if more thou findest impute them to hastie oversight PAge 24 line 5 for sin stands not in c. reade sin stands in c. pag. 40 lin 1 for are done read are not done p. 44 l. 3â— for of themselvs the r. of the p. 45. l. 20 for and r. add p. 56 l. 12 for calling r. calling p. 72. l. 6 for falsifying r. falsitie p. 80. l. 11 for purpose r. purposes p. 81. l. 8 after vers add comma p. 93. l 4 for but will r. but nil p. 134 l. 4 for regenerate r. unregenerate p. 137. l. 25 for indossolible r. indissolible p. 156 l. 12 for casuality r. causality p. 168 l. 22 for or Will that in r. or Will inâ— p. 175 l. 15 for things as r. things As. Rom. 10. 2. Epistle to the Reader 1 Cor. 14. 38. Eph. 4. 8. 11. Phil. 4. 4. Act. 20. 19 Eph. 4. 15. Pag. 3. 1 Pet. 1. 1â— 20. Synod Dor. Art 6. 15 of divine providence Pag. 4. 5. Gen. 3. Act. 2. 22. 23 ch 4. 27. 28. Pag 28. 29 Ioh. 3. 16. Gal. 2. 20. 1. Ioh. 4. 9. Rom 5. vers 25. 29. Mark 3. 31. Luk. 24. 20. 26. Ioh. 12. 32. 33. Gal. 3. 13. 2. Sam. 12. 10. 11. 12. 2 King 29 19. Psal. 119. 160 164 Pag. 5. Gen. 22. Exod. 4. 21. 22. Luk. 12. 50. 22. 42. Pag. 5. Pag. 6. 2 Sam. 12 15 16. Rom. 1. Pag. 6. 7. 2. Pet. 2. 10. Iude 10. Iam. 1. 17. Pag. 7. 3. 9. 10. Prov. 16. 4. Rom. 11. 36 Pag. 10. 1 Tim. 6. 16 1 Tim. 1. 17 Psal. 115. 4. Pag. 11. Pag. 11. 12 1 Cor. 12. 4. Pag. 12. â— Tim. 5. 21 Esay 6. 2. Mat. 16. 11. Ioh. 4. 34. Act. 20. 28. Mat. 18. 7. 1 Cor. 11. 19 1 King 2 â— Chap. 12. 23 33. 11 Prov. 1. 2â— Chap. 33. 1â— 2 Tim. 2. 24. 25. 26. Ioh. 6. 44. Psal. 135. 6. Pag. 12 13. 14. Matth. 25. Gen. 1. 1. 2. â—â—â— 17. 28 â—â—â— 146. 6 Mat. 15. 1â— Gen. 38. Pag. 14 15 17. Maâ— 11. 29 Pag. 17. Pag. 17. Pag. 18. Act. 15. 18. Pag. 19. Esay 53. 7 10. Iam. 1. 17. â— Sam. 14. 29. Pag. 20. Pag. 20 21 22. Prov. 16. 23 Mat. 10. 29 Pag. 23. c Gen. 45. Exod. 4. 9. Iob. 1. 2. Sam. 16. 2. Sam. 24. 2. King 22 Esay 10. 2. Thess. 2. Pag. 23. 2 Sam. 16. 10. Iob 1. 21. 2 Sam. 24. 1 Pag. 24. 1 King 22. Pag. 25. Rom. 11. 3â— Pag. 26. Esa. 10. 6. 7 12. 13. c. Pag. 31. Pag. 27. Mat. 8. 15. Mark 1. 31 2 Sam. 18 22. 23. Gen. 45. 5. 7. 8. Pag. 30 Pag. 4 5. 6. 7. 8. â—ee Vrsinus of the divine Providence Pag. 31. 32 vers 3â— Mat. 4. 10. 11. Mat. 13. 1â— ch 11. 26 Rom. 9. 8 Pag. 34. 35 Of divine Predestination Art 7. Pag. 34. â—â— 36. Mat. 11. 28 Mat. 11. 24 Pag. 3â— Psal. 15. â—â— Ezech. 11. 19 chap. 36. 26. 27. Mat. 25. 26 Rom. 8. 30 Ephes. 1. 9. Ioh. 1. 12. Eph. 2. 8. â— Cor. 2. 14 15. 1 Cor. 3. 6. 7 Ioh. 6 44. Vers. 47. 2 Tim. 2. 24. 25. Luk. 18. 10 â—1 Pag. 36. 37. 38. 39. c. Mat. 11. 25 Act. 16. 14 Act. 13. 18 2. Tim. 2 25. Ephes. 1. 4. Pag. 42. 43 Prov. 7. Vers. 3. Vers. 11. Rom. 8. â—â— Eph. 1. 3. 4. 5. 13. Math. 22. â— 12. Act. 15. 18 Pag. 39. 42 43. 44. Ephes. 1. 4. Vers. 5. Deut. 4. 35. ch 7. 7. 8 ch 14. 2. Psal. 65. 4. Iob. 15. 16. Iam. 1. 6. â— Iob. 3. 22. Ephes. 2. 8 2 Tim. 2. 2â— chap. 10. 3. 6 â— 4. â— Pet. 1. 2. Iam. 2. 5. Eph. 1. 4. 1 Cor. 1. 2. â— Pet.