disputation should bee carried as yours is altogether in the way of making exceptions against arguments but not positively affirming any thing But notwithstanding by the helpe of God I hope clearely to vindicate my arguments from your exceptions My first Argument was the Infants of beleeving parents are faederati therefore they must be signati they are within the Covenant of Grace therefore are to partake of the Seale of the Covenant This Argument because I knew the tearmes of the propositions and the reasons of the consequents would not be cleare at the first propounding I therefore made no further prosecution of untill first I had cleared five conclusions from which it receives not onely its light but strength and from which it ought not to bee separated because in them I both prove a Covenant and signe initiall this first you assault singly and denying both the propositions you try your strength in this Section against the consequence and affirme that they who deny the consequence doe it justly because say you if they who are faederati must be signati it must bee so either by reason of some necessary connexion betweene the tearmes or by reason of Gods will declared concerning the Covenant of Grace but for neither of these causes first there is no necessary consequence that God gives a promise ergo he must give a seale or a speciall signe Joshuah had none for his promise of bringing Israel into Canaan Phinehas none for his for the Priesthood to continue in his family nor secondly by any declaration of Gods will Adam and all the rest to Abraham had none yea and in Abrahams time Melchisedeck Lot Job and for Abrahams family there was no such universall order or declaration of Gods will for children under eight dayes old and all the females had no such command and therefore to have sealed them would have beene will-worship and so you conclude here and in many other places of your booke that it is not being foederati in Covenant which gives title to the seale but onely the declaration of Gods will to have it so To which I answer clearely and first in generall That concerning the truth of this consequence the difference betweene you and me is not so much as you would make the world beleeve wee differ indeed in the interpretation of the word faederati about what is meant by being in Covenant I assert that many are to bee reputed to belong to the Covenant of grace and in some sense to bee Covenanters though they be not partakers inwardly of the saving graces of the Covenant for the Covenant of grace containes not onely saving grace but the administration of it also in outward Ordinances and Church priviledges and that according to Gods owne word many are Covenanters with him or in some sense under the Covenant of grace who are partakers onely of the outward administrations and Church priviledges you allow none to be under the Covenant of grace in any true Gospel sense but onely such as are inwardly beleevers justified sanctified and partakers of the saving graces of the Covenant Whether of us are in the right shall God willing be tryed out in this dispute but as to the truth of the consequence That all who are in the Covenant of grace ought therefore to be partakers of thâ— seale you acknowledge more then once or twice or ten times for though you every where dispute that God hath made no declaration of his will concerning baptizing of Infants yet rotundis verbis you professe that if you knew an Infant to bee regenerate you would baptize it And when I said Such as have the inward grace ought not to bee denyed the outward signe You answer There is none of the Antipaedobaptists but will grant that proposition to bee true pag. 142. And the present state of a person is that which gives right to baptisme pag. 158. It 's granted that such Infants such as are inwardly sanctified are disciples and may not be debarred from baptisme mark Infants disciples and is not this in plain English That such as are Covenanters ought not to be denyed the initiall seale of the covenant Now then if I can prove that not onely such as are inwardly regenerate but others also whether Infants or grown men are to bee reputed to belong to the Covenant and that an externall visible right in facie visibilis Ecclesiae may be made out for any person or persons to be by us owned received as Covenanters with God you your selfe grant that the seale may be applyed to them and whether this bee so or not shall God willing afterwards fully appeare Secondly I answer more particularly 1. I grant with you that there is no necessary dependance between a promise and a seale the addition of a seale to a promise is of free grace as well as the promise it self if God had never given any Sacrament or seal of his Covenant wee should have had no cause to complaine of him he well deserves to be believed upon his bare word Nor 2. did I ever think that by Gods revealed will this Proposition was true in all ages of the Church All Covenanters must bee sealed I carryed it no higher then Abrahams time when God first added this new mercy to his Church vouchsafing a seal to the Covenant And 3. from Abrahams time and so forward I say it was Gods will that such as are in Covenant should bee sealed with the initiall seale of the Covenant supposing them onely capable of the seale and no speciall barre put in against them by God himselfe which is apparent in the very first institution of an initiall seale Gen. 17. 7 9 10 14. Where the very ground why God would have them sealed is because of the Covenant I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting Covenant to be a God to thee and thy seed after thee thou shalt keepe my Covenant therefore and this is my Covenant which yee shall keep every man childe among you shall bee circumcised and afterward in the 14. the seale is by a Metonymia called the Covenant for that it 's apparent not onely that God commanded them who were in Covenant to be circumcised but that they should therefore be circumcised because of the Covenant or in token of the Covenant betweene God and them and he that rejected or neglected the seale is said not onely to breake Gods commandement but his covenant so that because the initiall Seale was added to the Covenant and such as received it received it as an evidence of the Covenant or because they were in Covenant I therefore concluded that by Gods own will such as enter into Covenant ought to receive the seal supposing still that they were capable of it So that to lay Circumcifion upon Gods command and the Covenant of grace too are well consistent together for the command is the cause of the
al the rest of the world who are not the people of God When Peter was to go to the Circumcision Paul to the Gentiles to preach the Gospel does not circumcision include the Women Jews as much as the men in opposition to the Gentiles as well as the word Gentiles includes the women Gentiles as well as the men to whom Paul was sent Gal. 2. 8. 9. Surely it must needs be granted that not onely the major or nobler part but the whole Nation of the Jewes both men and women are there meant by Circumcision which could not have been if in some sense they were not to bee accounted Circumcised Secondly I argued thus No uncircumcised person might eate the Passeover Ergo Their women might not have eaten it if in some sense they had not been circumcised Your answer is This is to bee limited pro subjecta materia none that ought to be circumcised might eate the Passeover unlesse they were circumcised But this answer is altogether insufficient For 1. Where is this distinction of yours found or founded in the Word of God other distinctions about eating the Passeover are clearely found the cleane might eate it the unclean might not eat it the circumcised might the uncircumcised might not but of your limitation there is altum silentium 2. I demand further where is there any command or institution for women to eate the Passeover more then for Women now to eate the Lords Supper unlesse it bee founded upon Circumcision yet in practice we know they did eate it and if they eate it not as ciâ—cumcised persons tell me by what right they did it If you say they were included in the houshold Exod. 12. 3 4. Every houshold was to eate the Paschall Lambe and there was no exception of women I reply first grant but the same consequence that when wee read so frequently in the new Testament that whole housholds were baptized no exception of children that therefore all the children in those housholds were baptized and this controversie is quickly ended But I adde further it is not said that the whole houshold shall eate it for all uncircumcised persons were forbidden to eat it none but circumcised persons had any warrant to eat it Yea further suppose some words in the institution should reach the Iewish women yet how doth it reach the women Gentiles who should prove Proselytes to them for Exod. 12. 48 49. there is order taken for the male stranger Let all his males be circumcised and then let him come neare and keep it but there is not any word that takes order for the strangers females I hope by this time it appears that your exceptions against the consequence of my Argument have no weight they are foederati therefore they are to be signati Next come we to examine the truth of the Antecedent which I manifested in those five Conclusions opened in my Sermon The first whereof is this That the Covenant of Grace for substance hath alwayes been one and the same both to the Jewes and Gentiles This first conclusion you grant and therefore there were no need to have stayed the Reader any further about it were it not that some of your exceptions doe almost recall your grant If it bee in substance the same though you should reckon up a thousand accidentall and locall differences it were nothing to the purpose but the first doth almost recall it wherein you charge me to carry the narration of the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. as if it did onely containe the Covenant of Grace in Christ whereas it is apparent say you out of the Text that the Covenant was a mixt Covenant consisting of temporall benefits the multiplying of Abrahams seed possession of Canaan the birth of Isaac besides the spirituall blessings To which I reply I meant so indeed and so I plainly expressed my selfe that all the difference betwixt the Covenant then made with Abraham and the Covenant made with us lies onely in the manner of the administration of the Covenant and not in the Covenant it selfe The Covenant it self in the substance of it holds out the same mercies both spirituall and temporall to them and to us Godlinesse having all the promises both of this life and that which is to come and that they and we have our right to all these promises upon the selfe same condition earthly things indeed were to them promised more distinctly and fully heavenly things more generally and springly then they are now to us and on the contrary spirituall things are more fully and clearely promised to us then to them and earthly promises more generally and sparingly And that these temporall benefits which you mention viz. multiplying of Abrahams seed the birth of Isaac and possession of Canaan were all of them administrations of the Covenant of grace they were figures signes and types of spirituall things to be enjoyed both by them and us These things I not onely asserted but proved in my Sermon If you think otherwise of these earthly blessings I desire you to explain your meaning in your next If you mean no more then this that all these temporall blessings were promised and given as flowing from the promise of Christ and were subservient to it or were but types and shadowes of it you meane no more then what wee all grant who yet deny any more mixture in the Covenant made with Abraham for the substance of it then there is in that made with us and that the difference lies onely in the manner of administration But I confesse I suspect you have a further meaning not onely because you here mention the temporall blessings before the spirituall and call the land of Canaan the Covenant made with Abraham but especially that expression which you owne from Cameron that Circumcision did primarily seale the temporall promise and signified sanctification but secondarily what your meaning is in this expression I cannot tell it hath an untoward looke as if the meaning were that God did primarily and chiefely in a Covenant of Grace founded in Christ wherein himselfe promises to bee their portion intend in the seale of it to ratifie temporall blessings which onely concernes vitam animalem now that the Seale I say of this Covenant should primarily and chiefly give evidence to such a porton which a people may enjoy with whom God never made a Covenant to be their God is so grosse a thing to imagine of God and so expressely contrary to the word that untill you owne it I will not impute it to you although I know the Anabaptists in Germany shame not to say that the Covenant made with Abraham was a meere carnall thing and had nothing to doe with eternall life As for that expression of the learned Cameron that Circumcision did primarily seale the earthly promise c. if by primarily hee meant immediatly though not chiefly that it sealed these things first in order
that no part of the spirituall Covenant made with Abraham did appeare to belong to Ishmael when he was circumcised or not to Esau when hee was circumcised God indeed did then declare that Isaac was he in whose family the Covenant should continue but not a word that Ishmael should have no part in it prove if you can in your next that Ishmael and Esau were not by their circumcision bound to have their hearts circumcised and to beleeve in the Messiah that was to come of Abrahams seed And whereas you say againe and againe that no benefit of the Covenant was the proper reason why these or those were circumcised but onely Gods precept I have already cleared it out of the Text Genesis 17. that though Gods command was the cause of the existence of the dutie of Circumcision yet the Covenant of grace was the motive to it and these two are well consistent together Whereas I answered to that carnall objection of the Anabaptists that nothing is plainer then that the Covenant whereof Circumcision was a signe was the Covenant of grace you reply first it was a mixt Covenant which is before taken away in answer to your exceptions against my first conclusion Sect. 2. Part 3. Secondly you say all circumcised persons were not partakers of the spirituall part it 's one thing to bee under the outward administration another thing to be under the Covenant of Grace Sir I thanke you for this answer you grant as much as I have been proving all this while viz. that men may have a visible membership though they bee not elected and that there ever was and will be some such in the Church to whom the outward administration and externall priviledges doe appâ—â—taine though they are not inwardly sanctified and I hope you will not deny but that these are called in that sense which our Saviour meanes when hee sayes Many are called but few are chosen I added Abraham received Circumcision a signe of the righteousnesse of faith true say you Circumcision was a seale of righteousnesse but not to all or only circumcised persons but to all beleevers whether Iews or Gentiles though they never are or may be sealed in their own persons I reply first this is but a peece of odde Divinitie that Circumcision should seale righteousnesse to them who never are circumcised nor reputed so nor capable of being circumcised nor might lawfully be circumcised but let that passe 2ly Indeed none but beleevers have the spirituall part of Circumcision but visible professors had a visible right to it and were obliged to seeke the spirituall grace of it and though they who are externally called and not elected never come to attaine the spirituall part yet are they in foro visibilis Ecclesiae to be reputed Church members and they have as Austin saith veritatem sacramenti though not fructum Sacramenti they receive the truth of the Sacrament though they partake not of the best part of it And the Iewes said I received it not as a nation but as a Church as a people separated from the world and taken into Covenant with God against which you object if I take as with reduplication they received it neither as a nation nor as a Church for if as a nation then every nation must have been circumcised if as a Church then every Church must be circumcised they received it as appointed them from God under that formall notion and no other But what poore exceptions are these my plaine meaning was the Jewes were both a civill societie or Common-wealth they were also a Church or a people in Covenant with God Circumcision was given them in reference to their Church State not in reference to their civill state and was in ordine to the things of Gods kingdome and though the formall reason of their being circumcised was the command of God yet the Covenant of grace or their Church state was the motive to it and the thing it related to as is most cleare out of the 17. of Genesis and many other places where their Circumcision denotates their religious standing as hath often been shewed before But what is all this say you to the answering of the objection which was that Circumcision was not the Seale of the spirituall part of the Covenant of grace to all circumcised persons and that Circumcision was appointed to persons not under the Covenant c. I answer I thinke it very fully answers the objection for if it was commanded and observed as that which was a priviledge and dutie belonging to the Covenant and they used it as being in Covenant the objection is wholly taken off Your frequent bringing in of the manner of administration by types shadowes c. hath been abundantly answered in my vindicating my first conclusion and elsewhere Next you much trouble your selfe how I will cleare that expression of mens conformity to temporall blessings and punishments because blessings and punishments are Gods acts and not mens I desire you to require an account of it from them who assert it I said Circumcision bound them who received it to conforme to that manner of administration of the Covenant which was carried much by a way of temporall blessings and punishments they being types of spirituall things is this all one to conforme to temporall blessings and punishments I added no man can shew that any were to receive Circumcision in relation to these outward things onely or to them at all further then they were administrations of the Covenant of grace you answer they received Circumcision neither in relation to these outward things onely no nor at all either as they were temporall blessings or types of spirituall things and so administrations of the Covenant of grace but for this reason and no other because God had so commanded I reply here had beene the fit place for you to have made good what you have so confidently asserted heretofore that Ishmael Esau and others were circumcised for some temporall respects that Circumcision sealed the temporall or politicall promises c. but in stead of proving this you doe here as good as deny it for if they were not circumcised in any respect at all to their temporall blessings how I pray you did Circumcision seale their temporall blessings Nay further you by consequent deny that Circumcision sealed either temporall or spirituall blessings and consequently it was no seale at all or a seale of nothing at all for if they were circumcised with respect to nothing but onely because God commanded them to bee circumcised how was Circumcision any Seale to them If a father give a child a Ring and command him to weare it onely to shew his obedience to his fathers command what doth the wearing of this Ring seale to the child it declares indeed the childes obedience to the father but seals nothing to the child from the father Nor doth that which you adde any whit helpe this you say You deny not
Covenanters is pleased to be their surety this I illustrated from things done amongst men thus when severall parties stand obliged in the same bond they may seale at severall times and yet be in force afterward together or even a child sealing in infancy may agnize and recognize that sealing when they come to yeares of discretion if then they will renounce it as done when they understood not they may free themselves if they please if they finde the former act a burden to them so said I is it here God is pleased to seale to infants while they are such and accepts of such as seale on their parts as they are able to give in their infant-age expecting a further ratification on their part when they are come to riper yeares in the meanâ— time affording them the priviledge of being reckoned unto his kingdome and family rather then the devils if when they are growne men they refuse to stand to this Covenant there is no hurt done on Gods part let them serve another God and take their lot for the time to come To this you answer First this is onely the spinning out the simile of a seale which whether it bee to the purpose or no I as willingly as your selfe leave it to the Reader to judge Secondly you say it is very inconsiderate boldnesse in meâ— to make every baptized person a Covenanter for whom Jesus Christ is a surety when as the Scripture makes Christ the surety onely for his redeemed ones I answer it is very true that Jesus Christ is the surety onely of the elect so farre as to performe all the conditions of the Covenant in them but he is also the surety of all visible Professors aliquo modo upon their condition of performing the Covenant looke in what respect your selfe will acknowledge Christ undertakes for visible Professors as they are visible Professors the same will serve my turne and I shall ask no more The fifth Objection was that no benefit comes by such a sealing as this is My answer was The same which came to the infants of the Jews who received the seale in their infancy You answer First you allow not that expression That God seales to every one that is baptized he seales onely to beleevers to whom be undertakes to make good his promise of writing his law in their heart c. And here againe you charge me with symbolizing with the Arminians who make the Covenant of grace common to elect and reprobates and left to every â—ans liberty to free themselves if they please and so nullifie all I passe by your scoffes of my frivolous supposing of Chimeraes and other such good language you have pretty well enured me also to receive the reproach of Arminianisme As to the thing it selfe I answer was not Circumcision Gods signe and seale which by his owne appointment was applyed to all the Jews and Proselytes and their children did it ingage God absolutely to every one of them to write his law in their heart c. And are not the Sacraments signa conditionalia conditionall signes and seales and did any Orthodox Divine before your self charge this to be Arminianism to say that the Gospel runs upon conditions I confesse it is Arminianisme to say any thing is conditionall to GOD this I never asserted but that the Gospell is both preached and by the Sacraments sealed to us upon condition of faith will passe for orthodox doctrine when you and I are dead and rotten You adde that you doe not well understand that God required of the Jewes Infants to seale in their Infancy I reply but I hope you understand that the Jewes Infants were sealed in their Infancy and by this they received not onely a priviledge to bee accounted as belonging to Gods family but it also obliged them to the severall duties of the Covenant as they grew up to bee capable of performing them I added secondly God hath other ends and uses of applying the Seale of the Covenant to them who are in Covenant with him then their present gaine it is an homage worship and honour to himselfe and it behooves us in that respect to fulfill all righteousnesse when Christ was baptized and circumcised hee was as unfit for the ordinance through his perfection as children through their imperfection being as much above them as Children are below them your answer is Baptisme is Gods worship Paedobaptisme a wil-worship Christs Baptisme was of a transcondens nature children are unfit for this ordinance not because of their imperfection but through defect of Gods appointment had God appointed it there were no doubt to bee made of their fitnesse all this hath been considered and weighed againe and againe and I desire not to burden the Reader needlesly I added thirdly the benefit and fruite of it at the present is great both to the parents and to the children to the parents whilst God doth thereby honour them to have their children counted to his Church and under his wing whilst all the other Infants in the world have their visible standing under the Prince and in the kingdome of darknesse and consequently while others have no hope of their childrens spirituall welfare untill they bee called out of that condition these need not have any doubt of their childrens welfare if they die in their Infancy nor if they live untill they shew signes to the contrary God having both reckoned them unto his people and given them all the meanes of salvation which an Infants age is capable of You answer First all this passage is but dictates Secondly you say if I meane the unbaptized children of beleevers doe belong to the kingdome of the devill it is a harsh and uncharitable speech Sir I am glad to heare you give that censure upon your owne judgement it is your judgement that all Infants even of Beleevers as well as Pagans though they may potentially belong to the kingdome of Christ yet actually they belong to the Kingdome of the devill but for my selfe I meant onely the children of Infidells I doe not thinke that beleeving Anabaptists doe through their ignorance or errour put their children out of this priviledge You demand further What comfort doe I give more to beleeving parents that have their children baptized then belongs to them though their children were not baptized I answer if it bee not through the parents fault that their children be unbaptized but onely by the providence of God they may have the same comfort yet I conceive it a greater inlargement of comfort to enjoy the visible Seale an ordinance which they are capable of and which God uses to blesse according to his good pleasure but I say when parents doe therefore not baptize upon this principle that their children doe not belong to the Church of Christ no more then the children of Turkes and Pagans and consequently are without that pale where ordinarily salvation is onely to bee had it is easie to say that their
necessity of it to save an Infant from perishing some hundreds of yeers after Christs Incarnation is easily to bee seene by what I have at large produced in the former part of this treatise Lastly your tedious discourse of that dangerous principle of framing additions to Gods worship by Analogies of our ownâ— making without warrant from Gods Word I desire you to apply it to them who do so I no further make use of it then I find Gods Word to goe along with me Whether beleevers Infants are confederates with their parents in the Covenant of Grace comes afterwards to be examined the rest of this Section being carping at a phrase or expression which your selfe grant being taken cum grano salis may passe with a candid Reader I passe over as worthy of no further answer onely I adde this one word that though it bee not safe to reason barely from events of things yet it well becomes us thankfully to take notice of Gods blessing upon his owne Ordinance and the more earnestly to contend for that which God is pleased so mercifully to accompany with his grace In your ninth Section you concurre with mee in condemning it as a wicked practise to separate from ministry and communion in Ordinances by reason of this difference in opinion and that the making of Sects upon these grounds is contrary unto Christian Charitie and I as willingly concurre with you in what you say in the latter part of this Section that godly Ministers and other Christians should not by harsh usage of their brethren in stirring up hatred in Magistrates and people against them cast strumbling blocks in their way thereby to alienate dissenting brethren from them but for what you say in the middle of this Section that this is not the evill of Anti-paedo-baptisme I answer I conceive it flowes from the principles which most of the Anti-paedo-baptists do conceive though possibly all and your selfe for one have not wholly embraced them for if you please to take and to compare these three principles of theirs together First members are added to the Church by Baptisme and not otherwise Secondly that such as are not baptized according to Christs Institution their Baptisme is a nullitie Thirdly that because the Baptisme of Infants is not clearely held out in the New Testament it is therefore not warranted by Christs Institution but contrary to it and then tell mee what followes lesse then this that none so baptized are Church-members consequently can performe no acts of Church-members and that therefore our Churches are no true Churches our Ministry can bee no true Ministry and therefore a necessitie of separation from us What you add in the end of this Section that a passage in one of my Sermons about the hedge which God hath set about the second Commandement hath been one cause of your startling at this point of Paedo-Baptisme I answer onely this had you not bin startled before there is nothing in that speech could have moved you and when once you have manifested that Baptizing of Infants doth breake downe the hedge which God hath made about the second Commandement I shall bee startled with you and not till then In your tenth and last Section wherein you undertake to answer that passage in my Sermon that the opinion of the Anabaptists puts all the Infants of beleevers into the selfesame condition with Turkes and Infidells you answer severall things wherein I plainely perceive you cannot deny what I affirme and yet you are loath to grant it you say first Cyprian with his 66. Bishops doth the same which I have forinerly shewed will not follow out of the words of of that Epistle secondly you say Mr. Rathband pleading that such Children whose Ancestors in any generation were faithfull may lawfully bee accounted within Gods Covenant grants the same also But this no wayes followes without extreame wracking those words in any Generation I suppose your selfe doth not thinke those words Exod. 20. 5. were intended to intimate that all the children in the world who came from Adam or Noah were included in the Covenant of grace nor doe I conceive you beleeved Mr. Rathband to thinke so For your owne opinion you declare it thus 1. You know no warrant to thinke election to reach beleevers children more then unbeleevers children 2. You know no more promise for them then for the children of unbeleevers 3. All the likelihood there is that they belong to Gods election rather then Turkes and Infidels to be because they have their parents and the Churches prayers some generall and conditionall promises and enjoy the benefit of good instruction and example which puts them into a nearer possibility to bee beleevers and saved and experience shewes God frequently continues his Church in their posterity But this you dare not ground upon any promise made unto beleevers as such for store you should incurre blasphemy by challenging a promise which God doth not keepe in that many of the posteritie of godly parents prove very wicked To all which I answer first in generall that to my understanding you here clearely yeeld the Infants of beleevers to bee in the same condition in reference to the Covenant of grace which the Infants of Turkes and Indians are in no more promise for the one then for the other which so oft as you consider mee thinkes your fatherly bowels to your owne children should bee moved within you Secondly I answer first to that of election your owne speech that experience shewing that God frequently continues his Church among beleevers posteritie should be one argument to make you thinke Gods election lies more among them then among others though wee can bee certaine of no one of them in particular Secondly what promises are made to beleevers children more then to Turkes and whether Abrahams promise reach them shall God willing bee scand in its proper place Thirdly as to that which you say that the children of beleevers are in a more hopefull way because of their parents prayers instructions examples c. and some generall and conditionall promises which puts them in a more possibilitie I answer this is nothing to the children which die in their Infancy nor secondly any more then children of Pagans enjoy whose lot may fall to be educated by Christians but no more promise by your doctrine for the one then the other Thirdly whereas you affirme that Generall Indefinite and Conditionall promises doe prove that there is a more comfortable likelihood that the children of beleevers are elected by God rather then the children of Turkes I reply 1. You doe not expresse what those promises are 2. I wonder that you should inferre election from conditionall promises Did God ever say that if you will performe these and these conditions then I will regenerate you give you a new heart and put my spirit within you 3. If the promise of regeneration bee not conditionall then you must say that there is some comfortable likelihood
as they were types of spirituall things it may then passe â—um granâ— salis but if by primarily be intended principally that Circumcision did chiefly seale earthly blessings the opinion is too unsavory to be received and whereas he and you with him say that Circumcision did thus primarily seale the earthly part of the Covenant I desire to know of you what Scripture ever made Circumcision a Seale of Canaan wee have expresse Scripture that it sealed the righteousnesse of faith whereby he was justified but I no where read that iâ— sealed the Land of Canaan Whereas you say though the promises were types of spirituall and heavenly things yet the things promised were but carnall and earthly as the sacrifices were but carnall things though shadowes of spirituall I reply all this is true but this belongs to the administration of the Covenant as was said before but makes it never a whit the more a mixt Covenant for the substance of it the Covenant then was more administred by carnall things then it is now and yet the administration of the Covenant even now also hath some carnall promises and priviledges as well as then as the externall ordinances of the Gospell Baptisme and the Lords Supper and wee as well as they have in the Covenant of grace the promise of this life and of that which is to come and so you may if you will call ours also a mixt Covenant consisting both of temporall and spirituall blessings and as among them some who were in Covenant did partake onely of the temporall part and never were partakers of the spirituall others of them were partakers of the spirituall part also even so now some partake of the externall and carnall part onely whilst others partake of both this you must grant to be true unlesse you will maintaine that none are now members of the visible Church but onely Elect and true beleevers Secondly you except against mee that when I said the manner of administration of this Covenant was first by types shadowes and sacrifices c. it had beene convenient to have named Circumcision that it might not be conceived to belong to the substance of the Covenant I reply first this is a very small quarrell I added c. which supplies both Circumcision and other things Secondly you know the Covenant of grace was administred by sacrifices and other types before Circumcision was instituted Thirdly whereas I said there were some Proselytes in the Jewish Church who were but selfe-justiciaries carnall and formall professors who are yet in the Scripture called Abrahams seed you answer I call them so without the warrant of Scripture as you conceive to which I reply my words were that there was another sort of Abrahams seed who were onely circumcised in the flesh and not in the heart who though they were borne of Abrahams seed or professed Abrahams faith and so were Iewes facti though not nati yet they never made Abrahams God their portion but rested in somewhat which was not Christ c. and so were to perish with the uncircumcised This you doe not here deny to bee true onely you would have me shew where the Proselytes were called Abrahams seed I reply had I mentioned no proselytes at all but onely said there were some in the Church of the Iewes who were visible members and partakers of outward Church-priviledges and yet were not inwardly godly nor partakers of the spirituall part and that these were called Abrahams seed as well as others it had been enough for my purpose I named not Proselytes to adde any strength to the argument and because they are called Gods people I feared not to call them Abrahams children by profession and never expected to have met with a quarrell for calling them who joyned to the Church of Israel by that common name whereby the Church members were called viz. the seede of Abraham or the children of Israel and could no place of Scripture be produced where proselytes are expresly called by this name the matter were not tanti But if it were a thing of any moment it would be no hard matter to produce evidence sufficient to prove that proselytes were called Israelites and the seed of Abraham as Acts 2. 10. and 22. compared Act. 13. 26. compared with Verse 43. but I forbeare You go on and accuse me that herein I joyne with Arminius who saith there is a seed of Abraham mentioned Rom. 4. 9. 10. Gal. 3. Gal. 4. who seeke justification and salvation by the workes of the Law and that hee makes this the ground of wresting that Scripture and that Mr. Bayne upon Ephes 1. sayes that the seed of Abraham without any adjoyned is never so taken I reply you give an high charge but a weake proofe I said there was a sort of proselytes who were the seed of Abraham by profession onely or outward cleaving to the Covenant who though they professed Abrahams faith yet did not place their happinesse in Christ or make choyce of Abrahams God for their all-sufficient portion Sir is this to joyne with Arminius in his interpretation of the ninth to the Romans 1. How doe you prove that Arminius meanes the words which you cite of Jewish Proselytes Nulli filii carnis censentur in semine saith Arminius doth hee meane that no proselytes were the seed of Abraham according to the flesh if so I beleeve acute Mr. Bayne would have been more wary then to have opposed him in that point Nay Mr. Bayne in the very selfe same page which you quote having set downe Arminius his two conclusions 1. The children of the promise are reckoned for the seed 2. The children of the flesh are not reckoned for the seed passes his judgement upon them in these words Page 140. The Conclusions are true but not pertinent to this sense for the children of the flesh here are those onely who in course of nature came from Abraham But you very wisely mention neither of these Conclusions of Arminius you thought it more for your advantage to fasten upon some other proposition laid downe by Arminius and as you set it downe it runs thus There is a seed of Abraham qui per opera legis justitiam salutem consequuntur I was much amused at the words I know Arminius saith Deus ex promisse ac debito dat vitam aeternam operanti but he meanes it not of the workes of the Law and therefore I wondered to see opera legis in your proposition but the word which puzled me most was consequuntur Sir let me intreat you to correct your booke there is no such word as consequuntur in Arminius his exposition and it doth not agree with your own exposition for consequuntur justitiam is by you translated Follow after righteousnesse I have perused Arminius with whom you say I joyn and Mr. Bayne from whom you say I say I differ and I shall give an account of both to the reader First for Arminius his words
are these Filii carnis Apostolo hoc loco sunt qui per opera legis justitiam salutem consectantur not consequuntur so that the question between Arminius and Mr. Bayne is whether in that place namely in the 9 to the Romans the Apostle by children of the flesh doe meane such as seek righteousnesse by the Law Hoc in loco saith Arminitor the phrase is to bee so interpreted in this place No saith Mr. Bayne it is not to bee taken so in this place though it may be taken so in other places I shall set down Mr. Baynes his own words that the Reader may see how grossely you have abused me For though saith Mr. Bayne children of the flesh in some other Scripture doth note out justiciaries seeking salvation in the Law yet here the literall meaning is to be taken a child of the flesh being such a one as descendeth from Abraham according to the flesh Good Reader observe 1. That I was not expounding the 9 to the Romans and therefore did not at all meddle with the question between Arminius and Mr. Bayne 2. I am cleared by Mr. Bayne himself whom Mr. Tombes produced against me 3. The words which cleare me are within six lines of those words which Mr. Tombes cites against me whether Mr. Tombes be guilty of negligence or falshood I leave to your judgement 4. The errours of Arminius are many in the place cited and I joyne not with him in any one of them First I doe not conceive that by Word Rom. 9. 6. the Jews meant the legall Covenant but the word of promise or else the Apostle had not answered directly v. the 9. Secondly by the word Seed was meant the children of the promise the elect Rom. 9. 8. as Mr. Bayne nay Arminius confesses onely Arminius saith that they were elected upon Gods forefight of their faith an Opinion wch I detest as being injurious to the free effectuall grace of God I need not instance in any other errours only draw this Corollary if God did fulfil this promise made to the seed of Abraham though God did reject so many of his seed that had the token of the Covenant in their flesh not onely from salvation but from the partaking of outward priviledges from the dignity of being accounted his people any longer then God may reject many of the seed of beleeveâ—s now under the Gospel though baptized not onely from salvation but from all Church-priviledges besides baptisme and yet make good his promise sealed in baptisme in which he engageth himselfe to be the God of beleeving Christians and their seed Fourthly Mr. Tombes speaks of Abrahams seed by celling and saith that promise I will be the God of thy seed was made good to Abraham in the calling of the Gentiles pag. 43. Now Mr. Tombes will not say that all the Gentiles were made partakers of an inward calling the Gentiles then which had but an outward calling are the seed of Abraham onely by profession say I because they are of the same profession with the spirituall seed of Abraham who are inwardly called If Mr. Tombes say that it is better to term them seed by calling then seed by profession if it bee but an outward call where lyes the difference Fifthly Mr. Bayne and Arminius are agreed that by the seed of Abraham Rom. 9. 8. is meant the elect onely Omnes filii promissionis censentur in semine nulli filii carnis censentur in sentine saith Arminius Sixthly the principall difference between Mr. Bayne and Arminius is that this elect seed was elected upon Gods foresight of their faith as Arminius would have it but I joyne with Mr. Bayne in detesting this opinion as injurious to the free and effectuall grace of God and Mr. Bayne joynes with me in confessing that in some places of Scripture they who seek to bee justified by the Law are termed children of the flesh To conclude this of Arminius I wonder you should seek to cast an odiâ—â— upon my expression as you do here and severall other times by saying it's a joyning with Arminius when you know well enough that you joyne not onely in an expression or two but in this your very doctrine of opposing Paedo-baptisme with that monster Servenus and other like him Lastly you are much more stumbled and offended that Mr. Blake should say There yet remaines in the Church a distinction of Abrahams seed some borne after the flesh some after the spirit and that both these have a Church interest or a 〈◊〉 bright to Church priviledges and that â—ee for this alledged Gal. 4. 29. even so it is now c. I reply for my part I as much wonder at your calling these passages very grosse for though it bee granted 1. That the Apostle shews Ishmael to be intended as a type of civill justiciaries who sought righteousnesse by the law Yea and 2. that these persecuted the true Church who sought justification by Christ And 3. That they are cast out from being heires never to partake of the spirituall priviledges of the Covenant yet because it is apparent that even these who Paul said were typified by the son of Hagar had a visible standing in the Jewish Church and were partakers of outward Church priviledges and were the same of whom Paul speaks Rom. 10. 3. Who being ignorant of Gods righteousnesse and going about to establish their own righteousnesse have not submitted themselves unto the righteousnesse of God And that in the same place Paul himself saith even so it is now even in the Church of Gallatia it was so and Paul by this Doctrine laboured to make them better I see not why Mr. Blake might not use this as an argument that some have a visible Church membership and ought to partake of outward Church priviledges notwithstanding they will not have the inheritance of children unlesse they repent The thing which I conceive offends you in his expression is that hee thinkes there is a fleshly seed of Abraham but I know no reason of stumbling at that phrase since by flesh is there intended any thing which is our own whatever we put confidence in and leane upon as that which may commend us to God whether our birth or parts our understanding or morall vertue yea or our Religious duties and performancâ—s all are but flesh and this St. Paul plainly signifies Phil. 3. 3 c. We are the Circumcision which worship God in the spirit and put no confidence in the flesh and in the verse following he tells you what he meant by flesh viz. his birthright his circumcision his unblameable conversation c. And might not Mr. Blake safely say there is still a seed of these who are visible members My second conclusion was to this effect Ever since God gathered a distinct number out of the world to be his Kingdome Citie Household in opposition to the rest of the world which is the Kingdome Citie and Household
of Satan Hee would have Infants of all who are taken into Covenant with him to bee accounted his to belong to him to his Church and family and not to the Devills So much weight lies upon this Conclusion and it so neerely concernes you to make at least a shew of overthrowing it that in 40 Pages and upward you try all your wits and artifices to shake the strength of it by scornefull speeches by clouding and darkning what was expressed plainely by framing senses and confuting what was never asserted nor intended by Bringing in at the by opinions of other men and disputing against them by alledging the Testimonies of some eminently learned men when they are nothing to the purpose in hand and by seeking to elude the strength of my arguments In all these I shall attend you and endeavour to cleare what you would seeme to have obscure briefly to passe over what is impertinent and chiefly buckle with you in that which concernes the cause in hand First you tell me this conclusion is a bâ—â—kin that may bee put on either leg right or left exprest so ambiguously that you know not in what sense to take it Truely Sir you take a course to make it seeme so I knew a man in Cambridge that went for a great Scholler whose remarkable facultie was so to expound a Text as to make a cleare Text darke by his interpretation even thus have you dealt with a plaine Conclusion you bring first three sorts of senses then you subdivide them and under each of them bring severall Imaginable senses foure or five under one head five or six under another head and then blame me that I have not distinctly set downâ— in which of these senses Infants of Beleevers belong to the Covenant whether in respect of Election or of a promise of grace in Christ whether potentially or actually whether they are so to bee accounted by an act of science or faith or opinion and that grounded on a rule of haritie or prudence or probable hopes for the future thus you expresse your skill in multiplication of senses But I reply that hee that runs may reade my sense and with the tenth part of the paines you have taken to fasten a sense upon it which I never thought upon might confidently have concluded that I meant of a visible priviledge in facie visibilis Ecelesiae or have their share in the faedus externum which my words plainely enough held forth when I spake of Gods separating a number out of the world to be his Kingdome Citie Household in apposition to the rest of the world which is the Devills Kingdome and afterwards in the same Conclusion God having left all the rest of the world to bee visibly the Devills Kingdome although among them many belong to his invisible kingdome as being of the number of his elect he will not permit the Devill to come and lay visible claime to the off-spring of those who are begotten of the children of the most High is not this plaine enough that as all they who by externall vocation and profession joyne to the Church of God though few of those many so called are elected have a visible right to bee esteemed members of the Church Kingdom of God which is a visible Corporation distinct and opposite to the rest of the world which is visibly the corporation and kingdom over which the Devill doth reign So God would have their children even while they are children to enjoy the same priviledge with them what Delian Diver is there any need of to fetch up the meaning of this But that you may no longer complaint of not understanding my sense I say plainly The Covenant of grace is sometime taken strictly sometime largely as it is considered strictly it is a Covenant in which the spirituall benefits of justification regeneration perseverance and glorification are freely promised in Christ Secondly as the Covenant of grace is taken largely it compâ—â—hendss all Evangelicall administrations which doe wholly depend upon the free and gratious appointment of God and this administration is fulfilled according to the counsell of Gods will sometimes it was administred by his appointment in typeâ— shadowes and other legall Ordinances this Covenant of administration God said Zâ—â—â—ary 11. 10. hâ—â— did 〈◊〉 with the people of the Jews and at the death of Christ hee did wholly evacuate and abolish and in stead thereof brought in the administration which wee live under where also hee rejected the Jews or booke them off from being his people in Covenant and called the Gentiles and graffed them in ramâ—rum defractorum locum into the place of the branches broken off as your selfe page 65. doe with Beza rightly expresse it Now according to this different acceptation of the Covenant are men differently said to bee in covenant with God or to be members of his Church and family some are mysticall members by inward grace the inward grace of the Covenant being bestowed upon them being made new creatures c. others are members in regard of the externall and visible aeconomy accordingly among the Jewes some were said to bee Abrahams seed according to the promise and not onely after the flesh who had the Circumcision of the heart as well as that which was outward others were Jewes in propatulo Jewes onely in foro visibilis ecolesia and in like manner is it under the Evangelicall administration in the Christian Church some are in Christ by mysticall 〈◊〉 so as to bee regenerate c. 1 Cor. 6. 17. 2 Cor. 5. 17. others are said to bee in Christ by visible and externall profession as branches which beare no fruite Iohn 15. 2. and these also are called branches of the Vine though such branches as for unfruitfulnesse shall at last bee cut off and cast away and often times tells us many are called but few are chosen Unto both these do belong great priviledges though the priviledgâ—â— of the one be saving the other not as shall by and by appeare Furthermore according to this different notion of the Covenant grounded upon the different manner of mens being in Christ there are also different Sâ—ales belonging unto the Covenant some peculiar and proper onely unto those who are in Covenant spiritually a quoâ—d substantiam et gratiâ—â— faeâ—â—ris as the testimony and Seale of the Spirit 2 Cor. 1. 2â— Ephes 1. 13. 14. 30. Rom. 8. 16. others common and belonging unto all who are in the visible body and branches of Christ the Vine in any relation and so in Covenant quoad 〈…〉 till by scandalous 〈◊〉 which are 〈◊〉 with that very outward dignitie and profession they cut themselves off from that relation and such are the visible and externall Seales annexed to the externall profession among Christians as the Jewish Seales were to those who were Jewes externally When therefore I say they are visibly to bee reckoned to belong to the Covenant with their parents I meane looke what
to him who makes an outward profession because wee have not a Spirit of discerning to know them to bee reall beleevers then it undeniably follows That some may rightly be accounted to belong to the Church of God and Covenant of grace beside reall beleevers which is as much as I need to make my sense and meaning in this Proposition to passe for currant And truly Sir whoever will grant that a Minister in applying the seale must doe it de fide in faith being assured he applyes it according to rule must either grant such a right as I plead for that many have right to bee visible members and bee partakers of the externall administration of Ordinances though they be not inwardly sanctified or else hee must by revelation be able to see and know the inward conversion of every one hee applyes the seale unto for certainly hee hath no written Word to build his faith upon for the state of this or that man And for my own part when once you have disproved this that there is such a visible membership and right to externall administrations as I have here infisted upon I shall not onely forbeare baptizing Infants but the administration of the externall seale to any what profession soever they make untill I may bee de fide assured that they are inwardly regenerate This then was and is my meaning when I say That Infants of believers are confederates with their Parents that they have the same visible right to be reputed Church-members as their Parents have by being visible Professors and are therefore to be admitted to all such external Church-priviledges as their Infant age is capable of and that the visible Church is made up of such visible Professors and their Children that the invisible takes in neither all of the one nor the other but some of both Whereas therefore you say you are at a stand to finde out what my meaning is and know not what to deny or what to grant and again pag. 45. You are at a stand whether I meane they are to bee taken in with their Parents into Covenant in respect of saving grates or the outward priviledge of Church-ordinances I beseech you stand no longer doubtfull of my meaning I meane of them as I meane of other visible Professors they are taken into Covenant both ways respectively according as they are elect or not elect all of them are in Covenant in respect of outward priviledges the elect over and above the outward priviledges are in Covenant with respect to saving graces and the same is to bee said of visible members both Parents and Infants under the New Testament in this point of being in Covenant as was to be said of visible members in the former administration whether Jewes and their children or Proselytes and their children I endeavour in all this to speak as clearly as I can possibly not onely because you say you are oft at a stand to pick out my meaning but because this mistake runs through your whole book that none are to be reputed to have a visible right to the Covenant of grace but onely such as partake of the saving graces of it Now I proceed with you When I say That God would have beleevers children reputed to belong to his Church and family and not to the devills You answer That you feare I use that expression of not belonging to the Devills Kingdome to please the people But Sir why doe you judge my heart to intend amisse in using an expression which your self cannot mislike I have more cause to think you use all these words it cannot be denyed but God would have the Infants of beleevers in some sort to be accounted his to belong to him his Church and family and not to the Devills And againe it is true in facie visibilis Ecclesiae the Infants of beleevers are to bee accounted Gods c. onely ad faciendum populum to please the people because this is not your judgement for when you speake your full meaning and sense of this point you professe you know no more promise for them in reference to the Covenant then to the children of Turkes And even here you onely grant them a nearer possibility to belong to the Covenant of grace then the children of Infidels have therefore in your judgement they are not now actually belonging to it but onely in a possibility so that though they may be accounted to belong to the Kingdom of God potentially yet by your doctrine they belong to the Kingdom of the Devill actually and all this charitable opinion which here you expresse toward them dontaines no more then is to be allowed to the child of a Turk if born among Christians especially if a Christian will take it and bring it up in Christian Religion and by what may we ground any probable hopes they will actually receive the profession of Christ since by your rule there is no promise no externall Covenant why may I not have as good hopes of Heathens children if Gods promise helpe not here But say you To make them actually members of the visible Church is to overthrow the difinitions of the visible Church that Protestant Writers use to give because they must be all Christians by profession I reply it overthrows it not at all for they all include the Infants of such Professors as the visible Church among the Jewes did include their Infants male and female too lest you say that Circumcision made them members I adde also Baptisme now as well as Circumcision of old is a reall though impâ—iâ—â—â— Profession of the Christian Faith But say you Infants are oâ—ly passive and doe nothing whereby they may bee denominated visible Christians I answer even as much as the Infants of Jewes could doe of old who yet in their dayes were visible members Yea say you further it will follow That there may bee a visible Church which consists onely of Infants of beleevers I answer no more now then in the time of the Jewish Church it 's possible but very improbable that all the men and Women should dye and leave onely 〈◊〉 behindâ— them and it 's farre more probable that a Church 〈…〉 Anabaptists why may consist onely of Hypocritâ—â— Againe you affirme We are not to account Infants to belong to God either in respect of election or promise of grace or presenâ—◠〈◊〉 of in being in Christ 〈◊〉 â—state by any act of 〈…〉 with in a particulâ—â— revelation because there 〈…〉 declaration of God that the Infants of prisâ—â—◠〈…〉 all or some either are elected to life or in the Covenant of grace in Christ either in respect of present in-being or future estate To which I answer briefly though all this bee granted if meant of the spirituall part of the Covenant onely yet this makes nothing against that visible membership which I plead for Yea I reâ—ort the argument upon your selfe and dare boldly affirme that by this argument no visible Church or all
the visible Professors of any Church are to be accounted to belong to God either in respect of election from eternity or promise of grace or present state of in-being in Christ c. without a particular revelation because there is no declaration of God that the present visible Professors are indefinitely all or some either elected to life or are in the Covenant of grace in Christ either in respect of present in-being or future estate look by what distinction you will answer this for visible Professors who are growne men the same will serve for the Infants of beleevers In the next place you make a digression against an expression of Mr. Cottons which you thinke necessary to do because you fâ—â—de many are apt to swallow the dictates of such men as Mr. Cotton is without examination he affirmed the Covenant of grace is given to Christ and in Christ to every godly man Gen. 17. 7. and in every godly man to his seed God will have some of the seed of every godly man to stand before him for ever against this you except many things and according to your usuall course you frame many senses of the Covenants being given to every godly man and his seed some whereof are so absurd as no charitable man can imagine ever came in Mr. Cottons thoughts That every godly man should be to his seed as Christ to every godly man which in truth as you say would be little lesse then blasphemy But I shall give you this short Reply that I take Mr. Cottons meaning to be that looke as Abraham Isaac and Jacob and other godly Jewes were to their seed in respect of the Covenant that is every godly man to his seed now except onely in such things wherein those Patriarchs were types of Christ in all other things wherâ—in God promised to be the God of them and their seed godly parents may plead it as much for their seed 〈◊〉 as they could then and whatever inconvenience or absurdity you seem to fasten upon Mr. Cotton will equally reach to them also as for example suppose an Israelite should plead this promise for his seed you 'll demand if â—ee plead it to his seed universally that 's false and so of the rest of your inferences look what satisfying answer an Israelite would give you the same would Mr. Cotton give and at satisfyingly As for what you say concerning Abraham that by the seed of Abraham are meant onely elect and beleevers I have sufficiently answered to it before and shall have occasion to meet with it again in its due place therefore I now say no more of it but the chief thing you grate upon against M. Cotton is that expression in the close That God will have some of every godly mans seed stand before him for ever You aggravate this to the utmost as a bold dictate imposing on Gods counsel and Covenant the absurdity and falsity wherof you indeavour to manifest at large to which I answer in two or three words that supposing his meaning to be as you set it downe That it is in reference to election and everlasting life that every godly man shall have some of his seed infallibly saved I confesse the expression is not to be justified nor doe I thinke that that sense ever came into the mind of so learned and judicious a man as Mr. Cotton is for my part I think he onely alluded to that promise made to Jonadâ—â—s children Jer. 35. thaâ— God would alwayes beare a mercifull respect unto the posterity of his servants according to that promise Exod. 20. 5. I will shew mercy to thousands of them that love mee and keepe my commandements And that being his scope as I thinke it was you need not have kept such a stirre about it After your digression to meet with Mr. Cotton in stead of returning to my Sermon you wander further out of your way for after a short discourse of judging children to bee within the Covenant by opinion according to a rule of prudence or charity senses which I meddle not with and therfore need not stay the Reader in descanting upon them My rule of judging their condition being limited to the Rule of Gods revealed will in his word you then proceed in an indeavour wherein you doe but lose time and waste paper for many pages together endeavouring to confute what was never asserted by me viz. That the Covenant of saving grace is made to beleevers and their naturall seed that the Infants of beleevers are so within the Covenant of grace as to be elected and to have all the spirituall priviledges of the Covenant belonging to them this you would needs have to be my meaning and I almost suspect you would fasten this sense upon mee against your owne light for pag. 142. you doe as good as cleare mee of it where you say You suppose that I doe not hold that the Infants of beleevers indifferently have actually the thing signified by baptisme union with Christ adoption pardon of sinne regeneration c. So that in all this discourse you doe but luctari cum larvis according to your owne expression pag. 45. my plain meaning was as is before expressed nor doe any of the expressions used by mee and here brought by you as Arguments to prove this to be my meaning hold forth any such thing as they are within the Covenant of grace belonging to Christs body kingdome houshold therefore are to partake of the seale True as visible professors are quà visible Againe they are to bee accounted to belong to him as well as their parents True as well as their parents doe by a visible profession Againe they are made free according to Abrahams copy True according to the promise made to Abraham I will bee a God to thee and thy seed that looke as Abraham and his seed the Proselytes and their seed upon their visible owning of God and his Covenant had this visible priviledge for their posterity that they should be accounted to belong to Gods kingdom and houshold with their parents so it is here One Argument more you bring beside laying of my words together to prove that this must needs bee my sense because you doubt not but my meaning is agreeable to the Directory which holds forth That the promises are made to beleevers and their seed and directs Ministers to pray That God would make Baptisme to the Infant a seale of adoption regeneration and eternall life And you conclude that if there be not a promise of these saving graces to Infants in vaine are they baptized and the seale is put to a blank To which I reply my meaning is indeed according to the sense of the Directory and according to that direction I doe pray that God would make baptisme to bee a seale to the Infant of adoption and the rest of the saving graces of the Covenant yet I utterly deny you consequence that unlesse there bee absolute promises of
saving grace to Infants the Seale is set to a blank for give mee leave but to put the same case first for the Infants of the Jewes was the seale put to a blanke with them or had they all promises of saving graces Secondly let mee put the same case in growne men who make an externall visible profession and thereupon are admitted to baptisme can any man say that all the saving graces of the Covenant or the spirituall part of it is promised to all visible professors is it not abundantly knowne that in all ages even in the best times even in the Apostles times multitudes were baptized to whom God yet never gave saving graces and therefore never promised them for had hee made a promise hee would have performed it But I shall desire you a little to consider the nature of a Sacrament in what sense it is a seale and then you neede stumble at this no longer these three things are necessarily to be distinguished first the truth of the thing signified in a Sacrament and secondly my interest in that thing And thirdly my obligation to doe what is required in or by that Sacrament I say therefore that in every Sacrament the truth of the Covenant in it selfe and all the promises of it are sealed to be Yea and Amen Jesus Christ became a Minister of the circumcision to confirme the promises made unto the Fathers so to every one who is admitted to partake of Baptisme according to the rule which God hath given to his Church to administer that Sacrament there is sealed the truth of all the promises of the Gospel that they are all true in Christ and that whoever partakes of Christ shall partake of all these saving promises this is sealed absolutely in Baptisme but as to the second which is interesse meum or the receivers interest in that spirituall part of the Covenant that is sealed to no receiver absolutely but conditionally in this particular all Sacraments are but signa conditionalia conditionall seales sealing the spirituall part of the Covenant to the receiver upon condition that hee performe the spirituall condition of the Covenant thus our Divines use to answer the Papists thus Doctor Ames answers to Bellarmine when Bellarmine disputing against our doctrines that Sacraments are seales alledges then they are falsely applyed ostentimes hee answers to Bellarmine Sacraments are conditionall Seales and therefore not seales to us but upon condition Now for the third thing the obligation which is put upon the receiver a bond or the for him to performe who is admitted to receive the Sacrament this third I say is also absolute all Circumcised and Baptized persons did or doe stand absolutely ingaged to performe the conditions required on their part and therefore all circumcised persons were by the circumcision oblieged to keepe the Law that is that legall and typicall administration of the Covenant which was then in force and Infants among the rest were bound to this though they had no understanding of the Covenant or that administration of the Covenant when this Seale was administred to them Now then since in Baptisme there is first an absolute Seale of the truth of the Covenant of grace in it selfe a conditionall seale of the receivers interest in the Covenant and an absolute obligation upon the receiver to make good the Covenant on his part is there any reason that you should say that the seale is put to a blank where the spirituall part or saving grace is not partaked of What you further say here that by Abraham who is the father of the faithfull is meant Abrahams person and not every beleever that it was a personall priviledge to Abraham and not a common priviledge to beleevers as beleevers which thing you repeate very often it shall bee considered in a more proper place So that you having thus wholly mistaken my sense and undertaken to dispute against a sense which I never owned I may therefore passe over your six arguments which you bring to confute this sense which you have set downe I joyne with you that it is an errour to say that all Infants of beleevers indefinitely are under the saving graces of the Covenant for although I finde abundance of promises in the Scripture of Gods giving saving graces unto the posteritie of his people and that experience â—eacheth us that God uses to continue his Church in their posteritie and that Gods election lies more among their seed then among others yet neither to Jew nor Gentile was the Covenant so made at any time that the spirituall part and grace of the Covenant should bee conferred upon them all it is sufficient to mee that they may have a visible standing in the Church partake of the outward priviledges of the Church and bee trained up under that discipline or administration of the Covenant which God uses to make effectuall to salvation in the meane time all of them to bee visible members as well as their parents and some of them invisible as well as some of their parents And therefore although in some of your fix reasons there are divers expressions which I cannot swallow yet I shall not here stay upon them but examine them when you bring them elsewhere to dispute against mee as here you doe not onely give mee leave to touch upon the last of your fix arguments because in some sense it militates against my Thesis Is this were true say you that the Covenant of grace is a birthright priviledge then the children of beleevers are the children of grace by nature then Christians are borne Christians not made Christians if the child of a Christian be borne a Christian as the child of a Turke is borne a Turke and if so how are they borne the children of wrath as well as others I answer According to the sense which I owne I maintaine this assertion to bee true that the child of a Christian is borne a Christian it is his birthright to bee so esteemed I meane to bee reputed within the Covenant of grace or a member of the visible Church our I am sure it was so the child of a Iew was borne a Iew and it was his birthright to bee an Israelite a visible member of the Church of Israel and the Apostle Paul stuck not to use the word Iewes by nature Gal. 2. 15. We who are Iewes by nature and not 〈◊〉 of the â—â—â—tiles â—ee there opposes the naturall priviledge of the members of the Church to the condition of the heathens and Rom. 11. hee calls the whole nation of the Iewes the naturall branches of the Olive tree because they were the visible Church of God Will you say of them also how were they then the children of wrath by nature I answer doe but consider the Apostles distinction Rom. 2. last betwixt a Jew in propatulo in facievisibilis ecclesiae a Jew without and a Jew in abscondito a Jew within and your objection is answered in the first
would hardly swadlow downe the tediousnesse of my discourse if I should take them all singly and shew what I own or reject of each of them It is better to set down the plaine sense together and make it goods and then he will discern how you have indeavoured to cloud an argument and wrangle against it when you cannot answer it I plainly expressed the Apostles argument to be fetched from the benefit which would not onely come to themselves but to their children by their beleeving in Christ and after added that the cleare strength of the Argument lay thus God hath now remembred his Covenant to Abraham in sending that blessed seed in whom hee promised to be the God of him and of his seed doe not you by your unbeliefe deprive your selves and your posterity of so excellent a gift In which passage you acknowledge I have hit the marke and given that very interpretation which you owne And whereas you adde as a further illustration that the promise is now fulfilled to them and their children according to Acts 3. 25. Ye are the children of the Prophets and of the Covenant which God made with our fathers c. I confesse that is true but not all that is meant and yet even that strengthens my Argument the Covenant which God made with their Fathers That hee would bee thâ— God of them and of their seed and they were the children or heires of that Covenant that look as God was the God of Abraham and his seed so he would be the God of them and of their seed if they did beleeve and were baptized and therefore he would not have them by their unbelief deprive themselves and their children of that priviledge this I then made my argument and this you saw well enough and therefore say that this expression doe not by your unbeliefe deprive your posterity of so excellent a gift hath a little relish of my interpretation of the promise concerning the naturall seed of beleevers But Sir why doe you call it a little relish it is the very scope of my Argument that look as God did when hee made the promise of grace in Christ to Abraham upon his beleeving and took also his posterity those that were borne of him into Covenant with him in the sense which I before alledged and not onely the naturall Jews but even among all Nations whoever became followers of Abrahams faith did inherit Abrahams promise That he would be the God of them and their seed and by vertue of that promise their children were taken into visible communion so this blessed seed in whom this promise was founded being now come would according as heretofore make it good to al whether Jewes or Gentiles that should beleeve in him This clause of the Covenant of grace and the interpretation of it viz. That it belongs to all believers and that by vertue of it their children are to be received into visible communion you often dispute against and sometimes say that it was a promise peculiar to Abraham at other times it was at the utmost to be extended no further then to Abraham Isaac and Jacob to have their posterity as born of them to belong to the visible Church though in this place where it was most proper you say little or nothing about it onely make wrangling exceptions against my interpretation but because it most pertinent to the businesse in hand I shall here take it into consideration and manifest that it was not a personall priviledge to Abraham no nor to Abraham Isaac and Jacob to have their posteâ—â—ty taken into Covenant by vertue of that promise I will be the God of thee and thy seed For first though Abraham was the father of the faithfull and so in some sense the root as you elsewhere call him yet the Covenant was made with him for his faiths sake and believers are his children and heires and partake of those priviledges and promises which were made to him and therefore look as Abrahams faith justified him before God gave him interest in the spirituall graces of the Covenant and none but himself yet it was so beneficiall and advantageous to his children that for his sake they should be accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom and houshold and partake of the externall priviledges of it and thereby be trained up under the discipline of it and so bee fitted for spirituall priviledges and graces which God doth ordinarily confer upon them who are thus trained up so shall it bee with them who become followers of Abrahams faith Secondly had it been a peculiar priviledge to Abrahams naturall seed Proselytes of other Nations could never by vertue of their becomming followers of Abrahams faith have brought their children into Covenant with them so as to have a visible Church-membership as wee know they did Thirdly and we know also that this promise of being the God of beleevers and their seed was frequently renewed many hundred yeers after Abraham Isaac and Jacob were dead and rotten as Deut. 30. 6. The Lord will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed c. so Esa 44. 2 3. Feare not O Jacob my servant and thou Jeshâ—run whom I have chosen I will poure my spirit upon thy seed and my blessing upon thine off-spring and they shall spring up as among the grasse c. So likewise Esay 59. 21 As for me this is my Covenant with them saith the Lord my Spirit that is upon thee and my words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth nor out of the mouth of thy seed nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed saith the Lord from henceforth and for ever and this last promise your selfe acknowledge page 54. to bee intended chiefly of the nation of the Jewes at their last calling in and whereas you use to elude these Texts by saying these things belong onely to the elect when they come to beleeve and reach not to any priviledge which is externall I reply by the same answer you might cut off the seed of Abraham Isaac and Jacob for to beleevers then as well as to beleevers now were these promises made and I shall desire you to thinke how by this Answer you will avoyd that which page 42. you call absurditie and trifling in Mr. Cotton For Instance God made this promise say you to Abraham Isaac and Jacob to bee the God of them and of their seed in all generations see how you will answer your owne objection if it bee understood universally to all his seed that is manifestly false all his seed had not God to be their God or if it be meant conditionally if they beleeve then the meaning must bee that God would bee the God of Abraham and his seed if they did beleeve and then it signifies no more then thus that God will bee the God of every beleever and then it is but trifling to adde to bee the God
against baptisme to succeed circumcision as a Lord Major elect succeeds the old though the old continue after his election for a time Yet further You inquire in what sense Baptisme succeeds in the roome and place of Circumcision and say if by roome and place I meane locus communis et proprius so Baptisme being an action hath no roome or place at all properly and if by roome and place I meane the baptized and baptizers that is true but in part seme who were to be baptized were not to bee circumcised as women Thirdly if by roome and place I meane the same society that is not true Circumcision admitted into the Jewish baptisme into the Christian Church Fourthly if of the Commandement upon which both are sealed that is not true neither Circumcision was commanded long before Baptisme Fiftly if of the same use that is most untrue for the use of Circumcision obliged to keepe the Law to be a partition between Iewes and Gentiles and to initiate into the Iewish Church or rather into Abrahams family Then lastly you say if I meane it of confirming and sealing the same Covenant neither is that true save onely in part because their Covenant was a mixt Covenant and although Circumcision did confirme righteousnesse by faith and signified holinesse of heart so also did the Cloud Sea Manna the Rock the Deluge or Arke and the same are also confirmed by the Lords Supper and therefore to say that Baptisme succeeds in the roome and place of Circumcision is a position erroneous and very dangerous I am prone to thinke that time as well as paper and Inke are very cheape with you who thus needlesly waste them this poore quibbling about succession and roome place c. is too Pedanticall for a grave Divine what Reader will not at the first view see this to bee my meaning of Baptisme succeeding in the roome and place of Circumcision that Baptisme succeeds Circumcision as a signe substituted in the place and stead of Circumcision to signifie and seale the same Covenant of grace which Circumcision did Circumcicision more darkely sealing Christ being not yet exhibited baptisme more clearely the shadow being taken away and the substance come almost all your differences refer onely to the severall manners of administration of the Covenant not to the Covenant it selfe or thing administred yet I shall touch upon each particular First your fancy of Locus proprius communis is too idle to require any answer Secondly that of the Iewish women hath been sufficiently spoken to in the first Section of this third part Thirdly when you say circumcision admitted into one Church baptisme into another I am very loath to impute to your sense which you intend not if you meane onely the severall administrations the Church of the Jewes being Christs Church under one administration the Christian Church the same Church of Christ under another administration you speake truth but not to purpose my conclusion never said Circumcision and Baptisme doe initiate into the same Administration of the Covenant but if you meane that the Church of the Jewes and wee are not one and the same Church you speake pure Anabaptisme indeed and contradict the Scripture expresly which every where makes the Church of the Jewes and the Gentiles one and the same Church though under divers administrations I count it needlesse to annex any proofes because I thinke you dare not deny it Fourthly you lay the command of circumcision was loâ—g before the command of Baptisme but how this followes that therefore Baptisme doth not succeed in the roome of Circumcision I cannot guesse the Lords day succeeds the seventh day in being Gods Sabbath but certainly the institution of it was long after the other And fiftly as for the severall uses mentioned by you they all referre to the manner of administration peculiar to the Jewes I have often granted there were some legall uses of Circumcision it obliging to that manner of administration and so they were part of the Jewish paedagogy which is wholly vanished and therein Circumcision hath no succession but baptisme succeeds it as a Seale of the same Covenant under a better administration as a set and constant initiating Ordidinance onely I wonder that you say Circumcision did initiate into the Church of the Iewes or rather into Abrahams family I pray you explaine this rather into Abrauams family if by Abrahams family you meane the Church of the Jewes why say you rather into Abrahams family if you meane any thing else tell us what it is and how Circumcumcision initiated Proselytes into Abrahams family any otherwise â—hen as it was the Church of the Jewes Lastly you hit upon the right thing intended They he both seales of the same covenant but say you the covenâ—nt was not the same except in part which hath abundantly been confuted before and justified to be one and the same and the difference to lie onely in the manner of administration But say you the Cloud Sea Manna water of the rock c. signified righteousnesse by faith and holinesse of heaâ—t as well as baptisme doth and why then should we not say that Baptism succeeds these as well as it doth Circumcision I answer these were extraordinary signes not standing Sacraments to bee used in all generations much lesse were they set and standing Sacraments of initiation And yet so farre as God hath made the parallel what hurt is there in saying baptism succeeds them sure I am the Apostle Peter compares baptism and the Ark the like figure whereunto Baptisme saves us But whereas you adde And why also should not the Lords Supper succeed Circumcision as well as Baptisme I answer what ever disparity may bee made betweene Circumcision and Baptisme yet herein certainly they agree and you often grant it That both of them are initiall signes and therefore this is most wildly said of you That the Lords Supper may he as well said to succeed Circumcision did ever any thinke the Lords Supper to be an initiall signe And now let the Reader judg of that expression of yours in the close which you so boldly use against all Divines and Churches since the Apostles time who all concurre in the same truth except onely the Anabaptists That to say Baptisme succeeds in the roome and place of Circumcision 〈◊〉 a proposâ—tion 〈…〉 and very dangerous To confirme this of Baptism succeeding Circumcision much may be gathered out of many places in the New Testament which hold out the things wherein they are parallel'd I used onely that clear place Col. 2. 8 to 13. whence I made it evident Not onely that we have the same thing signified by Circumcision while we are buryed with Christ in baptism but also that the Apostle plainly setâ— Baptisme in the same state and makes it of the same use to us as Circumcision was to the Jews Christ onely to them â—nd 〈◊〉 also is the
that circumcised persons were by faith to looke on the covenant of grace through these administrations but by what warrant could their faith look upon the Covenant of grace through circumcision if the command of circumcision were not in reference to the Covenant of grace I professe I cannot understand it nor doe I thinke it possible for you to reconcile this either with the constant doctrine of the Scripture concerning the end and use of Circumcision or with your owne grant that Circumcision was the initiall Seale of the Jewes Covenant with God To cleare it further that Circumcision was not a seale of the land of Canaan or the temporall blessings of it I shewed the Proselytes and their children could not bee circumcised in relation to Canaan c. because they were not capable of any inheritance there yea that it tied them to a greater expence of their temporall blessings by their long frequent and chargeable journies to worship at Ierusalem you answer onely this all this may bee granted yet this overthrowes not this proposition that the Covenant made with Abraham had promises of temporall blessings and that some were to be circumcised who had no part in the covenant of grace but Sir the thing I am here proving is that Circumcision was no Seale of the land of Canaan not that there were no temporall blessings belonging to the Covenant I know the promises of temporall blessings belong to the Covenant of grace as well as the promises of spirituall godlinesse having the promise of this life and of that which is to come nor was I proving that all who were to bee circumcised had part in the spirituall graces of the Covenant my drift being onely to prove that all who were to be circumcised had a visible membership and right to bee reputed as belonging to the Church against which in this place you say just nothing Lastly whereas I added that Ishmael and the rest of Abrahams family Esau and others were really taken into covenant untill afterwards by apostasie they discovenanted themselves you answer that I plainely deliver apâ—stasie from the covenant of grace which in others wou'd bee called Armianisme because taking into the covenant of grace argues election or some act which executes election I reply I have no doubt but that all indifferent Readers well enough understand what I meant by being taken into the Covenant of grace even such a taking in as when the Gentiles were taken in in ramorum defractorum locum instead of the Iewes who were broken off your selfe grant it is one thing to bee under the spirituall grace of the Covenant and another thing to bee under the outward administration in this later sense were Ishmael Esau and the rest taken in they were visible professors had an externall calling and are all visible professors elected and is not externall vocation Gods act though a common one The fifth and last conclusion which I laid downe in my Sermon was this the priviledges of beleevers under this last and best administration of the covenant of grace are many wayes enlarged made more honorable and comfortable then ever they were in the time of the Iewes administration many Scriptures speake of their inlargement not one for the dimininishing or extenuating of them I could hardly have imagined that you could have spent ten or eleven whole pages in excepting against this I shall very briefely examine what you have said first you shew your skill in the description of a priviledge out of the civill Law and I concurre with you that a priviledge must bee somewhat which is a benefit and that the same thing may bee a priviledge at one time which is not at another that that may bee a priviledge in comparison of the heathens which is not in comparison of Christians but what 's all this to the purpose further say you the priviledges of the covenant of grace belonging to the substance of it are not now more enlarged or more honorable or comfortable then they were in the time of the Iewes I answer first though this were granted it hurts not mee it 's sufficient if the administration be now more comfortable to beleevers and their children Secondly if there be no more honorablenesse in those priviledges which belong to the substance of the Covenant how comes it to passe that in your answers to those severall texts which I and others bring to prove the enlargement of priviledges under this last administration you interpret them of those priviledges which belong to the substance of the Covenant or the spirituall part of it Thirdly though I willingly acknowledge that the spirituall priviledges are the same both to the Jewes and Gentiles the same under both administrations yet seeing that under this last administration these priviledges are communicated not onely with more clearenesse but in greater measure and abundance floods in stead of drops wildernesses made like Lebanon and Sharon I wonder you should say they are no more honorable and comfortable now then they were then is not abundance of grace more honorable and comfortable then a little grace But say you in respect of the administration it is granted they are many wayes enlarged and made more honorable this will serve our turne well enough for this was a priviledge belonging to their administration that their Infants were under it as well as themselves yeeld that for ours and the controversie is ended wee say I are freed from that hard and costly yoake of their way of administration true say you it is not onely our priviledge to bee free from that but it is our priviledge also to have nothing in lieu of that yoake To have nothing in lieu of them as they were shadowes of the substance which is Christ is very right but to say it is our priviledge to have nothing in lieu of them as they were externall Ordinances to apply Christ is to say it is our priviledge to have no Ordinances to apply Christ to us and thereby to make us compleat in him which were a most absurd thing to affirme Whereas I added that our priviledges for our selves and our children are at least as honorable large and comfortable as theirs your answer to this is very remarkable but whether with an obeliske or asteriske the Reader shall judge first say you circumcision belongs to the administration of the Covenant not to the substance of it I reply it was indeed a part of their administration and obliged them to the rest of that manner of administration as Baptisme now doth to ours but did it not also belong to the substance was it not a seale of the righteousnesse of faith of circumcision of heart c. doth not the seale belong to the thing sealed the conveyance and seal annexed to it are no part of the purchased inheritance but doe they not belong to it Secondly your next is as remarkable viz. That it 's so farre from being a priviledge to our children to
comfort cannot bee so much as others your selfe doe grant that this which I plead for is a comfortable condition if it could be made out page 82. Whereas I added they need not make any doubt of their childrens welfare if they die in their Infancy c. You answer I speake like one who holds that Baptisme doth conferre grace ex opere operato But why so when I ground it upon the Covenant upon their capacitie both of the Seale and the inward grace and yet leave all to bee done by God who hath mercy upon whom hee will have mercy I said not that they may de fide bee assured of their salvation but that they need not have any doubt the same which may bee said of growne visible professors I added here is also much priviledge and benefit to children when as beside what inward secres worke God is pleased to worke in them they being members of the Church of Christ have their share in the communion of Saints are remembred at the throne of grace every day by those that pray for the welfare of the Church and particularly in those prayers which are made for his blessing upon his ordinances here first you desire to know what I mean by a secret work which God is pleased to worke in them whether any thing ex opere operato or baptismall regeneration I answer I meant onely this that God is at liberty and may when her pleases let his grace accompany his ordinance as for their being members of the visible Church you deny they are so and I have proved them to bee so Lastly I added it is no small priviledge to have that Seale bestowed on them in their Infancy which they may afterward plead when they are growne and came to fulfill the condition you answer when where and how Baptisme should bee pleaded you doe not well conceive it is not Baptisme that will yeeld a plea of any force either in the Court of earth or the Court of heaven but the promise of God and the condition of faith in Christ and you never knew any Saint that pleaded his Infant Baptisme in such cases as the Apostles plea lies for Rom. 8. 31 32. I answer as it is a plea for visible professors all their dayes so it is a plea for Infants when they grow up upon the same condition and though the promise and faith in Christ bee our best plea yet Baptisme the Seale is no meane one and you who say that of old the influence of comfort from baptisme was very great I hope did not intend to limit it to the present time of its receiving but extended it to all cases which may fall within the compasse of those things for which Baptisme was appointed to bee a Seale and as long as it remaines a Seale and why you should speake against the pleading of Infant Baptisme when they come to fulfill the condition and to have the answer of a good conscience toward God in which case the Apostle said Baptisme saves us I cannot tell unlesse you think with the Anabaptists that Infant Baptisme is a nullitie which if you doe I pray you let us know it in your next The last objection was to this purpose If Infants being capable of the spirituall part will intitle them to the outward sigâ—â— why then doe wee not also admit them to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper which is the Seale of the Covenant of grace as well as the Sacrament of Baptisme and the rather because the Infants of the Jewes did eate the Passeover as well as they were circumcised My answer was to this effect Infants in their infant-age are capable of the grace of Baptisme that we are sure of not sure that they are capable of the grace signed and sealed in the Lords Supper wee know they may bee initiated into the Church while they are Babes not that they receive nourishment and augmentation And I further adde there was expresse order that Infants should bee admitted to the initiall signe not that they should bee admitted to the other To this you answer This Argument is good ad homines against them who argue that to whom the Covenant belongs to them the Seale belongs and you say this argument is confirmed by the practise and opinion of the ancients who gave the Lords Supper to Infants for 600. yeers as well as baptisme I reply my Argument runs thus To whom belongs the Covenant to them belongs the initiall Seale of the Covenant not every Seale of the Covenant and though the Lords supper bee a Seale of the Covenant and succeed the Passeover as a Seale of that Covenant yet neither the Passeover nor the Lords Supper were appointed to bee initiall Seales and though Baptisme which is the initiall Seale serves to confirme the rest of the benefits of the Covenant as the baptized grow capable of them or are made partakers of them yet the prime and maine use of it is to bee a Seale of initiation and reception into Covenant As for what you adde of the ancients giving the Lords Supper to Infants for 600. yeeres I have before answered to it that it cannot bee proved to bee so generall a practise as the baptizing of Infants was among them nor was it pleaded by any such Arguments as they pleaded for Infant Baptisme Indeed in the African Churches about Cyprians and Augustines time the Lords Supper was given to Infants but I can finde no such generall practise of it as you would insinuate Howbeit I am glad that upon this occasion you acknowledge that for the first 600. yeers Infants were baptized among the ancients though I know not how this will agree with that which you have so fidently asserted before that it was hardly knowne in the Church for the first 300. yeers Whereas I added that though baptisme and the Lords Supper are both of them Seales of the new Covenant yet it is with some difference the first is for birth and entrance the other is for food and growth you answer this is a paradox to you because if I make the entrance at the remission of sinnes justification c. the Lords Supper which seales Christs death seales the entrance into the Covenant and Baptisme seales as well the pardon of other sinnes as of originall sinne and therefore this difference which I put of the one being a Seale for entrance the other for growth is a difference which the Scripture makes not I reply if this bee a paradox your selfe have very often owned this paradox in calling both Circumcision and Baptisme the Seales of our admission and that by Baptisme wee are exhibited to bee members of Christ and his Church which you yet never said the Sacrament of the Lords Supper was appointed to bee And as for what you now adde that the Lords Supper sealing the death of Christ doth therefore seale our entrance I answer it followes not it seales indeed the whole Covenant in its due place and
are you in love with your own Babe and come out into the field so bravingly and gaint-like to tread down all who stand against your way I have with the Lords assistance undertaken your pompous Treatise and as farre as my impaired health and other services would permit indeavoured to bring your Examen to the tryall with as much brevity and clearenesse as I could possibly and I hope also with so much evidence of truth that there shall be no need of a Colledge to make any further answer unto you Wherein I shall not as you have done carpe at every phrase or expression nor digresse into impertinent Discourses thereby to swell up a volume nor amuse the Reader with multitudes of Quotations of Latine and Greek Authors and then turn them into English nor frame as many senses of an expression as is possible and then confute them and so fight with men of straw of mine own fitting up nor spend a whole sheet of Paper together in confuting what was never intended by my Adversary as the Reader shall clearly perceive you have dealâ— with me but plainly grapple with you and insist onely upon what properly belongs to the cause in hand But first give me leave to observe your destructive Artifice It is the Socinians way to elude all Texts of Scripture which are urged against them if they have been differently expounded by Learned and Godly men ancient or modern to question all conclusions infer'd by consequence from Scripture to deride the testimonies of any of the Ancients by discovering the nakednesse error and oversight of those Reverend men and by making themselves merry by turning the Orations Epistles or allusions of the Fathers into Syllogismes and by inserting of Ergo now and then to make all their Rhetoricall passages seem ridiculous I appeal to the judicious Reader whether this plot be not carried through your Examen Exercitation Especially I observe your maine faculty to lye in framing specious answers to Arguments brought to prove any thing Your great Argument in your Exercitation is if I can answer all Arguments for baptizing Infants then c. And then you form the Argument into severall shapes and seek to clude them and herein I confesse you are dextrous The rest of the Arguments wherein you doe assert or goe directly to prove alasse how inconsequent are they as will appeare when they come to bee examined The like course you take in your Examen laying out abundance of strength in the anoscâ—uasticall part waving and eluding the dint of an argument by distinctions and severall senses and finding some men of note to construe a Text otherwayes and the like So that the Reader may see what you doe not like but he may stay long enough before you bring satisfying arguments to settle him in that which you would have when you have startled him in what you would not have But this kind of disputing never edifies the Church what one book was ever written by any of our Divines even in the great point of Justification or Faith which some learned and subtle Papist hath not been able to cloud and slur in such a way of answering Well however I proceed to your Examen And I begin with your Prologue wherein you declare the occasion and end of this your writing the sum whereof you make to bee this First you sent as you say Nine Arguments drawne up in Latine to a Committee appointed as you were informed to give satisfaction about points of Paedobaptisme afterward Three Arguments more with a supplement of some other things in writing which were delivered to Mr. Tuckney and by him joyned to the other Papers your intent being either to give or receive satisfaction in this great point but to this day much contrary to your expectactation you have had no returne from the Committee Secondly you are more provoked by some passages in a Sermon of Mr. Vines Thirdly and by a comparison in my Sermon between Hazaels cruelty to the Infants of the Israelites and the principles of the Anabaptists Fourthly you finde mee too vehement in maintaining of this point of which you and others see no ground Fifthly yea Mr. Dan. Rogers confesses himselfe unconvinced by demonstration of Scripture for it Sixthly that Mr. Ball cuts the sinewes of the Argument drawn from Circumcision Seventhly that Musculus at length found 1 Cor. 7. 14. impertinent to prove this point Eighthly to conclude upon your best search you are confirmed that it is an Innovation maintained by dangerous principles a thing not to bee acquitted from Will-worship that it hath occasioned many errors in Doctrine corruptions in Discipline and manners unnecessary and vaine disputes and almost quite changed the Ordinance of Baptisme c. This is the sum of your Introduction to which because it is but a pompous dumb shew I shall returne a very briefe answer First for your Latine businesse sent to the Committee I thought you had not been ignorant that the worke of Committees is but to prepare matter for the Assembly but neither Committees nor Assembly have power to answer any thing sent from any except from the honorable Houses without leave from the Parliament And if you please now to take notice of it you will no longer wonder why the Committee hath made no return to your private Paper this I thinke is sufficient to remove your first stumbling block onely I am further to tell you from Mr. Tuckney that hee desires you to get better evidence for what you relate concerning him for the truth is he neither mediately nor immediately received any Papers from you nor joyned your 3 last Arguments to your 9 first Secondly your offence at a passage in Mr. Vines his Sermon shall bee considered in the place where you againe repeate it and aggravate it to the utmost Part 2. Sect. 6. Thirdly as to your exaggerating my allusion to Hazaels practice I answer I compared not their intentions with his but the fruit of their principles casting all beleevers Children as much out of the Covenant of Grace as they do the Children of Turks and Pagans and therein you your self joyn with them Now whether such a comparison might not be used without any further Apologie I leave the unprejudiced Reader to judge Fourthly whether my proofs for this Doctrine are weak uncertaine far-fetch't shall God willing appeare to them who wil impartially read and compare your book and mine together Fifthly as for what you suggest from my Reverend and Learned Friend Mr. Dan. Rogers although enough might be taken out of his words in that book to declare his own meaning I rather chuse to set it downe in the very words which he wrote to me in a Letter bearing date the 29 of January last past in way of answer to a Letter which I wrote to him wherein I requested of him to know what in his name I should answer to this passage of your book his words are these If I were to
overlashing herein is not so much as you would have the world believe though my testimonies had pleaded for no higher time then 150 after Christ Neither have I overlashed so farre in this as God willing hereafter shall appeare as you have done more then once I said the Church was so long in possession of it and if you bee pleased to subtract 150 from 1645. I hope the remaining number will shew the mistake was not great as appeares in the margent If the Church was not all the while in possession of it it had been your part to have informed your Reader of the time wherein the Churches quiet possession was disturbed and by whom It is true I named Baltazzar Pacommitanus with his associates who to their own ruine started up to disturbe this possession but the claim of an unjust intruder to justle out the true owner will not carry the Title in any Court where equity takes place In pleading the Churches possession of this truth for so long time I said not so much as others have affirmed before me Learned Augustine though his judgement bee slighted by you affirmed as much in his time and yet I read not of any then that excepted against him for it The Church saith he ever had it ever held it they received this from the faith of their Ancestors and this will it with perseverance keep unto the end If he might say that the Church before his time ever had maintained it and if after his time it was more clearely hâ—ld out then I hope I did not overlash in saying the Church had bin 1500 years possessed of it And it were an easie task to produce abundance of testimonies giving evidence not onely for their own age but that it was the received custome in all ages even from the Apostles time that this evidence was true we may hence know saith Learned Vossius because the Pelagians never durst deny it when the Orthodox Divines used to presse it who certainly wanted neither Learning nor will to have gainsayed them if they could have found them abusing Antiquity nay they not onely not denyed this but concurred in it so saith Augustine lib. 2. contra Caelist Pelag. Caelistus saith he in a book which hee set forth at Rome grants That Infants were baptized for the remission os sins according to the rule of the universall Church and according to the sentence of the Gospell In the next place you tell me I know that booke from whence this testimony was taken was questioned whether it was Justine Martyrs or no. Truly I was not ignorant thereof therefore I said in a Treatise that goes under his name I did not confidently averre that he was the Author of it yet you plainly call it a bastard Treatise and never prove it but whosesoever it was it is well known to be ancient and both Protestants and Papists asserting Paedobaptisme cite it Thirdly I take notice that you answer nothing against the truth of the testimony it selfe onely you say that by it I may see that the reason of baptizing Infants was not the Covenant of grace made to beleevers and their seed which you make the ground of baptizing Infants at this day You cannot be ignorant that this testimony was not alledged by me to prove the ground why it was administred I onely made use of it to beare witnesse to the matter of fact that Infants were baptized in that age in which that booke was written which is plainely held out in the answer to the question you may also remember what I said of all the testimonies quoted by me that I did not relate them to prove the truth of the thing but onely the practice of it and so much it doth notwithstanding the answer which yet you have brought unto it what ground the Covenant of Grace made to beleevers and their seed gives to Baptisme shall bee manifested hereafter and whether the Ancients used not at least some of the Arguments which we doe Come we now to consider what you answer to Irenaeus his testimony here you speake 1. Of his Countrey 2. Of the age he lived in 3. You question his translation 4. And in the last place you speake a little against the testimony it self Before you fall upon the examination of the testimony you say Hee was a Greeke and wrote in Greeke but wee have his Works in Latine except some fragments this you conceive to be a reason why we cannot be so certain of his meaning as we should be if wee had his owne words in the language in which he wrote and may not this Objection lie against any Translation whatsoever and upon that ground you may slight it I cannot guesse why you adde this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that hee was a Greeke c. unlesse it were to intimate to your Reader that I could not discern whether he were to be numbred in the Catalogue of Greek or Latine Fathers yet you know that I mentioned him in the first rank of those Renowned Lights of the Church which wrote in the Greek tongue to which afterwards I added two other and when I came to speake of any of the Latine Fathers Cyprian was the first in whom this question did occurre But whether his words in the testimony alledged bee truly translated into Latine shall by and by be considered As for his age you acknowledge with me that hee lived in the same Century with Just Martyr the yeare in which he flourished is variously related by the Authors named by your selfe one sayes 180 the other 183 I may adde iâ— third who varies from them both and sayes 175 and may not others point at other times also For ought I know you needlesly trouble your selfe and your Reader in naming particular yearâ— in which these famous Lights of the Church lived which I thinke can hardly with exactnesse be done it is safe to say about such a time or in such a Century such and such lived which cannot bee prejudiciall to the Reader when wee know a Century includes many years neither can any man warrantably restrain it to any one year alone wherein such a man flourished as if he had flourished one year and no more But I proceed to what you say of the testimony it selfe it is extant Iren. 2. 39. Christus venit salvare 〈◊〉 c. Your exceptions against it are many First you question whether reâ—asuatur there signifies baptisme or no as Feuardemiur his glosse takeâ— it Secondly You say that neither Christ nor his Apostles call Baptisme a new birth Thirdly possibly this was not the word used by Irenaeus in his own Writing Fourthly that the Latine alters Irenaeus his minde as learned Rivet sayes Lastly that Irenaeus meant not Baptisme in this place you goe about to prove by his scope therein These are your exceptions which now wee come to examine To begin with the first of them when Irenaeus saith Christus
you thinke great darkenesse was upon their spirits would not have relyed on that which hath no weight in it they were well able to ponder the weight of words before they would relye upon them or applaud them And what saith Augustine of that Epistle That Cyprian was not devising any new decree but followed the most sure faith of the Church doth he not therein testifie that Cyprian maintaining that Infants might bee baptized before the eighth day did devise no new decree but observed faithfully what the Church did before him whereby it seems though Augustine approved Cyprians judgement yet he relyed not upon his reasons to make good Infant-baptisme this to him is no new doctrine he had another eye upon the constant and sure faith of the Church which in that point hee followed faithfully You tell me I said Fidus denyed not Infants Baptisme but thought they ought not to be baptized before the eighth day to this you give no answer and may I not thereby thinke that it appeareth evidently to your selfe as well as to mee that Paedo-baptisme in that age was in use for this you deny not and indeed that this was the question wherein Fidus craved resolution of Cyprian sâ—il whether Infants were to be baptized before the eighth day it appears by the words of the Epistle Quantum ad causam pertines quos dixisti intra sâ—cundum vel tertium diem qu◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 constitutâ—s baptizari non opertere considerandam esse legem circumcisioniâ— antiquae ut intra oct avâ—m diem eum qui natus est baptizandum sanctifieandum non putares c. Fidus question therefore was as I said before this appeares also by August his testimony who ad Bonisacium lib. 4. contr â— Ep. Pelag. c. 18. sayes the same So farre then we agree but you say I might have gone further and observed Fidus his reasons one whereof was drawn from Circumcision which was done upon the eighth day after the birth of the childe The other is drawn from the childes uncleannesse in the first dayes of its birth which makes men abhorre to kisse it c. both which are related by Cyprian not as his owne judgement but as reasons of Fidus his scruples whereof hee sought resolution from him to both which he gives the judgment of the Councell assuring him that none of them agreed with him herein If Fidus did Judaize in both these or either of them what 's that to mee who say he denyed not Baptisme to bee administred to Infants if the ground hee went upon to tye it to the eighth day was unsound I seek not to justifie him in it Yet let me tel you that Fidus was not the onely man that reasoned from Circumcision to Baptisme though they doe not tye Baptisme to the eighth day as Fidus did Besides the testimonies brought out of Athanasius before take notice that hee calls Circumcision a type of Baptisme Greg. Nazianz. proves that Children are now to be baptized as under the law they were circumcised August also saith the same lib. 1. contra Grescon Grammaticum c. 30. de Bapt. contr Donatist lib. 4. c. 23. Where he sayes Baptisme is as profitable to children now as Circumcision was to children of old Chrysost also Hom. 40. in Genes calls our Circumcision Baptisme But none of all these holy men tyed Baptisme to a certain day as Circumcision was as Chrysostome speaketh in the same place How far these worthy men Judaized in that age in saying Baptism now comes in stead of Circumcision is not now to be considered by us therefore I leave it In the next place you say The resolution of this Councell is not to bee slighted because upon your search you finde it the spring-head of Infant-Baptisme It seemes when you cast your lead into the sea of Antiquity to finde out the depth of this ordinance your line was too short and your plummet too light that it could not reach beyond this Epistle are there not divers instances among the Ancients which make it manifest that before that time Infant-baptisme was in use as hath been manifested to you already therefore that was not the first time in which it sprung up in the world You say further I am mistaken about the proofes of their opinion which you call not reasons or proofes but answers to objections I will not wrangle with you about words call them what you please Arguments or Answers this is enough to me what I have produced is recorded in the Epistle and all of them doe justifie the lawfulnesse of baptizing Infants which was the thing which I went about to cleare neither doth any of them enforce Baptisme to be tyed up to the eighth day as Fidus thought From the words of that Epistle you alledge 3 things 1. They thought baptizing giving Gods grace denying it denying Gods grace 2. They thought the soules to bee lost which were not baptized 3. That all Infants not beleevers onely were to bee baptized The 2 first I grant are rightly collected from the words of the Epistle you might if you pleased have collected divers other things as that Baptisme comes in stead of Circumcision c. But suppose all their grounds which they plead be not to be justified yet they doe not darken the light which the place gives to our question If a man were to make good any assertion of a necessary truth and use severall arguments to make it out if one of these arguments be not good or be weake that may bee rejected and yet the truth stand firme seeing the other arguments are good and strong to evidence the truth It is true when the Ancients said that Children were to be baptized sometimes they stood peremptorily for the necessity of Baptisme as if without it no salvation were to be excepted yet they made it out by other Arguments then that why should then the truth justified and cleared up by them be rejected for this When they were to prove that men of yeares instructed in the truth should receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper they made that good by several Reasons as sometimes from the necessity of the command which Jesus Christ laid upon all the Disciples of the Gospel that they might remember his death till his coming again At other times they urged it lest men should brand themselves with unthankfulnesse in not comming to the feast when they are invited Sometimes again they prest the same duty upon the people to come to that ordinance that they might have the inward Grace signified and exhibted in the Sacrament to bee sealed up and confirmed to them These three wayes did they use to presse their Hearers to the frequent receiving of the Sacrament yet at some other times also they pleaded the necessity of that Sacrament as if no man without the use thereof could be saved No man can deny the first three Arguments to be good though the last is not and notwithstanding
have their Governours shew them the way but I forbeare In your second Section you except against Augustine his judgement because he held that Infants without baptisme must bee damned by reason of originall sinne which is not taken away but by baptisme I grant that Augustine and some others of the Ancients pressed baptizing of Infants upon that ground but not onely upon that ground and they did most presse that ground when they had to doe with Heretiques denying originall sinne to be conveighed from parents to their children yet they maintained Paedo-Baptisme upon other sound grounds as formerly I have proved therefore this exception is of no vilidity nor was this Augustines constant Doctrine yea it was a Doctrine which hee retracted as an errour as shall afterwards appeare Againe you say that you cannot finde among the Ancients the ground that I goe upon that the Covenant of grace belongs to beleevers and their seede What if you have not found it will you therefore say it is not to be found in their writings Bernardus non vidit omnia why may not some things in the vast monuments of Antiquity passe unseene by you though you have seene much and thinke that you have seene more truth then all the Ancients did and can censure what they say at your pleasure But if you did find this in the writings of the Antients it would make nothing for or against me who have not placed Infant-baptisme upon that ground because they placed it so I have asserted that ground from the Scripture as afterwards God willing shall bee made good But that they also even many of the ancients pressed Baptisme upon the sound grounds which wee doe I have made it appeare out of severall writings As for the judgement of Bellarmine Aquinas and others quoted by you I will not trouble my selfe in answering for them they were not alledged by me neither will I stand to their judgement In your third Section you bid mee consider of Augustine his judgement holding it necessary for Infants to receive the Lords Supper that opinion is nothing to our question in debate before us therefore you can expect no answer from mee to it for I never pleaded it But what is your Argument from hence Augustine held it fit to give Infants the Lords Supper Ergo What draw a conclusion to hurt me if you can our question being whether Infants were baptized in his dayes Fourthly you tell me that Augustine held a certainety of Regeneration by Baptisme and he makes no question of the Regeneration of Infants c. I confesse that sometimes hee sayes so yet at other times as I told you before hee sayes there are some qui rem baptismi absque Sacramento baptismi consequentur So also did Ambrose comforting Valentinian his sisters upon his death for hee died whilst Ambrose was on his journey comming to Baptize him where he said of him Quem in Evangelio geniturus eram amisi sed ille non amisit gratiam quam poposcit vita jam fruitur aeterna qui habuit speculum tuum Sancte pâ—ter quomodo non accepit gratiam tuam hee speakes confidently of his eternall estate though unbaptized yet Ambrose as well as Augustine at other times attributed too much to outward Baptisme Fiftly you scorne his judgement in defending questions put to Infants at their Baptisme and answerd by others That 's enough to me to prove that Infants were then baptized though I will not take upon me to justifie that custome of putting forth questions to them who by reason of their age were not able to returne an answer possibly I could tell you how and that many other customes crept into the Church but because it is not to our purpose I forbeare Lastly you say it is apparent out of that Epistle of Augustine That Infants whether borne of Beleevers or of such as had not received the Christian faith were baptized neither doe â—â— in that justifie him you may take notice that here againe you confesse the question that Infants were baptized But because you make such a great matter of it that it must needs follow that they rejected covenant-holinesse or the birth-priviledge of beleevers Infants because they baptized other Infants if brought unto them I reply that you cannot bee ignorant that many learned men deny this consequence because they conceive that not onely such as are borne of Christian parents might bee baptized but that other Infants also if any Christian would undertake to traine them up in Christs Schoole might bee admitted into it by Baptisme you know many of the reformed Divines thinke this lawfull who yet plead covenant-holinesse as further warrant why beleevers children not onely may but ought to be Baptized and Tertullian pleads both these grounds in the place I quoted at large both prerogative of birth and benefit of education Furthermore many of the Rabbines say that the children of Gentiles might bee circumcised if a Jew would bring him up in Religion yet they all hold a birth-priviledge of Jewes children for Circumcision I alledge all this to shew that you should not thus vilifie and scorne their practise and grounds without a more cleare refutation of them then yet you have made whether that which hath beene spoken out of Cyprians Epistle and Augustines approbation of it doe not advantage my cause whether they have not proved as much as I alledged them for I leave to the judicious and impartiall Reader To all the forenamed Authors I added Hierome and Ambrose his testimonies to prove the same here you confesse that they were of the same judgement with Augustine in our question therefore you conceive your answer to Augustine his testimony to be a sufficient answer to them also in like manner I referre you to my reply to your former answer Your last Section of this Chapter is a Recollection of what you have already alleadged both for the invalidating of the testimonies brought by me to prove the practise of Infant-baptisme as also of what you have brought to induce an opinion that there was no such thing practised in the first and best Antiquity You must give me leave to recollect what I have already answered to these exceptions and allegations as for your Vives and Strabo I shall give you my thoughts of them anon You confesse I brought these testimonies onely to prove the practise of Infant-Baptisme and that you cannot deny they prove onely you adde they rather prove the thing an errour then a truth because practised upon such erroneous grounds As the necessitie of Baptisme to salvation The certaintie of the Remission of originall sinne The denying of Baptisme unto none But are these the onely proofes by which the Ancients did assert the baptizing of Infants I have proved that notwithstanding some of them owned that corrupt ground and pleaded it especially in the heate of disputation yet they baptized them upon the same grounds which we doe Doe not Tertullian Cyprian c.
further Reformation is to begin with this your darling the casting out this point of Infant-Baptisme a point which you conceive to bee a mother corruption which carries in her wombe most of those abuses in discipline and manners and some of the errors in doctrine which defile the reformed Churches without which all after Cathechizing Censures separaton Church-Covenant c. are altogether insufficient to supply the want of it Secondly that Baptisme therefore hath not that influence into the comfort and obligations of Consciences as it had of old And thirdly that the Assemblies not beginning with this point is one great cause why Gods blessing doth no more accompany them whilst they waste much time about things inconsiderable in comparison of this and either hastily passe over or exclude from examination this which deserves most to bee examined Ah Sir How deare and lovely are our owne children in our eyes did ever any before you conceive so many and great evills to follow upon the baptizing the children of beleevers that such Monsters should be bred in the wombe of it or conceive that the removing of this would bee the healing of all I verily thinke should another have spoke such things of farre greater points you would have called them dictates Chimaraes bold assertions and what not Whether your Examen of my Sermon and your twelve Arguments in your exercitation will prove it to bee a corruption of Christs institution whether the reasons for Paedo-Baptisme be far fetched whether there be a cleare institution of Christ against it as here you affirme wee shall have leisure God willing to examine in their due place but for the present suppose mee to grant your postulâ—tum that it is an applying of an institution to a wrong subject yet I would faine learne of you how all these odious consequences will bee made good how these abuses in doctrine discipline and manners which you mention would be taken away if Paedo-Baptisme were removed nay would not the selfe same things still bee found as grounds or occasions of the same differences while some professe they would baptize any whether Turkes or Heathens who onely would make a profession of their faith in Jesus Christ and then admit them to all other Ordinances and not have them Excommunicated è sacris but onely a private consortio though their lives should prove scandalous and I am misinformed by good friends who know and love you very well if your selfe incline not this way others would take the same course before Baptisme which now they doe before admitting men to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and would proceed to excommunication à Sacris as well as privately withdraw from such as prove scandalous and obstinate yea and take themselves bound to separate from mixt communions with them as much as they doe now notwithstanding their admission by Baptisme in your way And in this various manner of admitting men to Baptisme and dealing with men in other censures every Church or Eldership proceeding according to the largenesse or strictnesse of their owne principles I can see nothing but that the same abuses in discipline and manners which are now found among Christian people the same controversies about such as should be admitted to the Lords Supper the same divisions and separations would be sound in the Church which now alas take too much place amongst us This I say supposing your Postulatum were a truth But on the contrary supposing it not to be a truth what a Deformation instead of a Reformation should wee bring in in casting the children of Beleevers out of the visible Church reputing them no better then Turkes and Indians and especially doing it upon such grounds as are pleaded by you and others which even alter the state of the Covenant of grace As for your second I know not what influence of comfort or obligation upon conscience Baptisme had of old which is not now to bee found among them who are truely baptized who injoy not onely the putting away the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ And lastly for what you speake of the Assembly I impute it to your prejudice and extreame doting upon your owne opinion that you thinke this Point most worthy of their examination and to your misinformation to speake no worse that they waste much time about things inconsiderable in comparison or that they exclude this from Examination or seeke to stop it from any Tryall or that they hastily passe it over This is a very bold charge which you give upon the Assembly in the face of the world What evidence have you for this unlesse your Compassionate Samaritan bee Authentick with you The Apostle commands Timothy not to receive an accusation against an Elder unlesse it bee under two or three witnesses But for one man to cast thus much filth in the face of an Assembly of Ministers is very high and savours little of that modesty or meeknesse to which you did sometimes pretend How farre the blessing of God who hath not hitherto altogether left us notwithstanding our unworthines doth and will accompany the endeavours of the Assembly it is fit to leave to himselfe who gives increase to Pauls planting and Apollo's watering according to his good pleasure But as for their shutting out the due examination of this Point you are wholly mistaken though they have returned no answer to your paper It is true as I told you in the beginning that wee are shut up by Ordinance of Parliament from answering any private mens Papers or Bookes without leave from the Houses but I dare speake it in the name of the whole Assembly that they would bee glad you were admitted to dispute all your grounds among them In your next Paragraph which containes a comparison betweeve the evidences held out in the New Testament for the Religious observation of the Lords day and this of Infant-Baptisme you first make your selfe merry with my expressions that all who reject the baptizing of Infants because there is not an expresse Institution or Command in the New-Testament doe and must upon the same grounds reject the observation of the Lords-day But I am no whit ashamed of those words They doe and they must upon the same Principles if they be true to their Principles reject the one as well as the other And though I want the skill which some others have to plead for the Lord-day yet I suppose you shall find I have skill enough to make this good That there is no more expresse Institution or Command in the New-Testament for the Lords day then there is for Infant-Baptisme And whereas you alledge that some of the reformed Churches reject the Lords day and yet entertaine Infant-Baptisme and thence inferre that these two must not necessari'y stand and fall bee received and rejected together I answer Those Churches which doe so conceive that there is an institution for the
Baptizing of Infants but none for the observation of the â—ords day although herein I humbly conceive they are mistaken I doubt not but it doth and will appeare to impartiall and unprejudiced Readers that there is sufficient evidence of an Institution for both of them though not in such expresse Texts of Scripture in the New-Testament as the Anabaptists require and I shall now examine whether you bring any better evidence for the one then is to be found for the other First you say they meane it of positive worship consisting in outward rites and not of worship which is naturall or morall Answ But this but a blind morall and naturall are not to be confounded whatever worship is naturall may bee indeed acknowledged to be morall but not whatever is morall is to be esteemed naturall I know you cannot bee ignorant of the received distinction of Morale Naturale and Morale positivum and I beseech you though a Sabbath be grantâ—d to be Naturall yea if I should adde that one day in the revolution of seaven should bee so yet that this or that seventh day in the revolution of a weeke should bee observed all grant this depends upon an Institution and hath no more moralitie in it then what can bee made out from an Institution and consequently that the first day of the weeke should be the Christian Sabbath or that this one day of seven which God hath separated to himself and had once expresly fixed upon the seventh or last day of the week should be translated from the last day to the first day of the weeke must depend wholly upon an Institution and consequently they who reject that which depends upon positive Institution unlesse its Institution can bee expresly found in the New-Testament are as much at a losse for the Lords day as for the baptizing of Infants Nay give me leave to adde that in this point in question the advantage lies more on this hand I meane for Infant-Baptisme because there is more necessitie of clearing the Institution for the Lords day then for baptizing of Infants because in the one the ordinance it selfe and its institution is questioned but in this of Infant-Baptisme the question is not of the Institution of the Ordinance it selfe but onely of the subject to whom the Ordinance is to be applyed If the question bee betwixt Baptisme and the Lords day all grant that we have clearer Institution for the Sacrament of Baptisme then for the Lords day Baptisme is clearly instituted in the New-Testament to bee the Sacrament of our admission into the Covenant of grace and to succeed in the roome of Circumcision as your selfe grant Now the onely question is whether taking this for granted that baptism succeeds in the roome of Circumcicision and to bee applyed unto all persons by the will of God who are in Covenant with him whether the same persons may partake of this Sacrament as might partake of the other unlesse those persons bee expresly set downe in the New-Tement I hope in the judgement of all indifferent men a question about the persons to whom an ordinance is to bee applyed is a question of a farre inferiour nature to that question whether such a thing pretended to be an Ordinance have any Institution at all or not It 's one thing to invent a new Ordinance of worship another and that of inferiour rank to mistake in some of the persons to whom an Ordinance is to be applyed In some of the ancient times the Lords Supper was given to Infants and carried to sick persons when absent to testifie their communion with the Church I take them both for errours but yet not for errors of the like nature with inventing a new Sacrament I say againe there is a great difference betweene bringing in a new Ordinance and applying it to these or these persons especially when the question is not of the persons in generall who are the subject matter as whether men or Angels men or beasts but whether men of such an age or of such a Sex Sir to my best understanding these two questions are not parallell a just parallell question to this of Infant-Baptisme would be such a one as was once disputed betwixt Mr. Bifield and Mr. Brerewood viz. Taking it for granted that by a cleare Institution the Lords day succeeds in the roome of the old Sabbath whether yet the same persons are tied to keepe the Lords day who of old were tied to keepe the Sabbath unlesse those parties were mentioned in the New-Testament as whether servants as well as their masters the same holds here All this I speake not as any whit doubting that there is as cleare evidence for Baptizing of Infants as there is for the religious observation of the Christian Sabbath notwithstanding the latter seemes to require fuller evidence then this doth Your second explication gives you as little advantage you say that Apostolicall example which hath not a meâ—re temporary reason is enough to prove an Institution from God to which that practise doth relate especially when such examples come to bee backed with the constant practise of all Churches in all ages And then you bring in Pauls preaching at Troaâ— the collections upon the first day of the weeks in the first of the Corinthians and the sixteenth the mentioning of the Lords day Revel 1. Sir I except against none of all this to bee a part of that good evidence which wee have for the religious observation of the Lords day but I dare confidently speake it that out of these you can never evince more laying all things together to prove the Institution of the Lords day then I have done for the lawfulnesse of baptizing of Infants and I appeale to all learned Readers whether the many bookes written of late against the Institution of the Lords day give not as specious and plausible answers to these places alledged by you concerning the Christian Sabbath as yours are against Infant-baptisme although they have received sufficient cleare and solid answers yea and tread under their feet all arguments taken from these examples with as much confidence and scorne as your selfe doe that which I and others have named for Paedo-Baptisme And as for the supplement which you bring out of the constant practise of the Churches for the religious observation of the Lords day in stead of the old Sabbath I earnestly desire you in your next to produce as many of the ancients to beare witnesse to that truth as I have done in this point for Paedo-Baptisme and I promise you you shall receive my hearty thanks among the rest of your Readers in the meane time the Reader shall judge whether I have not brought a moity of that for the Baptizing of Infants which you have done for the Lords day Further whether you have not abused your reader in so confident averring that there are no footsteps in Antiquity for Paedo-Baptisme till the erroneous conceit of giving Gods grace by it the
that such Infants may bee elected though they are not regenerated for if there be any thing lesse then regeneration promised sure there can be no comfortable likelihood of the election of a child gathered from a promise of any thing which leaves a child in an unregenerate estate But I much admire that speech of yours where you feare you should incur blasphemy by challenging a promise which God doth not keepe because many of the children of beleevers prove wicked I beseech you tell me was it not so among Abrahams posteritie and yet you grant Abraham had a peculiar promise which wee have not might not they without blasphemy plead that promise notwithstanding that promise I will he the God of thee and thy seed was not made good to every one of them for it is most cleare by the Apostles discourse in the ninth and eleventh Chapters to the Romans that God was not the God of thousands of Abrahams seed either in respect of saving grace or outward priviledges for he cast off the Jewes from being his people and suffered them not to enjoy so much as outward priviledges but made choice of the Gentiles in their stead and yet I hope you will not say that God broke his Covenant with those that had the seale of the Covenant in their flesh and yet were rejected not onely from saving grace but from outward priviledges Next let us see how you avoid being goared by the three hornes of my Syllogisme I said all being left in the same condition 1. All must be saved Or 2. all must bee damned Or 3. God saves some of the Infants of the Turkes and some of the Infants of beleevers pro beneplacito After some discourse of the two first of these you deny the consequence It follows not say you God may save some and those some may bee the Infants of beleevers and none of the Infants of Turks and Indians It 's true a man that will may venture to say so and if another will he may venture to say That those some are the Infants of Pagans and not of Christians and hee that should say so hath as good warrant for this as you have for the other according to your principle But what 's this to the question before us I said This opinion leaves them all in the like condition One having no more reference to a promise then another Now if you will avoid being goared by any of these three hornes you should have shewed that according to your opinion there is some promise for some of the Infants of beleevers though there be none for the Infants of Pagans But in stead of shewing how your doctrine and opinion leaves them you tell me what God may possibly doe in his secret Counsell which is altogether unknowne to us But I perceive your selfe suspected this answer would not endure the tryall and therefore you quarrell at that expression of mine That if any of the Infants of such as live and die Pagans be saved by Christ then salvation by Christ is earryed out of the Church whereof God hath made no promise Against this you except 1. That salvation is not carryed out of the invisible Church though some Infants of Pagans should bee saved by Christ I answer it 's true and I adde That if any man shall say the Devils should be saved by Christ even that Opinion would not carry salvation out of the invisible Church But Sir we are enquiring after the salvation of them to whom a promise of salvation is made Now when you can prove that God hath made a promise that he will gather a number or hath a number whose names are written in the Lambs book although their Parents never knew Jesus Christ nor themselves ever live to bee instructed you may then perswade your Reader to beleeve that even some of the Infants of Pagans dying in their Infancy belong to the invisible Church and till then you must give him leave to beleeve that this answer is brought in as a shift onely to serve your present need Secondly you answer That men may bee saved out of the communion of the visible Church and you instance Abraham called out of Chaldea Job in the Land of Vz Rahab in Jericho and you say Hee that called these may save some amongst Turkes and Indians out of the visible Church I answer I hope in your next you will a little better explaine your meaning The Reader will certainly take this to bee your meaning that as Abraham Job and Rahab were saved out of the communion of thâ— visible Church in their dayes so some among the Turkes and Indians may bee saved out of the communion of the visible Church in our dayes But surely this is not your meaning you doe not beleeve that Abraham Job and Rahab were out of the communion of the visible Church though possibly the manner of their calling might bee extraordinary as afterwards St. Pauls was Nor doe you beleeve that the Eunuch when he was returned into Ethiopia was out of the Communion of the visible Church though his habitation at least for aâ— while was not among Christians but Infidels I am perswaded that you thinke all visible beleevers to bee within the Communion of the visible Church though possibly they may be hindered from being actuall Members of any particular Church I will not so much as imagine that you mentioned these three examples as a Blinde to deceive your uncautelous Reader and therefore I only desire you in your next to let us know your meaning plainely and discover to us this mystery how men may bee called to fellowship with Jesus Christ and yet have no communion with the visible Church of Christ The rest of this Section wherein you enquire what those promises are which are are made to the seed of beleevers I shall God willing give you an account of them in the next part of the Sermon whither now you call me onely I cannot but take notice of your confident brag in the close of this Section how manfully you have entred my out-workes and thereby incourage your selfe to scale my walls You indeed entred and set up your flag but I hope it appeares to the indifferent Reader that you are in no great probabilitie of getting any great spoile unlesse my walls prove weaker then the outworke which as yet are farre from being taken by you PART III. NOw wee come to that wherein I rightly placed the strength of my cause the evidence which the Scripture gives for Infant-Baptisme which before I proceed in the examination of I briefly propound to the Readers consideration that you have this advantage to make your worke have a specious probabilitie in that the question is concerning Infants concerning whom there is much silence in the Scripture and should any man argue against the justification of Infants by the Theologicall doctrine that is to bee found cleare in the Scripture how specious a plea might he make especially if his
existence of the duty but the Covenant of grace is the motive to it 4. Whereas you alledge concerning Melchisedeck Lot Job we find no such thing that they either received this seale of circumcision or were tyed to it I reply it 's very hard for you to prove that Melchisedeck was then alive and had he been alive he was of an higher Order and above that Paedagogie Or in what age of the world Job lived though hee bee thought to be of the posterity of Esau and so might have a right to it even in your sense as descending lineally from Abraham however this is a meere negative Argument in matter of fact which your self know to bee of no validity Negative arguments from Scripture are good in matters of faith I am not bound to beleeve this or that unlesse it be found in the Scriptures but they are not good in matter of fact this or that fact is not recorded in the Scripture therefore I am bound to beleeve it was not done is no good consequence A non scripto ad non factum non valet consequentia No Scripture saith they were circumcised though very good Authors thinke that Lot and Iob were circumcised nor doth any Scripture say they were not circumcised As to that you say of Infants under eight dayes old and of all the females in Abrahams family I answer to that of Infants there was a peculiar exemption of them by God himself whether for any typicall reason or in regard they were not fit in nature to undergoe so sharp a paine as was to bee indured in Circumcision before the seventh and criticall day was past or whether for any other cause I dispute not it is sufficient God forbad them to have the seale till they were eight dayes old For the women they were not subjectum capax circumcisionis there was in them a naturall impediment against it therfore could not be injoyned them and suppose some men among them or some who turned proselytes to them had not had a praeputium as some sort of Eunuchs this Ordinance had not reached them whether the wisdome of God purposely chose a signe that Women might not be capable of receiving it for some typicall use as some conjecture I cannot tell it is sufficient that they were not capable of it were exempted from it by God himselfe so that if you please to state the generall Proposition as you needs must That all who since Abrahams time are foederati or covenanters with God must by Gods own appointment receive the seale of admission into covenant unlesse they be either uncapable of it or are exempted by a particular dispensation This proposition will indure all the shock of your arguments and remain unmovable Next you reply to my answer concerning Women among the Jews I said they were circumcised in the males this you cast away with scorne affirming it to be an easie answer because it 's easie to bee answered Indeed Sir you answer it as easily as he who undertooke to answer Bellarmine in one word and said Bellarmine thou lyest so you it is an insufficient answer to take away the exception against the proposition and that you might have a little matter to worke upon you goe to another part of my Sermon and thence you fetch the word virtually with which you make your selfe merry putting my proposition into severall shapes and formes and in one form you say it concludes not the thing in question in another it hath 4 termes in another the major is false Wheras my plaine meaning was and is that the women being uncapable of it in their own person because of their sex wherein was a naturall impediment as to this Sacrament God imposed it onely upon the Males and yet the women were not esteemed as uncircumcised being as Divines use to expresse in this point viris annexae in iis censerentur qui familiarum capita debebant esse and whether this will not be justified we shall presently inquire But first give me leave to observe by the way how you pinch me with a point of law That no man can be said virtually to have that by his Proxie or Atturney which he might not actually receive himself in his own person I question whether this be good law but I am confident it is bad Divinity sure we sin'd virtually in Adam yet we could not actually though that sin of Adam be ours by imputation The sun is virtually hot yet Philosophers say it 's not actually And the Jews of old offered to God such things by the hands of the Priests who were their Proxies in that work which they might not offer in their own persons yea and received such things by the hand of the high Priest who bare their names in the most holy place which they might not receive in their owne persons immediately and the Saints now in this world do virtually and quoad effectum juris receive some such priviledges in Christ their Advocate who in their right is at Gods right hand which here they are not capable of receiving immediately in their own persons I also obiter desire you to remember this expression of yours That it had beene a sinne for a child to have been circumcised after the eighth day was past And try how you will reconcile this with an opinion of yours delivered elsewhere viz. That circumcision might bee administred oftner then once surely those other times must be after the first eighth day The other fault you note in my argument is That I conclude of a signe of the Covenant indefinitely and not of Baptisme onely whereas the Lords Supper is also a signe of the Covenant which yet you thinke I will say is not to bee delivered to them because not appointed for them I answer I clearely in my Sermon shewed this Proposition onely to be meant of the initiall sign and not of the other and I am confident your self who durst baptize an Infant known to you to be regenerate durst not yet give the other Sacrament to it because more is required to make one capable of that Sacrament then is required to make them capable of Baptisme a regenerate Infant you thinke is capable of this but besides regeneration I am sure you will grant That an examination of a mans selfe and an ability to discernâ— the Lords body is required to make one capable of that Now let us see how you avoid my proofes That the Women were circumcised in the men My first was That the whole house of Israel are in the Scripture said to be circumcised You answer That by the whole house of Israel must not be meant all but the major part or the most confiderable part But Sir doe you imagine that any of your judicious Readers can be satisfied with this answer when you know well enough that the Circumcision is put for the Church and people of God in opposition to the uncircumcised that is
right a visible prâ—fessor hath to bee received and reputed to belong to the visible Church quâ— visible professoâ— that right hath his child so to bee esteemed now all know the spirituall part and priviledges of the Covenant of grace belongs not to visible professors as visible but onely to such among them who are inwardly such as their externall profession holds out but yet there are outward Church-priviledges which belong to them as they are visible professors as to be reputed the sonnes of God Gen. 6. 1. the sonnes of God saw the daughters of men Deut. 14. 1. ye are the children of the Lord your God and Paul writing to a visible Church Gal. 3. 26. saith yea are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus yet I suppose you doe not thinke that all the Galatians were inwardly so so likewise to bee reputed children of the kingdome Matth. 8. 12. the children of the kingdome shall bee cast out the children of the Covenant Act. 3. 25. yee are the children of the Covenant which God made unto our fathers and many other of their priviledges which belong to them who are Israeliteâ— in this sense viz. being by such a separation and vocation the professed people of God though they were not all heires of the spirituall part of the Covenant Saint Paul reckons up in severall places as Rom. 9. 4. to them pertaineth the adoption even to the body of that people not a spirituall adoption but the honour of being separated and reputed to bee the children of God Deut. 14. 1. and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the service of God and the promises yet of these Paul saith they were not all children of Abraham when he speaks of the spirituall seed So likewise Rom. 3. 1. afteâ— Paul had shewed Rom. â— that nothing but faith and inward holinesse gave right to the spirituall part of the Covenant and that all the externall priviledges of the Jewes who were onely Jewes in propatulo Jewes outwardly were nothing to justification before God hee then propounds this question Cap. 3. 1. What advantage then both the Jew or what profit is there of Circumcision what priviledge or gaine is it to bee a visible professor a visible member of the Jewish Church hee answers the advantage is great many wayes and instances in this one particular that the Oracles of God were deposited to them the custody and dispensation of his Ordinances which they might use as their owne treasure and thereby learne to know and feare him therefore it is called their Law John 8. 17. It is also written in your Law when the rest of the nations all that while were without God in the world and received the rule of their life from the Oracles of the Devill according to that of the Psalmist Psal 147. 10 20 He shewed his word to Iacob his statutes and his judgments to Israel hee hath not dealt so with any nation and as for his judgements they have not knowne them So Deut. 33. 4. The Law is called the inheritance of the Congregation of Iacob And although it bee true that these visible and externall priviledges will end with the greater condemnation of them who live and die in the abuse of them while they rest in Cortice in the outward thing it selfe and labour not after the spirituall part yet the priviledges themselves are very great It is no small mercy to have a membership or visible standing in that societie where salvation is ordinary this our blessed Saviour told the woman of Samaria Iohn 4. 22. Salvation is of the Iewes this was the priviledge which the Church of the Jewes had above the Samaritans that salvation was to bee found in their way and God in his wisedome hath so ordained it to have his visible Church made up of such I meane so as to have some of them inwardly holy and others of them by externall profession onely for this reason among many others that there might bee some who should from time to time bee converted by the Ordinances dispensed in his Church as well as others who should be built up that the Pastors which hee sets up to feed his flocke should not onely bee nursing fathers to build up but also fathers to beget sonnes and daughters to him and though all are bound de jure to bee inwardly holy who joyne to the Church yet would hee have his Church admit those who professe their willingnesse to bee his that hee by his discipline might make them inwardly such as they externally professe themselves and as yet are not in truth as into a Schoole are admitted not onely such as are actually learned but such as are dedicated to be learned not onely quia docti sed ut sint docti and who ever will deny this that there are some rightly admitted by the Church to visible membership who onely partake of the visible priviledges must deny that any are visible members who are not inwardly converted which I thinke you will doe but lest you or any other should I shall at the present back it onely with that speech of the Apostle Rom. 11. where Paul speakes of some branches grassed into the Olive and afterwards broken off not onely the Iewes whom hee calleth the naturall branches were broken off but the Gentiles also the Gentile Churches who were graffed in in their roome and were made partakers of the roote and fatnesse of the Olive even they also may bee broken off if they beleeve not and God will no more spare these branches then hee did the other now this cannot bee meant of any breaking off from the invisible Church from partaking of the spirituall roote and fatnesse of the Olive from this neither Jew nor Gentile are ever broken off it were Arminianisme to the purpose to affirme the contrary it must therefore bee meant onely of a visible standing and externall participation of Church-priviledges and if you thinke otherwayes that none of old were nor now are visible members of the Church or had right to externall Church priviledges unlesse they were inwardly sanctified I beseech you in your next to cleare this and open our eyes with your evidence that wee may see it with you and in stead of leading your Reader into a maâ—e by framing multitudes of senses the like produce some solid arguments to shew and prove that no other but true beleevers may in fore visibiâ—â—â— Ecclâ—siae bee reckoned to belong to the Church and people of God But I suppose in this particular you will hardly deny a lawfulnesse of admitting men into a visible communion upon a visible profession and that rightly even by a judgement of faith though their inward holinesse be unknown to us for so much you grant pag. 159. and if by a judgement of faith a Minister as Gods Steward may dispence the seale of the Covenant of grace and not stay from applying the seale
sense every child of a beleever is brone a Christian that is hee is a member of the visible Church in the second sense none can claime it as a birthright men must be made Christians in that sense and not borne Christians thus this which is a weake objection of the Lutherans against the Calvinists is easily answered to bee children of wrath by nature and yet to bee holy in an externall Covenant being borne of beleeving parents do no whit oppose one another thus it was not onely among the Jewes who had a visible standing under the Covenant of grace and yet multitudes of them were the children of wrath but even thus it is unto this day among growne men who are admitted to be Christians in your way some of them are sancti called and holy in the face of the visible Church and yet not so coram facie dei whilst others are so both in the spirit and in the letter Your great errour and mistake is that you speake not distinctly of the Covenant of grace for whereas the Covenant is to bee largely understood for the whole dispensation of it in outward Ordinances as well as saving graces you usually take it strictly for saving graces which belong onely to the elect You cannot bee ignorant how our Divines owne the outward administration of the Covenant under the notion of faedus externum and the spirituall grace of it under the notion of faedus inteâ—â—um you still restraine the Covenant to the spirituall part onely and would perswade your Reader that they who speake of the Covenant of grace must meane it thus strictly and yet you bring not arguments to disprove a true visible membership upon a visible profession whether the inward saving grace be known or not Now I returne with you to my Sermon where your examen proceeds I used for illustration sake â—â— comparison from other Kingdomes Corporations and Families the children follow the condition of their parents free mâ—nâ— children are borne free the children of slaves are borne slaves c. and thus hath God ordained said I that it shall bee in his Kingdome and Family children follow the Covenant condition of their parents this passage you slight first in generall as that which containes nothing but dictates but parâ—ius-ista-vitis you may give your adversary two in the seven at dictating you who call my onely using a comparison or allusion to bee a dictating can dictate in this very place Christianitie say you is no mans birthright this was but even just now the question betwixt you and Mr. Blake and you here without any proofe â—et downe this peremptory conclusion which was the very question betwixt you Christianitis is no mans birth-right but the thing is true call it what you please and will not bee blowne away with a scornefull puffe but say you I doâ—very carnally imagine the Church of God to bee like civill Corporations as if persons were to bee admitted into it by birth whereas in this all is done by free election of grace and according to Gods appointment I reply you carnally and sinfully judge of Gods wayes in this particular for is it not evident that the Jewish Church was in this like civill corporations were not children then admitted in by birth-right and yet was not grace then as free as it is now had the Jewes by birth no seale of grace and that by Covenant because God was the God of them and their seed or was there no grace accompanying the Jewish Sacraments I suppose you are not so Popish as to deny it And further I pray you tell mee was not all done among them as much by the free election of grace as among us are you of Arminius his mind that Iacob and Esaâ— both circumcised persons are not proposed to us Rom. 9. as such who hold forth to us the soveraigntie of God in election and reprobation Secondly what meane you when you say all is done in the Church according to the fâ—â—â— election of grace T is true if you meane it of the Church invisible all is there done by the free election of grace but wee are speaking of the visible Church and I hope you will not say all is there done by free election of grace you will not say that none have any interest in the visible priviledges but onely they who are elected You adde yea to conceive that it is in Gods Church as in other kingdomes is a seminary of dangerous superstitions and errors Dr. Reynolds in his conference with Hart hath shewed that hence arose the frame of government by Patriarchs Metropolitans c. and this is say you the reason of invocation of Saints c. I reply true for men to say thus it must be or thus it may bâ—e in Godâ— kingdome because it is so in other kingdomes is the very Seminary which Dr. Reynolds speaks of but to mention some things alike in Gods Kingdome and other kingdomes when God himselfe hath made them so it is obedience and not presumption Yea it is a great sinne to call that a carnall imagination which is Gods owne doing Next when I say if hee take a father into Covenant hee takes the children in with him if hee reject the parents the children are east out with them You answer if I meane this in respect of election and reprobation it is not true or in respect of the Covenant of grace which is congruous to election or reprobation I answer you judge right I meant it not of election or reprobation nor that the saving graces of the Covenant are alwayes made good either to Infants or growne men who are taken into Covenant I meant it as before I expressed it of taking in into a visible Church-standing But say you neither is that true it is not true in respect of outward Ordinances the father may bee baptized and not the child and è contra the father may bee deprived and the child may enjoy them I answer but this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the thing that is in question betwixt us the contrary whereunto I undertake to justifie Indeed de sacto the one may enjoy them and the other hee deprived of them a father may bee baptized and his child die before it bee baptized but our question is de jure whether a Parent being a beleever his child hath not right to Baptisme and other Church-priviledges as it growes copable of them at the â—ewâ—s children had to Circumcision c. De sacto it fell out sometimes so among the Jewes David the â—ather circumcised and not the child borne to him by Bathsheba which dyed the seventh day and was not Circumcised and many multitudes more in the same condition but is this any thing against the right of Infants to beâ— Circumcised Next say you In this point there i◠〈◊〉 certaintie or agreement in the paedobaptists determination becausâ— Mr. Rutherford saies the children of Papists and excommunicate Protestants which are barne
with in our visible Church are baptized if their forefathers have been found in the faith but others will deny it and you cite Mr. Cotton in the Margin whâ— sayes that if hath the nearest parents bee excommunicated the child is not to bee baptized because the parents are to us as heathenâ— and thâ—â— say you Paedobaptists as well as Anabaptists like wates of the Sea beat one against another To which I answer This peculiar controversie betwixt some Paedobaptists by 〈◊〉 right the children are to bee baptized whether by right of their nearest parents only or by the right of their remoter forefathers who have been sound in the faith is very little helpefull to your cause nor is it any very great controversie betwixt those parties whom you mention for Mr. Cotton in the very words cited doth almost if not altogether reconcile it while hee saith when the nearest parents are excommunicate it may bee considered whether the child may not bee baptized either if the Grandfather or Grandmother make profession or in the right of the Houshold Governour who promises to educate the child in the faith 〈◊〉 by proportion of the Law may bee gathered from Gen. 17. 12 13. Here is little or no beating of one wave against another but both of them beating Anabaptists and I wish that your answer did no more beace against the very reason of the holy Ghost Gen. 17. 7. who makes this his Argument why hee would have the male children circumcised and thereby reckoned to bee in Covenant with him because their parents are in Covenant with him this in mee you call a carnall imagination take heed you dash not against the Lord Jehovah himselfe Lastly whereas I adde thus iâ— wâ—â— in the time of the Iewes both Jewes and Proselytes they and their children came thiâ— Covenant together and when God rejected the parents out of the Covenant the children were cast out with them To this you answer indeed when parâ—nts were taken into Covenant their children were circumcised with them but whether this make any thing for baptizing of Infants you shall conâ—ider in duâ— place and there God willing I shall meet with you But for the second thing that when the parents were cast out of Covenant the Children were cast out with them this say you is not true parents might bee Idolaters Apostates c. yet their children were to bee circumcised I answer first Is it not evident in the Jewes at this day that they and their children are cast out together and I adde if you would shew the falsitie of it you should have given some instance not of parents who remaine Gods people in externall profession not having received a Bill of divorcement though their lives might possibly bee very wicked but of some who were cast off from being visible professors and yet their Infants remaine in the visible societie of the Church or of some who were visibly thus taken in and their Infants left out but instead of this you still goe on in your wonted equivocation of the word Covenant of grace taking it onely of the Covenant of saving grace not including the externall way of administration with it Now God willing I shall try what strength there is in your exceptions against those Texts I brought to prove that Infants of Beleevers do belong to the Covenant now as well as the Infants of Jewes did under the former administration The first whereof was taken out of Acts 2. 38. 39. where Peter exhorting his hearers to beleeve and bee baptized used this as an Argument taken from the benefit which should come to their posteritie The promise is made to you and to your children c. The first branch of your answer is according to your usuall method to throw dirt in the face of an Argument which pinches you sleighting and scorning that which you know not how to answer and then to frame severall senses and raise a dust about it You complaine how irkesome it is to Readers and Answerers to finde them who alleadge â— Text to paraphrase upon it but show not how they conclude from it It is harder for you to finde your enemy then to vanquish him and you wish that I would first distinctly expound and then frame my arguments out of the Text. I answer I hardly can tell whether it were best to smile at or pity this grievous trouble you are put to that your patience should bee thus compelled deverare taedium it seemes you expected I should make syllogismes in moode and figure in a Sermon ad populum if you did not I wonder why you should bee thus troubled since as plainely as I could I expressed the meaning of the Text I first shewed where the strength of the Argument lay viz. That not onely themselves upon their faith and Baptisme should receive such an Invaluable benefit but their children should also as under the former administration they were bee taken into a better administration the Covenant being now exhibited in the best and fullest manner and all they whether neere or farre off who would owne this should themselves and their children with them bee under this best Covenant as formerly they were when the Covenant was more darke And in the progresse of my discourse I both proved this to bee the meaning and answered the exceptions to the contrary Next follows your severall senses You doubt whether I fetch children in under the first part I will be thy God or whether under the second I will be the God of thy seed Or whether I meane is of saving graces or Church-priviledges One while you doubt whether my sense be that God will be the God of their children if they obey his call then you rather guesse it That if the Parents obey his call bee will be the God of them and their children though the children doe not obey his call Yea further because here are not yet senses enough you proceed and say If by the promise to them and their children be meant of outward Church-priviledges then the sense must bee If you will beleeve repent and be baptized then you and your children shall be baptized Yet another sense you make out of that which I spake at the by of Zacheus Luke 19. that salvation came to his house upon his beleeving that thence may be gathered That the meaning is a mans whole houshold may be saved barely by his beleeving and not content with all these senses you step out of your way to bring in Mr. Goodwins interpretation of Zacheus that he meant it of the whole houshold and that thence he collected that an household was Ecclesia prima which you confute and then you set down your own sense of salvation comming to Zacheus his house that by Zacheus his house is meanâ— onely Zacheus himself What multiplicity of imaginary senses and consequences of senses are here poured out on an heape could the â—arest Chymick have extracted any more The Reader
you and your children so many of them as the Lord shall call viz. you and your children have hitherto been an holy seed But now if you beleeve in Christ your selves your children shall bee in no better condition then the rest of the Pagan world but if afterward any of them or any of the heathen shall beleeve and be baptized their particular persons shall be taken into Covenant but their Children still left out this said I would not have been a very comfortable Argument to perswade them to come in in relation to the good of their children To this your answer is that this witlesse descant followes not on the applying the restriction in the end of the verse to them their children and all that are afarre off and that which I burden my adversaries Tenet with of putting beleevers Infants out of the Covenant into the condition of Pagans children is a Coâ—cysme answered before But Sir bee it witlesse or witty they must owne it whose it is and I perceive you can more easily put it off with a scoffe then give it a solid answer and it is a thorne which will not so easily bee plucked out of your side the strength of it is Peter could not have used this as an Argument to perswade them to come under this administration of the Covenant whereof Baptisme was a seale from the benefit which should come to their children if your interpretation bee true because by this their children should be in a worse condition in relation to the Covenant then they were before all grant in the former they were included you say in this latter you know no more promise for them then for the children of 〈…〉 How then could this argument be fit to be used tel me I pray you suppose a man held some Farm or Office under some great man and that in his Grant or Patent there were some apparent priviledges or benefits included concerning his posterity If now the Lord of whom hee held it should offer him a new Grant in which his children should be expressely left out and no more priviledges for them then for meere strangers could an Argument bee taken from the benefit that should come to his Children to perswade him to give up his former and accept this latter Grant I thinke not And whereas you call that expression of putting of the children of beleevers into the same state with the children of Turks a Coccysme which you have answered before I pardon your scornfull expression you doe but kick at that which bites you it is a truth which you have no cause to delight to heare of you have answered it indeed by granting the truth of it as the Reader may plainly see in my Answer to your 10 Section of the second Part and to Sect. 3. of this part Whereas I further said in my Sermon except in relation to the Covenant there was no occasion to name their children it bad been sufficient to have said a promise is made to as many as the Lord shall call You answer Their children indeed are named in relation to the Covenant But there was another reason then that which I alledge not onely their imprecation Matth. 27. 25. but especially because Christ was first sent to the Jews and their children Acts 3. 26. I Reply but this reason which you alledge affords no Argument for them now to beleeve and repent from any benefit should come to their posterity by vertue of that promise I will bee thy God and the God of thy seed To close this Section you say The Antipadobaptists have hence a good Argument against baptizing of Infants because Poter required of such as were in Covenant repentance before baptisms I answer just as good an one as because Abraham was in Covenant and an actuall beleever and justified by the faith he had in uncircumcision and received it as a seal of the righteousnesse of faith therefore all these must go before Circumcision and because all who turned Proselytes to the Jews must first make profession of their faith therefore none may bee circumcised but such as they are But more of this when we consider this Argument in your Exercitation Next let us try whether your successe bee any better against the next Text of Scripture which I brought to prove this Conclusion viz. Rom. 11. 16. c. where I said The Apostles scope was to shew that we Gentiles have now the same graffing into the true Olive which the Jewes formerly had and our present graffing in is answerable to their present casting out and their taking in at the latter end of the World shall bee the same graffing in though more gloriously as ours is now and it is apparent that at their first graffing in they and their chiâ—dren were taken in at their casting out they and their children were broken off and when they shall be taken in again at the end of the world they and their children shall be taken in together and all this by vertue of the Covenant Ero Deus tuus c. Which is the same to us and to them we and they making up the Church of God In your Examen of this Argument you still proceed in your old method first to cast scorne upon it as such an obscure Argument That none but a Diver of Delos can fetch up the meaning of it and indeed should you not pretend difficulties you could have no colour to bring in so many imaginary senses thereby to darken an Argument which is the second branch of your Artifice As whether this ingraffing be meant of the visible or invisible Church by faith or profession of saith certain by reason of election or Covenant of grace made to them or probable and likely because for the most part it happens so c. Alas Sir why doe you thus strip your selfe to dive under the water when the sense swims upon the top Look how the Jewes were Gods people so are the Churches of the Gentiles looke how the Jewes children were graffed in so are our children we are taken in in stead of them who were cast out and become one visible kingdom of Christ with the rest of them who kept their station this is the plaine sense of my Argument Now if you please but to apply all your imaginary senses to the Jews and their children and say if they and their children were graffed in together was it into the visible or invisible Church was it by faith or the profession of faith was it certain or probable Doe you not thinke your Reader would smile at the vanity of these questions When you have set downe your senses next you thus proceed the thing that is to be proved is That all the infants of every beleever are in the Covenant of Free grace in Christ and by vertue thereof to bee baptized into the Communi of the visible Church No Sir the thing to bee proved from this Text is That our infants have
the same right which the infants of the Jews had and your Arguments fight against the Infants of the Jews as much as against the Infants of the Gentiles for to apply your own words spoken of beleevers now to the Jewes then Though it may bee granted that the infants of the Jews were for the most part under the election and Covenant of grace and so in the visible Church yet it will not follow that every infant of a Jew in as much as hee is the child of a Jew or a beleever is under the Covenant of grace because we have Gods expresse declaration to the contrary Rom. 9. 6 7 8. and all experience proves the contrary is not this as much against the one as the other To what I said the Jewes Infants were graffed in by Circumcision therefore ours are to be ingraffed in by Baptisme You answer by demanding whether in good sadnesse I doe thinke the Apostle here meanes by graffing in baptizing or Circumcision or incision by outward Ordinances for if that were the meaning then breaking off must be meant of uncircumcising or unbaptizing To which I reply that in good sober sadnesse I do think that graffing in is admission into visible membership or visible communion with the Church of Christ and that the externall seale of their visible graffing in was Circumcision and of ours Baptisme and yet it follows not that breaking off is onely uncircumcising or unbaptizing but breaking offâ—â—â— a casting out from that visible membership whereof this Sacrament is a Symbole But to you it seems that ingraffing here is meant of the invisible Church by election and faith I Reply if it be meant of the invisible Church onely and that all who are graffed in in the Apostles sense whether Jews or Gentiles are onely electones I will solemnly promise you never to plead this Scripture more for any Infants either of Jews or Gentiles no nor for visible Professors of either of them provided onely if you cannot make that good you will as indeed you must yeeld that some are to be reputed visible Church-members though not elect whether Jews or Gentiles and that our graffing in is as theirs was they and their children we and our children and if you please let us a little try it out The Text is plaine some of the branches were broken off such branches whose naturall growing in the Olive yeelded them that priviledge which they now partake of who are graffed in in their stead were these broken off from the invisible Church you dare not say so if then the Olive from which they were broken off bee the visible Church I have enough and I wonder that any but an Arminian should make any question that the Apostle speaks onely of rejecting the Nation of the Jewes from being the visible Church and taking the body of the Gentiles in their stead to be Gods visible Kingdom in that it is meant of such an ingraffing as may be broken off which cannot bee from the invisible Church But let us see how you seek to evade this and how you prove that it must bee meant of the invisible Church Abraham say you bad a a double capacity one of a naturall Father and another the father of the faithfull in respect of the former capacity some are called branches according to nature others wilde Olives by nature yet graffed in by faith and when it is said that some of the naturall branches were brokin off the meaning is not that some of the branches of the invisible Church may be broken off but onely such as were so in appearance according as our Saviour expresses it Joh. 15. 2. But I Reply I professe I understand not how this distinction gives you the least helpe for tell me I pray you were not these whom you cal naturall branches is truly in the Olive as they who being wilde by nature were yet graffed in in the stead of them who were broke off If they were how doth this distinction help you You say indeed That the Infants of beleeving Jewes were not in the Covenant of grace because they were their children if by this you meane they were not members of the invisible Church you say the truth but nothing to the purpose But if your meaning be that they had not a visible membership such an ingraffing as gave them a right to outward Ordinances you not onely contradict the Scripture but your selfe who plead this That it was a peculiar priviledge to Abraham that his children should have such a visible standing as ours have not plainly the Jewes were the naturall branches some of them were elect some not the body of them were the branches spoke of in this place many of these were broke off others of them kept their station yet Gods election failes not even so is it now the Gentiles were graffed in that is their visible faith gave them a visible ingraffing their invisible faith gave them who have it an invisible membership yea to me your selfe seem to say as much when pag. 63. you affirme incision may be either into the visible or invisible Church graffing in may be either by faith or profession of faith And pag. 65. It is true that our present graffing in is answerable to or rather for their casting out that is God would supply in his Olive tree the Church the casting away of the Iews by the calling of the Gentiles so much the Apostle saith ver 17. thou being a wilde Olive wer 't graffed in in ramorum defractorum locum into the place of the branches broken off if you mean it in this sense say you I grant it And truly Sir in these words to my understanding you grant not onely my interpretation of this place but even the question controverted betwixt us First you grant my interpretation that it is not meant of the invisible but the visible Church for I know you will not say that any of the elect Jewes were broken off and the Gentiles elected and put into their place It must therefore be meant of the visible and of the visible Church of the New Testament and that those Jewes who kept their station and we who are in the roome of those that were broke off doe make that Olive which the Jewes made before Yea secondly you by necessary confequence grant that our children are taken in as theirs were we are graffed in in ramorum defractorum loeum we supply in the Olive tree the Church the casting away of the Jews Now if we thus supply our children supply the place of their children which were broken off and beside we are one with the rest of the Jews who remained in this Olive and their remaining in the Olive did not I hope deprive them of that priviledge which before-times they had for their children and therefore we must have the same with them and a greater then they had for their children none of us ever pleaded though ours be clearer and a greater
measure of grace accompanying it You goe on and say when some of the naturall branches were cut off it is not meant any otherwise then our Saviour Christ meanes Joh. 15. 2. Every branch in me not bearing fruit hee takes away that is not that any branch truly in him could bee fruitlesse or taken away but onely those branches which were so in appearance I reply that this is my very meaning that this standing as branches of the Olive is not to be limited to the invisible but takes in the visible also not restrained to such as have a spirituall union with Christ by faith but takes in also the externall profession of faith which oft times is not in truth that which it appears to be Whereas you say the Apostles scope in the whole chapter is to answer that question Hath God cast away his people c. and not to shew that wee have now the same graffing into the true Olive which the Jews formerly had I answer I undertook not to Analize the whole Chapter but to open the scope of that matter or argument which begins at the 16 ver and that you cannot gainsay but that there the Apostle makes an Argument from our graffing in in their stead And you minde me also of my owne distinction of the substance of the Covenant and the administration of it Sir I thank you for remembring me of it it is of very good use in this place though not of that use which you bring it for we have the same Covenant with them for the substance which Covenant consists of the same blessings and is applyable upon the same conditions belongs to the same sorts of persons but the administration of it is clean differing from theirs You grant That by faith wee partake of the substance of the Covenant in respect of which all beleeving Gentiles are Abrahams seed Yea and you may adde visible beleevers are his visible seed But if you mean it say you of the outward administration of this ingraffing by Circumcision Baptisme c. nothing is more false the outward administration is utterly taken away and to affirme that it is not were to â—vacuate the blood of Christ in this particular But Sir this is at the best but cunning dealing and in part a confident false assertion it is cunning to say by Circumcision Baptisme c. as if both these belonged to one administration Indeed to affirme that ingraffing into the visible Church should now bee by Circumcision were to evacuate the death of Christ in that particular but to say as you ought if you would speake plainly that to have our initiation now by Baptisme into the visible Church as formerly by Circumcision or to say that all outward administrations of the Covenant are now utterly taken away though the old one is vanished is not onely a coâ—fident but a false assertion and if you say not this you apply my distinction to no purpose You goe on whereas I said their taking in in the end of the world wil be as ours they and their children you grant this is true If it be true that their children by being the children of beleevers shal be accounted to belong to the Church you grant my Argument if you meane not so but think that at their last and best restauration their children shal not enjoy that priviledge which they had when they were Gods people before why doe you not say so that all the world may see that you think in their best condition they shall bee deprived of that glorious priviledge which they enjoyed in their non-age and yet you grant That they and their children shall bee taken in yea and a more full taking in of the children of the Jews then is now of the Gentiles according to that Rom. 11. 26. And so all Israel shall be saved But say you all this proves not that God would have either all Infants of beleevers counted his as elect persons or in the Covenant of grace in Christ or in the face of the visible Church admitted to Baptisme I answer the thing to be proved was our Infants have the same priviledge with theirs and that it proves abundantly as for election wee are not to esteem all visible members whether Infants or grown men to bee elected God having declared the contrary this being true in all ages of the Church Many are called and but few chosen Notwithstanding when we speak of particulars wee have the same ground of charitable hope for one as for another As for your other expression That this proves not that they are to bee looked upon as visible members of the Church and to be admitted to outward Ordinances this is onely to deny the Conclusion whether this being proved that our Infants have the same right to bee reckoned to the Church of God as well as the Infants of the Jews be not a just ground and as good a foundation to prove that therefore they must bee admitted to that Ordinance which is the initiall seale shall in due time appeare when I have made good the next conclusion That Baptisme succeeds in the roome of circumcision to that use in the meane time let the Reader judge I further said of the Jews they shall by vertue of Gods Covenant bee taken in againe in the end of the world because the root is holy because Gods covenant with Abraham Isaac and Jacob extends yet to them and shall againe blossome and will take place when the Nations unbeleefe shall bee taken away and their present nationall condition I shadowed out in the comparison of Nebuchadnezzars dreame Dan. 4. 14. of a tree that was cut downe and the root bound with an iron chaine and yet afterward did grow again The thing it self you deny not nor go about to answer my argument drawn from the Jewes viz. we as they were taken in they and their children shall be at the last taken in againe as they were at the first and therefore we and they making up the same body are taken in upon the same ground our children with us as well as theirs with them this Argument I say you go not about to answer but in stead of answering you pick quarrels against my comparison taken from Nebuehadnezzars dreame Why Sir I never thought a Scholar would have expected a comparison should runne upon foure feet nor have wrested it beyond what was intended by it I never intended to make Nebuchadnezzars dreame an argument to prove but onely to illustrate that as that tree for a while was cut downe and the root bound with an Iron chaine was kept from growing yet in the end the chaine was removed and the tree grew againe so the nation of the Jewes was for a while cast off from being the people of God during the time of their blindnesse and unbeleefe but in the end the vaile should be removed and their nation taken into their former Church-standing yea and more gloriously and that by reason of
of generations that feare him and visit the sins of parents upon their children may wee not say truly when God cast out the nation of the Jewes from being his people that for their sins he gave the Bill of Divorce to them and to their children that they should no longer be his people in Covenant as they were in time past and yet his grace remain free I spake expressely of outward administration of the Covenant That when Parents are taken into Covenant their children also with them have a visible right and when God gives a bill of divorce from a visible Church standing for to true beleevers hee never gives any their children are cast out with them as appeares in the Jewes at this day is this to symbolise with Arminius or doth Doctor Twisse or Moulin or any other of our Orthodox writers gainesay this I appeale to every learned Reader to judge But é regione I desire you to shew how you will avoyd symholizing with the Arminians who indeavor to prove falling away from true grace and holinesse from this 11. of the Romans because the branches were broken off when you with them say the graffing into the Olive here is meant of true beleevers graffed into the invisible Church yet of the branches growing in or graffed into this Olive it is expresly said some were broken off and others will fare no better if they beleeve not Bert us in his relation of the conference at the Hague urges this very place to prove that it is possâ—ble for the Saints to fall away from grace because we are advised to take warning by the Jewes Example who were broken off for their unbeleefe I know that you thinke not that true beleevers may fall away but how you will avoid the Argument interpreting this place as you doe I professe I cannot tell And now I leave it to every judicious Reader whether you or I have darkned this Scripture whether you in saying this Text is meant of the invisible Church onely and the graffing in is by election and faith or I who say the rejecting is of the Jewes from being of the visible Church and ingraffing is meant of the taking in of the Churches of the Gentiles to bee the visible Church kingdome and people of God in their roomes whether in a word I who interpret it of such a growing in the Olive or ingraffing into it as may endure a breaking off and yet none fall from saving grace who once had it or you who make such a graffing in as that if any branches bee broken off it must necessarily follow that branches may bee rent off from the invisible Church and fall away from inward holinesse have interpreted this Text most agreeable to the Analogy of faith and the Apostles scope and to conclude let the Reader also judge whether this Text notwithstanding all your indeavors remaine not still in my hands as one of my strong holds to defend this conclusion That the obildron of beleevers new have the same right to the Covenant with their Parents as the children of the Jewes had with their Parents Now say you you are come to my principall hold 1 Cor. 7. 14. I perceive at first you thinke there is some strength in it for you have brought a huge army against it and drawne a long line about it raised abundance of batteries and in a very long discourse say something almost to every sentence of mine concerning this Scripture and after all your shot is spent you cry Io triumphus I have got your chiefe hold which you had best manned Truely Sir you speake like 〈…〉 qui diffâ—aviâ— omnes 〈◊〉 Gurgu 〈◊〉 But the best is all the ground is not yours that you walke over nor every man killed that you shoot at I have no feare that your great swelling words will give any satisfaction to your judicious Readers wee will come to what you have done and try what strength there is in this long Section and that I may make my answer to it as briefe as is possible I shall bring all the matter of your discourse to three heads First such things as wherein you and I doe agree and must necessarily agree Secondly such things as wherein whether wee agree or disagree it matters not much to the point in controversie these two I shall but touch upon Thirdly such things wherein wee differ and which really concerne the controversie betwixt us And these things God willing wee will try out hand to hand First wee agree that sanctified may have many senses and that of those many two onely are applicable in this place either the matrimoniall sanctification which you insist upon viz. Chastitie in the wife and husband or lawfull matrimony between them and legitimation of the children Or else Instrumentall sanctification in the husband and wife and federall holinesse in the children which I insist upon Wee agree also secondly that iâ— may signifie by as well as in Wee further agree thirdly that the seepe and meaning of the Text is that the Corinthians having writ for the Apostles resolution whether it were lawfull for them who were converted still to retaine their Infidell wives or husbands the Apostle here resolves that case upon the affirmative And I will further agree with you fourthly that these words else were your Children uncleane c. are a medium or argument whereby the Apostle proves the former sentence the unbeleeving husband is sanctified in the wife c. I yet further agree fiftly that all the places which you cite out of the learned Chamier are Orthodox and clearely prove that for which hee brings them viz. That sanctification cannot bee understood of the conversion of the unbeleever through the diligence of the beleever page 73. And that the Argument is not fetched from a contingent thing pag. 74. And that holinesse is not meant of ceremoniall holinesse which sense was ascribed to Augustine pag. 76. And that the holinesse of Children here is not that which they receive from their education pag. 75. And I am sure you must agree with mee sixtly that in all these testimonies you have cited out of Chamier there is not one word against my Interpretation or for the Justification of yours yea and I know also that you will agree with mee seventhly that the learned Chamier in a large dispute doth confute your interpretation and vindicate my interpretation as the onely true and proper meaning of this Text even in that very place where you quote him And therefore I know the Reader will agree with mee whether you doe or no that you doe but abuse your Author and Reader both in making a flourish with Chamiers name nothing to the purpose and thereby would make the Reader conceive Chamier to bee of your side when hee is point-blanke against you I yet further agree with you eighthly that some Interpreters both antient and moderne doe interpret this Text as you doe and I am
sure you will also agree that it were easie for mee to bring ten for one who interpret this Text as I doe though I forbeare to bumbast my booke with them no wayes desiring that this cause should bee carryed by number of suffrages Secondly there are many things in this Section wherein wee differ but the cause depends nothing at all upon them first you severall times cite the learned Beza as if hee were of your mind in the interpretation of this Text to construe it of matrimoniall holinâ—ssâ— I confesse the cause depends not upon Beza's judgement but your reputation depends much upon making this good That you should dare to cite an author as interpreting it for you who exprofesso interprets it against you Beza indeed acknowledgeth this Text warrants a lawfull use but withall sets himselfe to prove that that 's not all but saith it 's such a sanctification as I contend for and saith no man may interpret it otherwise then I doe of federall holinesse according to the Covenant Ero Deus tuuâ— c. And out of that very Text doth in his annotations upon that place assert Infant-Baptisme Secondiy you thinke this Text was never interpreted of federall holinesse untill the dayes of Luther the cause I confesse depends not upon this but it discovers some defect in your reading since it is apparent that Athanasius one of the most ancient of the Greek Fathers and Tertullian one of the most antient of the Latine Fathers bring this Text to prove the prerogative of the Infants of beleevers which certainly they could not have done if they had interpreted as you doe that their children were legitimate nor have given them any title to the kingdome of heaven if to their understanding it had not related to the Covenant of Grace Thirdly whether Mr. Blakes paralleling this place with Gal. 2. 15. upon which you spend almost two whole pages bee good or no or whether these places doe interpret one another is not much materiall to the present controversie about this Text although it be plaine that by Jewes by nâ—ture the Apostle intends the Church-priviledge of the Iewes in opposition to the Gentiles as I have elswhere shewed Fourthly whether Bellarmine was the first who expounded holy for Iegitimate in confuting whereof you spend another page and alledge sundry Authors before him who so understood it this is not to our businesse though you take occasion to shew your reading in it Thirdly this therefore onely remaines to bee tryed out between us whether this bee meant of lawfulnesse of wedlock between man and wife and legitimation of children as you affirme or of Instrumentall sanctification betweene husband and wife quoad hoc and federall holinesse of children as I affirme wherein I shall first make it plaine that your Interpretation cannot hold secondly that mine must stand The sense which you undertake to justifie is that it is a Matrimoniall sanctification when the Apostle saith the unbeleeving husband is sanctified by the wife c. the meaning iâ— their marriage is lawfull and their children are not unclean but holy the meaning is they are not bastards but lawfully begotten Against this I dispute First in making good the foure Arguments used in my Sermon against this interpretation the first whereof was this uncleannesse and holinesse when opposed one to another are never meant of civilly lawfull or unlawfull but are alwayes used in a sacred sense alluding to a right of admission into or use in the tabernatle or Temple which were types of the visible Church holinesse is always taken for a separation of Persons or things from common to sacred use To this you except many things First you like not the term civill holinesse you rather would call it matrimoniall holinesse because its institution is of God not from the laws of Man I Reply this is a poor shift by holy and civill wee distinguish things belonging to the first and second Table All second Table duties are civill things though their institution be of God civill Magistracy though instituted of God obedience of children to their Parents though instituted of God and all the judiciall lawes given to the Jews about meum and tuum were they not therefore civill because they were Gods institutions Or is marriage a businesse more concerning Religion then these are is it a Sacrament or how else is it more holy then these other civill things You except secondly uncleannesse may bee taken for bastardy in an allusion to a Tabernacle use Bastards being numbered among the uncleane I Reply this is spoken without any proof for although the Lord saith Deuteronom 23. 2. That a bastard shall not come into the congregation of the Lord it cannot be meant that bastards shall bee numbered among the uncleane or having nothing to doe about Tabernacle or Temple services for there was the same law for Eunuchs who were not excluded as unclean no unclean person might eate the Passeover might no Eunuch or Bastard eate the Passeover Beside when you thus construe else were your children unclean you make there a Bastard and unclean to be termini convertibiles consequently every unclean child must bee a bastard Now if any man would suppose that bastards might bee reckoned amongst unclean yet all unclean children must not bee reckoned amongst bastards all the children of the Gentiles were unclean but they were not bastards It is needlesse to enter into a further discourse about that place Deut. 23. how or in what sense a bastard might not come into the Congregation whether by the Congregation be meant the Sanhedrin as some or whether his not entring bee of bearing Office as others or of not marrying a wife an Israelitesse as others it matters not it 's sufficient they were not numbred among the unclean Thirdly you refer me to the 1 Thess 4. 7. God hath not called us to uncleanness but unto holinesse and desire me to tell you whether uncleannesse be not there meant of fornication and by holinesse chastity I answer I prevented this in my Sermon and shewed that chastity among the Heathens is never called sanctification the holy Spirit onely is the Spirit of sanctification and the bodies of the Heathens are not the temples of the holy Ghost but among beleevers it may be called so because it is a part of the new creation a part of the inward adorning of the Temples of the holy Ghost and though the chastity of beleevers is onely a morall vertue in respect of the object yet in respect of the root principle end it 's a Christian vertue and it 's an act of pure Religion to keep a mans self unspotted from the flesh as well as from the world Iam. 1. 27. Besides I now adde there is no reason that that place 1 Thess 4. should be restrained to fornication because many other sins are named in that place besides fornication Mark the words in the 3 ver the Apostle tels
before you bring in Chamier nothing to the purpose I answer it is not from a future event but from a positive reall truth if Pauls reason bee framed thus the children which beleevers beget upon their Infidell yoke-fellowes are a holy seed therefore beleevers have a sanctifyed use of their Infidell husbands or wives had this been a reasoning from a future contingent As for what you here cite out of Chamier I answer onely this I perswade my selfe you are by this time ashamed of your impertinent quotation I assure my selfe if you bee not your friends are Thirdly say you sanctification is here not ascribed to God aâ— selecting some from others to such an use but is common to all unbeleeving husbands in respect of their wives and comes from that common relation not speciall designation I answer this Argument is a plaine setting downe the question in controversie as an Argument to prove it selfe and I have already proved the contrary that it is a priviledge not common to all who are married but peculiar to beleevers Fourthly say you according to this exposition the words following could not be true else were your children uncleane but now they are holy because in this forme of reasoning this proposition is included their children could not bee holy without that sanctification which say you is false because children may bee in Covenant and bee regenerated though their parents had never been thus sanctified the one to the other the children of Infidel parents may bee sanctified I reply not while they are Infants they are not by any birth priviledge to bee accompted as belonging to the Church of Christ which is the onely thing about which wee are disputing no man ever went about to prove out of this Text that none can ever bee converted whose parents are not sanctified the one unto the other Next after another impertinent bringing in of Chamier you reason thus take it in my sense and it is no satisfactory reason you may live together for you may beget a holy seed I answer this is the same with your second Argument answered before and wherein I pray you lies the weakenesse of it you may live together and have a holy use of your unbeleeving yoke-fellowes for God esteemes the seed of such to bee an holy seed as truely as if both were beleevers is this a slight or unsatisfying answer nay I adde further had the Apostle gone about to prove that a beleeving wife and a beleeving husband have not onely a lawfull enjoyment one of another as heathens have but a sanctified as they have of other creatures because else their children were uncleane but now they are holy all your exceptions would lie as strong against this last as against the former for you might have said this reaches onely those that are of ageâ— secondly this depends upon a future contingent thirdly this depends upon their common relation fourthly and children may be holy that is afterward regenerate though this be denyed let the Reader consider of it You goe on and say that in your sense the reason is plaine and satisfactory let them live together though one bee a beleever the other an unbeleever for notwithstanding their difference in Religion they are husband and wife marriage being honorable among all and the bed undefiled I reply but this had been no satisfaction to their scruple their doubt was not whether their marriage were lawfull while they were heathens but whether now their conscience would not bee defiled in remaining joyned to Idolaters and the Apostles resolution must remove that which your sense doth not you granted they doubted not the legitimation of their children and therefore your sense could not have removed the scruple as is above shewed And whereas you adde the like resolution hee gives verse the 17. concerning circumcised and uncircumcised servants they might still continue with their master their Christian calling did not dissolve those relations I answer in one word this like hath no likenesse at all in it there is no parallel betwixt these two cases hee speakes not one word about beleeving servants continuing with unbeleeving masters but of servants in generall whether their masters were beleevers or unbeleevers hee tells them that they might continue servants though they were Christs free men yet if they can fairely obtaine their freedome let them choose that rather One Argument more you bring against this interpretation if the sanctification were meant of matrimoniall sanctification and the uncleannesse of federall uncleannesse so as to exclude them out of the Covenant whether of saving graces or Church-priviledges then the proposition was most fâ—lse because children of parents not matrimonially sanctified one to the other were within the Covenant as Pharez Jepha and others I answer first I desire the reader to take notice that you take the Covenant here in this place as I doe for Church-priviledges Secondly indeed if sanctification bee taken for matrimoniall sanctification or lawfulnesse of wedlock and uncleannesse of federall sanctification the proposition may bee granted to bee false and let them who so take it undertake the defence of it if they can but let it bee meant of that other sanctification which I have justified the proposition is most true I say againe all the children of those parents the one whereof is an unbeleever are uncleane that is federally uncleane excluded out of the Covenant in regard of Church priviledges at least if not of saving graces which is a secret left to God unlesse the one bee sanctified in the other this Argument I answered in my Sermon and framed it thus that holinesse is here meant which could not bee unlesse one of the Parents were sanctified to the other but federall holinesse of Children may bee where Parents are not sanctified one in or to the other as in Bastardy Davids child by Bathsheba c. in which case the children were federally holy and yet the barlot not sanctified in or to the Adulterer or fornicator though a beleever my answer was that the Apostles scope in this Argument is to shew that the children borne of an unbeleever would not bee holy unlesse the other Parent could remove that barre but hath no force of an Argument where both the Parents are beleevers which was the case of the Jewes the case of Hagar Bathsheba c. All the reply you make to it page the 80. is to bestow a few scoffes upon it that my answer is to deny the conclusion that I shew no fault either in the matter or the forme of the Argument that the scope which I mention is but a meere figment that I doe as good as say that the objector can make no Argument out of it and that therefore I need make no answer And that in one place I grant the minor then the major and thus you most gallantly vapour upon me I reply were it not that some Readers are prone to
thinke him to have the truth who speakes most bravingly I durst without adding a word more leave all Schollers to judge whether my answer deserves all this scorne but lest you goe on in your vaine hoasting I shall apply my answer more particularly to this Argument which you acknowledge to bee your owne and I say plainely that the major proposition is not true if taken universally viz. That holinesse of children is here meant which could not be unlesse one of the Parents bee sanctified in or by the other what ever those parents bee though both of them bee beleevers This proposition say I is not true because when both the Parents are beleevers there is no such barre to bee removed by the ones being sanctified in the other quoad hoc so farre as to make them capable to bring forth a holy seed they being both in the Covenant and that sinfull defiling of one anothers body doth not deprive them of that priviledge of the Covenant to have their children accompted to belong to the Church of God but when one of the Parents being an unbeleever or Infidell must have their children accounted out of the pale of the Church unlesse that barre be removed to them it 's true that unlesse the one bee sanctified in the other the unbeleever in or by the beleever their children would not be holy if therefore you make not your major so universall but limit it as the Apostle doth and make the Argument thus That holinesse of children is here meant which could not bee unlesse the one were sanctified in or to the other the one of the parents being an Infidell but this was the case of Hagar Bathsheba Jeptha Pharez c. Now your minor is false this was not their case neither of their Parents were unbeleevers though sinfull in that act and now I pray you where lies the absurditie or weaknesse of my answer all this I said before onely you would not see it and thought to carry it with more advantage to you by scoffing then by solemne refuting In the close I added indeed if a beleever should Adulterously beget a child upon a Pagan this objection in that case deserves to bee further weighed but here it comes not within the compasse of the Apostles Argument upon this also you bestow two or three scoffes you call it a wise remedy nothing to the purpose and you construe it as if I said I will not answer the objection which iâ— made but if you will make it thus and thus then I will answer it Truely Sir I am perswaded all learned men either laugh at or pity this vanity of your disputing in sober sadnesse tell me was this the scruple of the Corinthians or doth the Apostle here meddle with this case of beleevers and Infidell harlâ—ts doth he not confine himselfe to answer cases betwixt beleevers and their unbeleeving wives and husbands or doe both these cases require one and the same answer To speake plainely I could name Divines who are no whiâ— inferiour to your selfe who conceive that a beleever even when he commits fornication with an Infidell doth so far remove the barre in the unbeleeving party as that the child is in the beleeving Parents right to be reckoned to belong to the Covenant of grace and Church of God but because I knew that question fell not within the Corinthians case and was a question which the Text and controversie in hand did not tie me to give a resolution to I purposely baulked it not once suspecting I should have met with an adversary so uningenuous to say no worse who would have said the baulking of this question had been the yeelding of the cause and I say againe this case of Bastards concernes not the Apostles case who speakes not of parents adulterers but of husbands and wives the one a beleever the other not yet this advantage may bee made of those Instances that if among the Jewes the true Church of God the children of one parent a Jew the other a Gentile forbidden to bee married were federally holy as in the case of Pharez and Thamar then may one party a beleever interest their children in the same Covenant and if Bastards among the Jewes were partakers of Church priviledges much more reasonable may it seeme that the children of both chast parents whereof the one at least is a beleever should be federally holy it being Gods rule in this case parius sequetur mâ—liorem partem And now Sir I leave the reader to judge whether you have taken this which you call my chiefe hold you have indeed set up your flag but I hope your Reader will take it downe againe Thus I have vindicated the truth of these two Conclusions and I doubt not but I have evidenced the truth of them with satisfaction to the unprejudiced Readers though not with that ability which some others might have done Your selfe acknowledge that if these two Conclusions could be proved the cause is gained as well as lost if these Conclusions be lost My third Conclusion was this God hath appointed and ordained a Sacrament or Seale of initiation to bee administred unto thâ—â— who enter into Covenant with him Circumcision for the time of that administration which was before Christs Incarnation Baptisme since the time of his incarnation This say you may be granted But whereas I adde That our Baptism comes in the room and use of Circumcision against this you except many things First you say this I deny I wonder how you could grant my Conclusion to be true and yet deny this Nor would you deny this if onely the baptizing of grown men were intended to be proved out of it 't is for Infants sake you thus labour to invalidate this Argument Secondly you make a large parallel betweene them wherein they are like wherein unlike and shew how farre you come up and where you differ I Reply your self say similitudes are weak proofs be sure the shewing of dissimilitudes is the weakest way of answering when the agreement holds in that whereto we apply it A Lievtenant may be locum tenâ—ns to a King though there be many things unlike between them Let us make the businesse as short as may be I agree with you in that speech which you cite out of Mr. Ball we may stretch the parallel no wider nor draw it narrower then the Lord hath done it and in this point to alledge nothing but what God hath taught us and as he hath taught us and whatever parallel men make between them if the Spirit of God make not the same let it be rejected And I say againe That the Spirit of God has made parallel in these particulars First Circumcision is the same with Baptisme for the spirituall part Circumcision was the seale of the new birth Deut. 30. 6. so Baptisme Tit. 3. 5. Col. 2. Circumcision was a seale of the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 11. 11. so Baptism Acts 8. and many other places
Circumcision was the seal of the Covenant of Grace Gen. 17. so Baptisme it being the nature of every Sacrament Secondly Circumcision was the way of entrance and admittance into the Church during the time of that administration so is Baptisme during the time of this administration Matth. 28. Acts 2. and throughout the whole Story of the Acts Circumcision was the distinguishing badge between them who were Gods people and the rest of the world so is Baptisme now all who are not belonging to the Church the solemn way of entrance whereinto is acknowledged to be by Baptisme are said to bee without 1 Cor. 5. 12. Ctrcumcision was to be but once administred nor Baptisme any oftner as I have largely proved before in answer to your 4 Sect. Part 4. None might eate the Passeover till they were circumcised Exod. 12. nor of any to bee admitted to the Lords Supper till they be baptized as appears Acts 2. 41 42. And throughout the whole Story of the New Testament all examples are for it not one against it and the reason is plaine because none might partake of the Lords Supper but such as were in visible Communion and your selfe know and grant that Baptisme is the doore and entrance of our solemne admittance into visible communion wee are by Baptisme say you according to Christs institution exhibited members of Christ and his Church Exercit. p. 30. These parallels you see are made by the Spirit of God and your exceptions against the comparisons between them or rather your adding of more comparisons similitudes and dissimilitudes between them by them to destroy these are such as arise from the diverse administration of the Covenant and do indeed manifest that they belong to severall administrations but doe not prove that they had not the same general state signification and use as Sacraments which seale the same thing in their diverse administrations Christ to come and Christ already come is the cause of difference of administration and so of Ordinances but hinders not the succession of one ordinance into the place of another and therefore all those differences hinder not the inference of the one from the other As for your exceptions That Circumcision did confirme the promise made to Abrahams naturall posteritie concerning their multiplying bringing out of Egypt the yoake of the Law of Moses setling in Canaan c. I answer if this were granted it hurts not me these things concerning the manner of administration of the Covenant Secondly how prove you this which you say Thirdly did circumcision confirme these things to all Abrahams naturall posteritie was the posteritie of Ismael and Esau to come out of Egypt possesse Canaan â—ee yoaked with the Law Fourthly what is the sense of these words Circumcision confirmed the yoake of the Law it was indeed a part of the yoake and obliged a person to it Secondly to that of womens being not circumcised and children under eight dayes old I have at large spoke to them in the first Section of this third part Thirdly the catechumini though they were members yet they were not received into visible and Sacramentall communion of the Lords Supper till baptized the case of the Israelites travelling in the wildernesse was an extraordinary one Fourthly for that which you except against Circumcision being a distinguishing badge because others were Gods servants who had not this badge I answer that of Melchisedeck Lot c. was answered before beside may not a livery bee a distinguishing mark of such a mans servant and yet haply every servant not under the livery the Sabbath was a signe to Gods people yet it may bee you hold that all Gods people till Moses did not keepe a Sabbath Fiftly and for what you adde that you make question whether an unbaptized person might not eate the Lords Supper though you confesse you finde no example of it and that in 1 Cor. 10. 2. 3. 4. and 1 Cor. 12. 13. Baptizing iâ— put before eating and drinking I reply this I must number among your freakes and out-leaps and is a spice of your itch after singular opinions and inconsistent even with your own grant that Baptisme is the way and manner of solemne admission into the Church and that nothing iâ— to bee done about the Sacraments whereof we have not either institution or example and yet here for oppositions sake you will allow men to come to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper though unbaptized and I thinke it never yet was a question in the Church whether an unbaptized person might receive the Lords Supper but say you these and a hundred morâ— cannot make â—â— other then a humane invention if the holy Ghost doe not shew that they agree in this particular of Baptizing as well as Circumcising of Infants I answer but when these Arguments and parallels made by God himselfe are added to the parity of Jewes and Christian Infants in being comprehended with their Parents in the Covenant which is to be sealed it 's a vertuall warrant it 's not meere analogy we reason from for wee have a command to Baptize and wee have the competency of infants to receive baptisme sufficiently proved elsewhere your selfe grant right to Baptisme arises from the present state of a person and therefore wee apply this seale which succeeds that seale to our Infants which succeed their Infants in the priviledge of being faederati with their Parents there being not the least hint in the word that they should be left out To slurre this Argument from Circumcision to Baptisme you frame a large and needlesse comparison between the Priests of old under the Jewish administration and the Ministers of the Gospel now and you demand are Ministers therefore Priests and shew how many absurdities and dangerous consequences will follow if wee give way to such kind of comparisons hence the Papists have pleaded for an universall Bishop and the Prelates for superioritie of Ministers A short answer will serve all this you demand whether therefore Ministers be Priests and so make simile to be idem against all sense and reason as if I had gone about to prove Baptisme to be Circumcision Secondly wee onely apply things set up by God himselfe and make the parallell as God hath made it when any can prove that God hath set up an universal Bishop or appointed superioritie of Ministers one above another and hath made such parallels between them as you speake of let them plead those comparisons and spare not they had in their ministery many things which were typicall of Christ which we have nothing to do with but in other things where the Scripture hath made a comparison wee may doe it safely and may plead from the one to the other as that they must have a call to their office so must wee they that serve the altar must live upon the Altar so they who preach the Gospell are to live upon the Gospel they must bee pure who barâ— the vessels
author â—f spirituall Circumcision The Circumcision of the flesh was the Sacrament of it to them and now that is abolished we have baptisme to seale the same thing Let us see what your exceptions are against it First you acknowledge with me the Apostles scope is to shew that wee are compleat in Christ and therefore needed not Circumcision And you adde his scope was not to teach them that we have another ordinance in stead of Circumcision I reply it is very true he teaches them wee are compleat in Christ and need not Circumcision but it is as true that he further enlarges this comfort by shewing them that we have a visible seale of this compleatnesse in Christ and so it is more evident wee have no need of Circumcision Secondly say you Aretius in his Commentary sayes That the thing it selfe is asserted to the Saints without an outward symbole which yet the adversaries incessantly urged and for which Aretius his helpe you conclude it is utterly against the Apostles whole argument to say that they needed not Circumcision bâ—cause they had another ordinance in the room of it But Sir why do you thus frequently abuse your readers with the names of Learned men inserting some one sentence of theirs into your book and thereby insinuating to your Reader that they are of your Opinion in the point wherein you cite them I assure you it concernes your Conscience as well as your Cause to be thus often taken tardy The Learned Aretius in that very place where you cite him acknowledges indeed That we are compleat in Christ without an externall symbolâ— and that he is a perfect organ of our salvation you needed to have cited no man for this we all concurre with you in it the onely thing controverted is whether the Apostle intend also in this place to shew that our baptism succeeds in the room and use of Circumcision and doth not Aretius concurre in this let himself speak Observetur â—tiam successio Baptismi in locum Circumcisionis quando aperte hunc vocat Circumcisionem Christi Hee plainly tells us that the Apostle calls Baptisme the Circumcision of Christ But since you have put me upon Aretius I shall make bold to inform the Reader that the same Aretius in his Problemes after the History of Valentine Gentilis hath an intire Discourse to prove that Baptisme succeeds Circumcision and brings this second of the Col. there also as a maine evidence and cites many notable testimonies out of the Fathers both Greek and Latine for the confirmation of it Accepimus non illam secundum carnem circumcisionem sed spiritualem quam Enoch similes custodierunt noâ— tamen per baptismum accepimus Circumcisio figura erat exuviarum quae per baptismum deponuntur Abraham ubi Deo erediderat circumcisionem accepit pro nota ejus regenerationis quae per baptismum conficitur Illic fuit circumcisio carnalis quae inservit tempori ad magnam circumcisionem h. e. Bapt. qui circumcidit nos a peccatis obsignat nos Dâ—o Duravit circumcisio tempore inserviens donec major circumcisio accessit h. e. lavacrum regenerationis Affiâ—mat Christum in ecclesia sua dedisse pro circumcisione carnis Baptismum Baptismi circumcisionis ejusdem est natura All these the Reader shall finde in Aretius whom you bring in as if he concurred with you most of these testimonies are before also alledged by me Thirdly but you goe on and say That in truth it would evacuate the Apostles argument used both here and Hebr. 9. 11. 9-13 who still proves the abolition of the ceremonies of the Law because we are compleat in Christ not in some new ordinances added in stead of them for if there bee need of other Ordinances besides Christ in stead of the old then Christ himself hath not fulnesse enough and though our Ordinances may bee said to imitate theirs yet Christ onely succeeds them I answer it is very true that whoever should plead that we have any of our compleatness in any outward Ordinances would evacuate the Apostles Argument But Sir is there no distinction to be made betwixt our complâ—atnesse in Christ and Ordinances which by his own appointment helpe us to apply this compleatnesse doe the Sacraments of Baptisme and the Lords Supper and other Christian Ordinances hinder or argue that all our compleatnesse in not in Christ I adde further that Christ onely succeeds all the Jewish ordinances as the body succeeds the shadow we plead not as the Papists doe that the Jewish Sacraments were types of ours they were types onely of Christ but yet ours succeed them to be like signes of the Covenant of grace and so the Apostle doth in this place Fourthly say you I deny not but there is an analogy betwixt baptisme and circumcision as there is also betwixt the Arke and Baptisme but we are not to conclude thence that Baptisme succeeds in the room and use of Noahs Arke c. for in the administration of an Ordinance we are not to bee ruled by bare analogie framed by our selves or delivered by the Spirit of God but by the institution of God I answer but when those analogies framed by the Spirit of God are agreeable to the use and end of Gods institution we are to bee ruled by them and the Apostle shews that 's our case here Fifthly say you The Apostle in this place rather resembles buriall to circumcision then baptisme and so makes the analogie between circumcision and Christs buriall and you bring in Chrysostome and Theophylact concurring with you I answer this I wonder at where is Circumcision compared to buriall and wherein I pray you lyes the analogie between them Besides whoever will look into this Text shall finde that this spirituall circumcision containes both our death to sin and rising again to newnesse of life by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ both which are here fully signified in our baptisme ver 11. 12. consepulti sumâ—â— the analogy lyes plain between our buryall and baptisme And Chrysostome whom you cite saith plainly wee are spiritually circumcised but when and where and answers in Baptisme Sixthly say you Circumcision was not onely a priviledge to the Jews but it was also a buriben to them and it would be a buâ—then not a priviledge to have an ordinance in the roome and use of it I answer Circumcision was a burthen as it was a painfull Sacrament and as it obliged them to that painfull costly and burthensome manner of the administration of the Covenant which was before Christs incarnation but it was no burden But a great priviledge as it was a seale of the Covenant And in this last respect onely is baptism substituted into his room and place In the close of this Section I like your farewell though you tell me I speake with more confidence then truth I said there had been no reason to
have named baptisme but that he meant to shew baptisme was now to Christians in the room of circumcision to the Jewes You say baptisme is named because it is one of the meanes by which Christians come to have communion with Christ and to be compleat in him which was the thing the Apostle intended in the 12. verse And therefore faith is joyned with it they being the two speciall means whereby we have our communion with Christ to which you adde Gal. 5. 25 26. Rom. 6. 3 4. But is not this the same sense with mine who have hitherto undertaken to justifie that though our compleatnesse be in Christ onely who is now exhibited and no longer to bee sought in the types and shadows of the Jewish administrations to which manner of administrations Circumcision did oblige them yet Baptism is now the seal of our initiation and a meanes to apply this Covenant to us as Circumcision was to them though the manner of their administration be wholly ceased If I have not taken you right make a syllogisme and make all Logick quake before your mighty consequence Baptisme is named because it is one of the meanes of Christians being exempted from the Schoolmaster and come to be ingraffed into Christ and to bee compleat in him therefore it doth not succeed in the roome and place of Circumcision nay rather it therefore doth I pray you put together these words Ye are compleat in Christ in whom ye are also circumcised being buryed with him in baptisme and see if it speake not this plainely that baptisme succeeds into the use of Circumcision surely it hence appeares Circumcision and Baptisme are nearer of kin then you would make them In the close of this Section according to your wonted manner you triumph and tell me that you have at last waded through this conclusion and the text Col. 2. 12. 10. the misunderstanding of which hath been the ignis faruis foolish fire which hath led men out of the way in this matter into bags Truly Sir were these scorns of being led by foolish fire into bogs c cast upon my selfe onely it were nothing but when they are thus cast in the faces of all Divines ancient and modern all Harmonies and Confessions except onely a handfull of upstart Anabaptists as if they were all such simple ones that an ignis fatuus a fooles fire might lead them into any bogs I can hardly forbeare to tell you it is an argument of an arrogant Spirit There is also in the end of your booke a short discourse upon this Text which I read over to see if there were any thing which might weaken my Argument or strengthen your exceptions but in it I finde not any one sentence that hurts me or helps you only some of those things which you call dictates bold assertions some of them contrary to the plain Text of Scripture all of them magisterially set down with out proof as circumcision was not a token of the Covenant to the Iews children which is contrary to the very Text Gen. 17. That the promises of the Covenant were not the reason that they were circumcised Yet any Reader may see that the Covenant is there set downe as the reason why they should bee circumcised That the Jews children were not therefore in covenant because they were Abrahams naturall seed that beleevers children are not in covenant because beleevers children and divers other Conclusions of the same nature which are already answered and therefore I shall not stay the Reader any whit about them Hitherto I have followed you foot by foot because the gaining or losing the cause depends upon these former conclusions the samenesse of the Covenant both to Jews and Centiles the sâ—menesse of our Infants right to the Covenant with theirs and baptisme succeeding circumcision as to the use of an initiall seale to them who are in Covenant In that which remaines I shall more contract the matter of your large Discourseâ— partly because many things in it are upon by-matters partly because that which is materiall is but the repetition of that which hath been answered already My fourth Conclusion was That by Gods owne expresse order Infants as well as growne men were in the time of the Iewes to be initiated and sealed with the signe of circumcision whether Jews by nature or Proselytes of the Gentiles one law was for them all if they receive the covenant they and their children were circumcised This Conclusion you grant to be true onely because you wil say somewhat to every thing you answer First That it is as certain that this expresse order of God is now repealed very true and you might have added That by his order likewise Baptisme succeeds in the room of it I added whereas some alledge Though circumcision was to be applyed to their Infants yet it was not as a seale of the spirituall part of the Covenant but as a Nationall badge or seale of some temporall and earthly blessings and priviledges as of the right to the land of Canaan c. and that Ishmael though he was circumcised for some temporall respects was not thereby brought under the Covenant c. You answer they who thus object speake the truth and here you referre to your Latine Paper I reply to my understanding you here speake pure Anabaptisme indeed just like the Anabaptists in Germany who say The Covenant which circumcision sealed was a carnall covenant and that when God commanded the Israelites to circumcise their children wee are not to understand that he obliged them to have their hearts circumcised nor aimed at any thing which touched the inward man that the condition required by God in circumcision cannot bee drawne to a spirituall businesse that the circumcised by circumcision were not bound to looke for salvation by Jesus Christ how very neare are you come to these carnall conceits of the German Anabaptists which have been a thousand times confuted by our Orthodox Divines yet you bring not one shadow of a proofe for what you say onely you alledge Ishmael had no part in the covenant the covâ—nant was to bee establisted with Isaac and not with Ishmael c. But I have made it abundantly cleare that not onely Ishmael and Esau but missions of Jacobs seed did never partake of the spirituall graces of the Covenant yet were reckoned by circumcision to belong to the Covenant and were obliged to seeke after the spirituall part of it and whereas you say when Ishmael was circumcised Abraham understood the promise was not intended for Ishmael but for Isaac that Ishmael onely was to have a share in some temporall blessings I answer supposing that were true you have given a very good instance to prove that some may receive the outward signe of the Covenant and have a visible standing in the Church though hee who administers the Seale might by revelation know that the inward grace is wanting Secondly I answer how doe you prove
have them baptized to have Baptisme succeed in the stead of Circumeision that it is a benefit to want it God not having appointed it I answer then belike our priviledges of the Covenant of grace are so farre from being inlarged by enjoying the Sacrament of Baptisme that it had been our priviledge to have wanted Baptisme if God had not appointed it and by as good a reason at least you might have said that Circumcision was so farre from being a priviledge to the Jews and their children that it had been a benefit for them to have wanted it if God had not commanded it sure that is a strange kinde of priviledge of which I may truly say that it had been a greater benefit to them who have it to have wanted it if the Donor had not commanded it Next you come more particularly to examine the proofs of my Conclusion and say you the thing I should prove is one of these two either that circumcision did belong to the substance of the Covenant of grace or that the want of circumcision or some Ordinance in the place and use of it is a losse of priviledge of the Covenant of grace to us and our children Sir the thing I was to prove was this 5 Conclusion viz. That our priviledges are inlarged not extenuated and as for these two particulars I have already proved that Circumcision though a part of their administration did yet belong to the substance belong to it I say not as a part of it but as a meanes of applying it And I have also proved that though it be a priviledge to have nothing succeed circumcision as it bound to that manner of administration yet it is a priviledge to have somewhat succeed it as a seale of the Covenant in as much as a Covenant with a seale is a greater benefit then a Covenant without a seale More particularly I said our enlargement of priviledges appeares partly in that wee have freedome in what was burthensome to them in their manner of administration partly because our Covenant is established upon better promises Heb. 8. 6. Whereupon you enter upon a Discourse of that Covenant there mentioned and you positively assert That it was the Covenant of workes Alasse Sir why doe you run into this needlesse and erroneous digression I said indeed in my Sermon that the morall Law was added foure hundred and thirty yeares after the Covenant was made with Abraham not as a part of that Covenant but as a Schoolemaster to whip them to Christ that they finding the impossibility of keeping the Law might more earnestly long after Christ exhibited in those shadows of Rites and Sacrifices c. but to say that this Covenant mentioned in the eight of the Hebrews was the Covenant of works is a most erroneous doctrine look into the Text and you shall find that the Covenant which is there mentioned which God finds fault with and calls the first Covenant in opposition to this bâ—tter Covenant had Ordinances of divine Worship had a Sanctuary a Tabernacle Priests and High Priests Sacrifices and other Rites belonging to the administration of it Sir was this the Covenant of works I hope you will not own it in your next Next you say That place 2 Cor. 3. 10. the glory of theirs bad no glory in respect of ours This is not meant of the Covenant of grace but of the Covenant in Mount Sinai therefore impertinently alledged by me Sir I wonder at your confidence in it the Reader will easily discorne that the whole scope of that Chapter clearly holds forth the preheminence of the Ministery of the Gospel above the Ministery of Moses his vailed Ceremonies belike then with you Moses Ceremonies were the Covenant of works Next I shewed in my Sermon that as our priviledges are better then theirs in being free'd from their burthens so we as well as they enjoy the honour of being called a holy Nation a peculiar people a chosen generation c. Vpon this you discourse at large especially against Mr. Blake and you undertake to prove that all these things are meant of the invisible Church I answer very briefly none of us ever doubted but that the spirituall part belongs onely to the invisible Church and did so in the time of the Jews as well as now but yet we as well as the Jews partake of that priviledge and our visible standing gives us the honor to be so reputed as wel as theirs gave it unto them and were all the Jews who had the honour to bee called a holy Nation really such were they all inwardly holy or effectually called the like answer serves to your discourse upon Rom. 9. the Apostle speakes there of adoption as a priviledge of the body of that Nation their whole Nation had the Honour to bee called the children of God according to Deut. 14. 1. Ye are the children of the Lord your God yet they were not all the spirituall children of God the Reader may see more of this in the vindication of my second Conclusion and you shall doe well in your next solidly to prove that these were not priviledges which the visible Church of the Jewes enjoyed though many among them had the kernell without the shell rather then thus to triumph in these feeble exceptions I added Wee have all these things with advantage not onely in the clearnesse of the administration but in some sense in greater extent to persons with us there is neither male nor female Why I adde this of male or female you say you know not except I meane to insinuate that in the Jewish Church there was male and female because Circumcision was onely of the males c. I reply I acknowledge that though it bee true that among true beleevers among the Jews there was neither male nor female all equally did partake of the spirituall part of the Covenant as well as now with us yet for the comfortable manner of administration of it even this distinction of male and female is a priviledge enlaâ—ged under this last and best administration and the Apostle in that place Gal. 3. 28. doth plainly intimate the enlargement of this priviledge in this respect and so I think the words plainly hold out As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ there is neither Iew nor Greeke bond nor free made nor female for ye are all one in Christ Jesus and if ye be Christs then are ye Abrahams seed and heires according to promise To me the Apostle here doth plainly hold out that now under the New Testament baptisme is the visible pledge of our being Abrahams seed as circumcision was the pledge of it under the Old Testament that here is the enlargement of our priviledge in the New Testament that whereas Circumcision of old was applyed to one Nation and not to others now out of all Nations such are called in as are made Abrahams seed whether Jew or Greek
And whereas of old the seale was applyed onely to the males in this respect the differences of sexes is now taken away And although it be true that the spirituall part of all this be made good onely to true beleevers who likewise alone have the inward baptisme yet visible professors enjoy the visible priviledge Next you proceed to reply to an Objection which I propounded in my Sermon and answered viz. In some thing 's the Jews had greater priviledges then we have as that Abraham had the priviledge to bee called the Father of the faithfull that Christ should be born of his flesh the Virgin Mary had the priviledge to be the Mother of Christ the whole Nation of the Jews had this priviledge that God will call in their seed againe after they had been cast off for unbelief many hundred years which priviledges none of the Gentiles have or can have And my answer was That our question is about such priviledges as belong to all who have a standing under the Covenant which every one who is in covenant with God might expect by vertue of the covenant whether hee were a Jew or a Proselyte not for any peculiar or personall priviledge to any one man or woman or family or Tribe That it no ways derogates from us that some particular person or Tribe should enjoy some peculiar priviledges but if any of the common priviledges which they all enjoyed by vertue of their Church standing should be abridged then the priviledges of the New Testament would bee more restrained then those of the Old this said I is against the word of God Your answer is That this Argument hath no weight but onely amongst Vulgar and nonsyllogising capacities and therefore in your Latine Paper you mention these instances of the Virgin Mary c. And thence would shew That the Iews might have more priviledges in some respect in some things then we and yet our condition better then theirs by reason of some other priviledges we have above them which recompence the defect of those priviledges and therefore no good Argument can be drawne That because God gave such a priviledge to the Jews therefore we must have such a priviledge too yea it would bee an Argument of arrogant presumption to say the Iews had such a priviledge therefore we must have it They had a priviledge to circumcise Iufants therfore we mast baptise Infants I Answer I thinke indeed it would take with no sober Christian thus to argue The Jewes had it therefore wee must have it But Sir to argue thus God gave such a priviledge to the whole Church of the Jews that their Infants should be reputed to belong to his Church and have the initiall seale Therefore if hee have not granted to Christians that their Infants shall also bee reputed to belong to his Church and partake of the initiall seale then his grace to beleevers under the New Testament is straitned as to their posterity This Argument appeares so cleare to mee that I must confesse my selfe one of those Dull ones who know not how to deny the consequence In the meane time I observe that though you would make your Reader believe that these personall priviledges of Abraeham to have Christ born of his flesh the Virgin Mary to be the mother of Christ c. doe presse my Conclusion yet you spake not one word to vindicate them from my answer And therefore I collect that by this time you see that now under this administration some personal priviledges which a few of the Jews had over and above what belonged to the rest may be denyed us and yet they make nothing against this Argument That if the common priviledges which every one of them had were denyed us our priviledges were straitned Your other exception which you make concerning Melchisedeck Lot and Job have been often answered before That which you adde concerning one kinde of Proselytes among the Iews who were called Proselytes of the gate who though they were not circumcised were yet reckoned among the Worshippers of God such at were Cornelius and others and were also within the Covenant of grace I know not what you intend to gather from it unlesse you would intimate that they were Church-members among the Jewes although they were not circumcised but had you said so that the priviledges and Church-membership of these Proselytes of the Gate were as honourable as those of the Proselytes of the Covenant your learned Readers would have smiled at you sure there would have been no need for God to have instructed Peter by a Vision from heaven that he should not call them to whom he was to be sent uncleane nor had Peter been ever put to have made his apologie for going in to Cornelius and his company if these uncircumcised Proselytes of the Gate had been reputed Church-members among the Jews Next you grant The Iews indeed had that priviledge to have their children reckoned in the outward administration as branches of the O live by their birth which the Gentiles have not But if we Gentiles have it not then are not wee I pray you straitned in that particular And I demand further when we are graffed in and so naturalized with them doe we not partake of all the fatnesse or priviledges of the Olive with them what Scripture ever denyed it I demand yet further did the many ten thousands of Jews who were baptized in the Apostles dayes by their comming under this best administration of the Covenant and thereby kept their former growing in the Olive with advantage did they thereby deprive their Children of that which you say was their naturall priviledge if you thinke so produce your evidence to prove it if they were not then it seemes the Jewes who beleeved in Christ and kept their station had a greater priviledge for their children then the Gentiles who grow together with them have for their children I added Let any man shew out of the Scripture where our priviledges under the Gospel are cut short in any of these things and in particular for the case in hand concerning our Infants right to the Covenant and seale of it once we are sure the Infant-children of all Covenanters were within the Covenant and the sedle also belonged to them and by vertue of the Covenant which is still the same 〈◊〉 plâ—ad their interest in it let any shew when and where this was taken away You answer it is unreasonable to require this at your hands to shew what you doe not avouch you goe not about to expunge Infants of beleevers out of the Covenant of Grace and you see no cause to beleeve me who affirme that once they were within the Covenant c. I reply but doe not you avouch That the Infants of the Jewes had this peculiar privilâ—dge and birth-right to be under the administration of the Covenant which ours have not which you know is the onely thing controverted betwixt us may not I boldly say That
once the Infants of all Covenanters had this priviledge may I not also exact of you to shew when and where this was taken away who though you goe not about to expunge them out of the book of life yet you expresly expunge them out of visible membership while you say the Jews Infants had it and ours have it not Lastly I added who ever will goe about to deprive them of it to cut off such a great part of the comfort of beleeving Parents must produce clear testimonies before they can perswade beleevers to part with either of them either right to the Covenant or to the seale of the Covenant because next to the glory of God and the salvation of their owne soules their Infants interest in the Covenant is one of the greatest benefits beleevers have from the Covenant of grace even to have their Children belong to Gods family and Kingdome and not to the Devills Children being the greatest treasure of their Parents and the salvation of their childrens soules the greatest treasure in their children and therefore to exclude them out of that society or visible standing where salvation is ordinary is so great a losse or eclipsing of their comfort aâ— whoever would make them yeeld to it had need produce very strong evidence and much more I said in my Sermon to this purpose You answer Here I am upon my advantage ground in a veine of Oratory and on a subject of all others aptest to move affections to wit Parents tendernesse to their children I confesse in this point I stand upon a vantage ground not in Oratory to which I pretend not but in point of truth had I only spoken words without weight you could and would have discovered their emptiness and scoffed at them sufficiently you make severall small exceptions which I shal briefly touch as First That I touch something too neare upon the Popish Opinion as if I might be guess'd to symbolize with that Opinion of the Papists who judge all unbaptized infants to perish which is not worth the answering Then you demand What comfort doe wee give Parents which the Antipaedobaptists doe not give them as well as we or what discomforts in truth doe they give them which we doe not I answer the difference is very great you leave them in the state of Infidells we in the condition the Jews children were in while they were the people of God wee account them actually belonging to the visible kingdom of Christ you actually to belong to the visible kingdom of the Devill wee leave them under the benefit of that promise I will be the God of thee and of thy feed you acknowledge no more promise for them then for the children of Turks it may be these things are of no account to you but I doubt not but they will bee with your unprejudiced Reader I next proceeded to the maine and onely Objection made against this whole Argument which is this There is no command no expresse institution or cleare example in all the New Testament of baptizing of Infants and in administration of Sacraments wee are not to be led by our owne reason or grounds of seeming probabilities but by the expresse order of Christ and no otherwise You say this is indeed the maine Objection and without answering it all that I have said is to little purpose But Sir did not you formerly grant that upon the proving of my two first Conclusions the whole cause depended if therefore those Conclusions remaine firme there is enough already said to the purpose You adde Vnlesse this Objection be removed the practice of baptizing infants will never be acquitted from Will-worship and that the Prelatists will shew vertuall commands from analogy of the Ceremoniall Law of the Jews and Traditions Ecclesiasticall as ancient as ours for Paedobaptisme for their Prelacy Holy dayes Surplice c. And therefore if I stand not to iâ— here I must yeeld up my weapons Sure you think you are here like to get some advantage you speake so big but by this time I have had such sufficient experience of your strength that I much feare not your great words First for the point of Will-worship I shall desire you to prove this Conclusion That all things belonging to Christian worship even in the circumstances of it even the ages and sexes of the Persons to whom the Ordinances are to bee applyed must bee expresly set down in the new Testament if you prove not this you say nothing to the purpose for this is our very case I have already shewed the falsenesse of it in the point of the Christians Sabbath for though the Ceremoniall Worship which was a type of Christ be wholly abolished yet not every thing which concerns all Worship which must have an institution is abolished And for the plea which the Bishops and others may pretend from the analogy of the Ceremoniall Law when you shew how they will raise their Arguments which possibly you have more skill and experience to doe then I have as plainly as I doe for Infant-baptisme you may possibly prevaile with the Reader in their behalf And when you shew as much Ecclesiasticall Antiquity for Prelacy Holydayes Surplice c. I shall beleeve your Reading to be greater then I can yet be perswaded of that you have seen some such Monuments of Antiquity which the Prelaticall Party could never yet light upon But I proceed with you I first granted That there is no expresse syllabicall command for baptizing of Infants no expresse example where Children were baptized Sure say you this is a shrewd signe that I am not like to make good my ground having yeelded thus much And why so I pray your very next words leave me ground enough when you say That if it bee made good by good consequence it is sufficient what need was there then of this idle scoffe I added Many other points of high concernment are not expresly laid down in the New Testament aâ— forbidden degrees of marriage Laws against Polygamy the Law of a weekly Sabbath c. You answer In meere positive Worship it must be so it must have either Precept or Apostolicall example equivalent to a precept found in the New Testament else it is will-worship and this say you is our case in hand I answer as before there is no absolute necessitie that every circumstance of an Ordinance or the severall Sexes or ages to whom an Ordinance ought to bee applyed must bee thus set downe in the New Testament this is sufficiently cleared Part 2. Sect. 8. and part 3. Sect. 1. As for the forbidden degrees of marriage you say there is one branch mentioned and censured in the New Testament viz. the incestâ—ouâ— Corinthians case and that is say you a finne against a morall commandement but how would you laugh at such a consequence in another a man may not marry his fathers wife a thing which by the light of nature was abborred amongst the Heathens Ergo
all the degrees of forbidden marriage in Moses Lawes stand firme The like say you against Pâ—lygamy there is proofe against it Matth. 19. 5. 9. But is this an expresse prohibition of it must you not bee compelled to goe by a consequence to bring it in which is all I contend for For that of the Sabbath you referre your Reader to Sect. 8. Part 2. whither I also most willingly send him and leave it to his impartiall judgement whether the advantage lie not clearely on my side I added there is no expresse command for children of Beleevers when they are growne that they should be instructed and baptized no expresse command or example where women received the Lords Supper good consequence I acknowledge there is but no syllabicall or expresse mention of it but say you there is expresse mention of womens receiving the Sacrament Let a man examine himselfe 1 Cor. 11. 8. where the Greeke word comprehends both sexes but doth that Greeke word where ever it is used signifie both sexes you will not offer to say it I deliver to you what I received from the Lord Vers 23. that say you is a command to the whole Church which consisted of women as well as men c. But Sir if any man were disposed to wrangle with you might hee not in your owne words doe it and say all these expressions must be limited pro subject a materia I grant all this is good by consequence but not in expresse termes the same say I for Infants you grant all disciples may bee baptized for that you say there is an expresse command your selfe also grant that regenerate Infants may be called disciples I grant this a good Argument by consequence that such Infants may bee baptized and if I have proved or can prove that Infants of beleevers by their birth priviledge have a right to bee esteemed visible Disciples then by your owne gâ—ant by a good consequence they also may bee baptized and I undertake to justifie that Infants of beleevers are visible Disciples as truely as regenerate Infants are invisible disciples I adde further they who are visible Covenanters are to receive the visible signe Ergo Infants who have been at large proved to bee visible Covenanters are to receive Baptism which is the visible signe of it these things are fully cleared already it is apparent there is as cleare a command for Baptisme to be the initiall seale under this administration as ever there was for Circumcision under that administration and as good evidence that our children are to be reckoned to the Covenant as there was for theirs and no exception in the word put in against them Is not here then good consequence that therefore they are to have the Seale administred to them suppose when Paul said let a man examine himselfe and so let him eatâ— that there had been no women there then amongst them would not this command by consequence have reached women as well as men if this qualification was found in them that they could have examined themselves must the command necessarily expresse all sexes ages or conditions or else not reach them these things I mention as consequences parallell to these which your selfe infist upon I added wee by good consequence have sufficient command and example for Infantâ— Baptisme to which you answer I should have said jeere I fetch such a compasse that you imagine my attempt will prove but a Mouse from the Mâ—untaines travell I perceive you know not how you should possesse your Reader with prejudice if you should not now and then interline a confident scoffe but let 's try the particulars my first was Abraham who received the Covenant had a command to seale his children with the initiall seale because his children were in Covenant with him Now because what concerned the substance of the Covenant is alwayes the same and what concerned them then who were in Covenant as they were Covenanters the same concernes us equally with them as we are Covenanters what concerned them in reference onely to their administration was peculiar to themselves as that which concernes the manner of our administration is peculiar to us it thence follows that the same command which was laid upon them in their administration in all those things which properly related to the substance or spirituall thing intended in that administration by a just analogie and proportion binds us as well as them I said this our Divines maintaine against the Papists that Gods commands and institutions about the Sacraments of the Jewes bind us as much as they did them in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant and were not accidentall to them my meaning being plainly this that all Gods Commands and Institutions about the Sacraments of the Jewes as touching their generall nature of being Sacraments and seales of the Covenant and as touching their use and end doe bind us in our Sacraments because in these they are the same To speake yet more plainely if I can there are in the Sacraments these two things to bee distinguished the generall nature end and use of a Sacrament to seale the Covenant of God by some sensible signe and secondly the manner of administration of these signes as they referre to Christ to be exhibited or to Christ already exhibited The first concernes rem ipsam the thing it self which I called in my Sermon the Substance the other which concernes the peculiar way or manner of doing it in reference to Christ not yet come or to Christ already come that in my Sermon I called Accidentall now when I say that Gods commands about their Sacraments bind us my meaning never was to assert that the rituall part of their Sacraments doe remaine in the least particle or that we are tied to practise any of those things but onely that there is a generall and analogicall nature wherein the Sacraments of the Old and New Testament doe agree and that in these things our Divines doe argue from their Sacraments to our Sacraments thus Chamier Catholici docent convenire Sacramenta vetera cum novis omnibus iis capitibus quae sunt de Sacramenti natura Protestants doe teach that the Sacraments of the Old Testament doe agree with the Sacraments of the New in all things which concerne the nature of a Sacrament and yet saith he our very senses teach us that the externall rites of their Sacraments doe differ from ours So Amesius quaecunque de Circumcisione dicuntur spectant ad Sacramentalem ejuâ— naturam quam habet in communi cum reliquis Sacramentis illarecte applicantur ad omnia Sacramenta and addes immediatly ratio signandiest talis in circumcisione and you know multitudes of our Divines speake to the same purpose their Sacraments were Seales of the Covenants so are ours their Sacraments had a Divine institution so have ours their Sacraments were not empty Sacraments no more are ours the grace accompanying their Sacraments was not included
in their Sacraments tanquam contentum in continente nor in ours their Sacraments were to bee administred onely to them who were accounted to bee in Covenant so are ours they had one Sacrament which most immediatly and properly was a standing Sacrament for admission into the visible Church so have wee now in these things doe our Divines use to argue by analogy and proportion from their Sacraments to ours this was that which I intended in my Sermon namely That looke what dutie they were tyed to by their Sacraments in seeking after the spirituall part of it looke what graces they were bound to beleeve to bee sealed unto them in their Sacraments the same are we tied to beleeve in ours these things concerne us as much as they did them but for those things which were the accidentall or if you like not that expression which concerne onely the rituall part of their Sacraments these doe no wayes oblige us Rites and Ceremonies which were peculiar to them are ceased the duties obligations comforts and benefits which they were led to in their administration doe all remaine the same to us under our administration when the Apostle sayes 1 Cor. 10. That all our fathers did eate the same spirituall meat and dranke the same spirituall drinke our Interpreters generally doe agree that by the same spirituall meate and the same spirituall drinke is meant the same with ours So Calvin Beza Chamier and who not because say they Eadem fuit veterum Sacramentorum nostrorum substantia Their Sacraments and ours were the same in substance yet no man is so absurd as to thinke that either the Manna or the water of the Rock doe remaine to us such an analogicall Argument as this the Apostle Paul himselfe uses Ephes 6. from the fifth Commandement which in the Jewes time was backt with a particular promise of living long in the Land whiâ—h the Lord their God would give them and beleevers now have no promise of living in the land of Canaan yet Paul there presses a promise to us from the generall scope of that promise Honour thy father and mother which is the first Commandement with promise that it may be well with thee and that thou mayst live long on the earth I indeavour the more fully to expresse my sense in this particular because after your usuall manner you endeavour to make my assertion senselesse and absurd and then come to reason against a sense of your owne making and cannot bee acknowledged to be mine Now I proceed to see what you say against this Argument First say you it is no undâ—niable argument that this must bee good because all Protestants use it nor did I lay the weight of this upon their number or consent but onely intimated that it is obvious and usuall if you take away the strength of the Argument I shall not leaue upon the men Secondly you consent not to this that there were no other ordinary Sacraments among the Iewes then Circumcision and the Passeover you rather concurre with Mr. Cudworth that they had almost as many Sacraments as Ceremonies I reply whether this bee right or wrong it is nothing to the businesse in hand Mr. Cudworth denies not the lawfulnesse of such an Argument as reasoning from the Jewes Sacraments to ours in that sense which I have here set downe yea in that very Treatise he acknowledges the Lords Supper to succeed the Passeover in that notion of being a feast upon a Sacrifice Thirdly you take a great deale of paines to put a sense upon my words which I never thought of viz. That the Iewish Sacraments are still in force to us that I make some things in the Iewish Sacraments to bee substantiall some things to bee accidentall that the accidentalls I would have abolished the substantialls to remaine that I shew but little skill in Logick in opposing the substance of an Act and the Accidents of it that I would make somethings commanded by God in the Sacraments accidentall and not to bee of the same weight or obligation as other things which are substantiall and finally you bring no lesse then ten Arguments to prove that all the Iewes Ceremonies Rites and Sacraments are all abrogated substance and circumstance whole and part In all your ten Arguments I fully concurre with you and in that conclusion which you confute by those Arguments I never understood by the substance of their Sacraments the sensible signes used in the Sacraments but rem Sacramâ—nti the spirituall part of the Sacrament or the res signata and my Argument was never intended to bee any other then that analogicall Argument which is above set downe and none of your Arguments meddle with You proceed to those particular instances I gave in which you might have knowne the meaning of my Argument if you had pleased and spared fighting with your owne shadow by your ten Arguments The first is Circumcumcision is called a Seale of the Covenant thenoâ— our Divines plead our Sacraments are Seales of the Covenant To this you except first you know not where Circumcision is called the Seale of the Covenant though you acknowledge it is called the signe of the Covenant in one place and both the signe and seale of the righteousnesse of faith in another place truely Sir I thought that the comparing of these two Scriptures together had been sufficient to shew that Circumcision was a sealing signe Secondly you except though Circumcision bee called so yet that is no Argument to call our Sacraments so though you are willing they should bee called so and you say our Sacraments are Seales of the Covenant I reply lay aside but this analogicall Argument and prove if you can that our Sacraments are Seales our Sacraments are neither called signes nor seales in the New Testament all the world must grant indeed that they are signes but when the Papists deny our Sacraments to be Seales of the Covenant how will you bee able to prove it if you lay aside this Argument Circumcision was a Seale therefore our Sacraments are Seales ours agreeing with their in the generall nature of a Sacâ—ament Next I said Circumcision might bee administred but once it being the Seale of admission therefore Baptisme being also the Seale of admission may bee administred but once you answer denying both antecedent and consequent you know nothing you say but that hoth Circumcision and Baptisme might bee administred more then once which I hope I have sufficiently consuted in answer to Sect. 4. Part. 2. And secondly say you had there been a command to circumcise but once it would not follow that therefore a person may bee baptized but once but when this is proved that Baptisme succeeds Circumcision to bee the initiall Seale which your selfe cannot deny it must then follow that a man may bee baptized but once no more then hee may be circumcised but once because where there is the same reason of a command or practise there must bee the
the high way that as Infants are to bee reputed to belong to the Covenant as well as grown visible professors which was the drift of my first Argument so the scope of this is to shew that they are in the same capacitie to partake of the inward grace of the Covenant while they are Infants as there is of grown visible professors and that they are not onely capable of it but many of them are actually partakers of it as well as grown men and consequently that wee have the same ground to look upon and judge Infants of beleevers to bee regenerate as upon grown men by a visible profession there being to â—s no infallible ground of certaintie but of charity for the one noâ— for the other and that their visible right to the Covenant and the many promises of God made to the seed of the faithfull are as good evidences to ground this judgement upon as the externall signes which growne men can give and therefore whereas you say that all the Infants of beleevers or the Infants of beleevers in as much they are the Infants of beleevers are actually partakers of the inward grace of Baptisme else the Argument will not serve for my purpose I utterly deny that this is the Conclusion to be proved or that my argument is not to the purpose unlesse I undertake to prove this for I argue in the like case from grown men who are visible Professors thus All who are partakers of the inward grace of Baptism may and ought to partake of the outward signe and seale but visible Professors are partakers c. This minor is lyable to the same exceptions that the other is for who knows not that many visible Professors have not the invisible grace That many are called when but few are chosen and yet your self doe hold that we may de side out of faith assurance that we do it according to Gods will apply the outward signe to them though we have nothing but charity to make us conceive the inward graces to be in them Neither can we by the judgement of charity think that all visible Professors taken together in a lumpe have the inward grace the Scripture which is the rule of our charity having declared the contrary our charity onely warrants us to judge of every single person when possibly we may know no more against the one then against the other though we know there are some false hearted amongst them The same is to be said for Infants and this I proved out of the Scripture Mark 10. To such belongs the kingdom of God and in my Sermon I vindicated this Text from the glosses which the Anabaptists would put upon it your exceptions against it are such as these it is possible they were not very little ones possibly our Saviour meant not of them but of such as they for the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of such not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of these possibly horum similium of thâ—se and the like possibly they were not the children of beleevers possibly it is meant onely of elect Infants that these were elect and should in time be called but yet say you grant all and it will not â—ence follow that all Infants of beleevers have right to invisible grace yea it here suits better for confirmation then for baptisme yea that it is rather an evidence Christ would not have Infants baptized because he ordered not thâ—se Infants to bee baptized But Sir how many of these things would you have called dictates in another assertions without proof and to how little purpose are all these things brought iâ— your self grant enough to serve my turne you grant that the kingdom of heaven did belong to these Infants and I intended from this instance not to prove that all Infanta of beleevers are made partakers of saving grace but that Infants in their infantile age are capable of inward grace and some of them actually partakers of it this is enough for me and more then this cannot be said of growne men who are visible Professors I added in my Sermon sa one branch of a reason that there is nothing belonging to the initiation and being of a Christian whereof Baptisme is a seale whereof Infants are not capable as well as grown men as receiving the holy Ghost union with Christ pardon of forme regeneration eternall life Your answer is a scoffe out of Horaâ—e Amphora caepit institui c. I should prove say you that all Infants of beleevers are actually partakers and in stead of this I prove they are capable of it Sir this is but one part of my reason and I undertook not to prove that all infants but onely that fome are partakers of it I added and it is further considerable that in the working that inward grace of which baptisme is the signe and seale all who partake of that grace are but meerâ— Patients and therefore Infants are as fit subjects to have it wrought in them as growne men and the most growne men are in no more fitnesse to receive this grace when it is given them in respect either of faith or repentance which they yet bave then a very little child c. You answer by demanding whether I bring all this as a proofe that all infants have it or that they are capable of it or whether I intend it â—s a further argument that baptisme is to be given to those who are capable of the first grace which because Infants are as well as grown men therefore they are to be baptized but then you deny the major for a person is not to be baptized because he may have grace but because he hath it Sir I brought it to prove that which was in hand viz. that Infants are capable of it as well as grown men and that some of them are partakers of it as well as grown men and therefore their Infant-age cannot be pleaded against them as if inward grace could not compâ—tere to their present condition And as for that you adde That baptisme is to be administred not to them who may have grace but to them who have it Then it seemes they are all wrongly baptized who have not inward grace and so according to your owne expression baptisme to such is as a seal set to a blank yet you know even the Apostles themselves baptized many who were in no better condition and your selfe afterward grant That a Minister may defide administer this Sacrament to such as make a visible profession though he be not assured of any inward grace I have often proved that a right to bee reckoned to belong to the visible Church is a sufficient warrant to administer the seal of admission Secondly you much trouble your self to finde out what I meane by the first grace whether the free favour of God or the Covenant of grace whether if I meane the first grace in exceution I pitch upon justification or regeneration or adoption and then
and holy Ghost should be interpreted to be invocation of Gods name and so to make Baptisme and Prayer all one is strange Divinity it is true Paul was exhorted to pray or call upon Gods name when he was to bee baptized Acts 22. 16. but doth it prove that his Baptisme and Prayer was all one it may be you meane onely this that every person who is baptized must be able himself at the time of his baptisme to pray if that bee your meaning prove it by your next shew why more at Baptisme then at Circumcision As for your fourth were not the Infants of the Jews devoted to God by Circumcision though they could not actually devote themselves To your fifth That they were to teach them as soon as they bad baptized them and that therefore none wete to be baptized unlesse they were fit presently after their Baptisme to learne the rest of their duty I answer this also is sufficiently answered in Sect. 13. Part 3. and I further adde that baptized persons ought indeed to be taught all that Christ commands them and so likewise were circumcised persons but not presently onely as they were capable of it and able to receive it And as for the persons baptized by John and Christs disciples I have before answered that it cannot appeare that they baptized no oother but such as made profession of faith and repentance and if it were granted it follows not that therefore no other may be baptized their practice is a good rule though not a full rule as I shewed Sect. 13. Part 3. And whereas you say Iohn baptized none but upon profession of repentance you would have a hard task to prove it if any man should put you to it to prove I say that Iohn did impose or require confession of sin before baptisme it is said hee baptized them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to repentance not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as stated in actuall repentance and his calling for repentance and preaching the Baptisme of repentance shew that this was the lesson they were all to learne not that they must all manifest that they had it before he baptized them and though some did make confession of their finnes yet you can never prove that all did it or were tyed to it Sure I am I meet with very learned Men who judge thus That their confession of sinnes was not because confession was a necessary medium to all who should receive Baptisme but because heretofore Baptisme had initiated into Judaisme and so to Legall performances and the men who came to be baptized of John were such who had been educated in an opinion of Justification by works of the Law and therefore John in calling for repentance did but clear his Baptisme from misconstruction lest they should think it to be a Baptisme obliging to legall performances as that was of old he would teach them that his Baptism was a Baptisme of repentance and faith in Christ and so doth but rectifie those relyers upon their owne righteousnesse in the right doctrine of Justification which the Gospel now began to teach contrary to their legall conceited righteousnesse and that therefore his calling for repentance and beliefe in him that should come after did more shew the nature of the Gospel to which his Baptisme was the introduction then the nature of the Sacrament of Baptisme it selfe or the method in which it was to be administred and with these accords the interpretation Paul made of Johns baptisme Acts 19. 4. and consequently that the confession required had speciall relation to the condition of the persons who came to be baptized and was not necessary for all more would be required of a heretick for his admission into the bosome of the Church then is requisite to be required of a child But however I thinke it will be hard for you to confute this I shall leave it to the Judicious Readers consideration and not insist upon it but shall readily grant that all Jews and Pagans so boâ—ne and bred were not baptized till they professed their faith and repentance because the Jews were all to come under a new administration and the Gentiles till then were wholly aliens from the Covenant of grace and then their Infants came in in their Parents right But say you This grant that the Iewes who already were in Covenant were to make confession before they were baptized is a sufficient proofe that the administration of Circumcision is not the administration under which we now are and that overthrows all virtuall consequences from Circumcision to Baptisme I reply who ever said that this administration is the same with theirs it is the same Covenant but a new administration And as to that you say This overthrows all virtuall consequences from Circumcision to Baptisme I have so abundantly justified this before that I shall not trouble the Reader with it againe though you repeate this so often that I am ready to thinke you hope your reader will beleeve you in one place if he doe not in the other You adde my saying That their Infants were to come in onely in their parents right doth overthrow my second Argument because that is grounded upon a right which Infants had of their own viz. participation of the grace of the Sacrament I answer belike then if any had pleaded thus for the Jewes Infants That to Infants as well as growne men God communicated the spirituall part of Circumcision therefore they might bee circumcised you would answer that that Argument would overthrow their right from their birth-priviledge I rather should judge it to be a second good Argument for their Circumcision the truth is they are both grounds of Gods owne appointing and the second is a farther manifestation of their right to the Sacrament God not onely giving them a visible standing in his Church because they are the seed of the faithfull but among them who are Infants as well as among growne men doth worke inward grace by his holy Spirit according to his good pleasure Whereas you adde that you cannot yet discerne but that our grounds for Paed baptisme are worse then the Papists and ancients who build it upon the necessitie of baptisme to salvation I must needs tell you your respect to the reformed Churches in this is very small whilâ—t you thinke the Papists ground of damnation of Infants not baptized is not so ill as the Protestants who baptize them because they looke upon them as within the Covenant of grace I will not aggravate this I hope in time you will see it and be sorry for it But you glory much in the advantage you thinke you have got from that which followes in my Sermon the Heathen nations who were to bee converted to Christ were yet without the Covenant of grace and their children could have no right untill themselves were brought in and therefore no marvaile though both Iohn and Christs Disciples and Apostles did teach before they baptized because then no
order as our food is a witnesse that wee are alive and is a meanes to preserve our life but yet it must bee supposed that wee are first made alive before wee are capable of the benefit of our food And whereas you jerke at that phrase of the Lords Supper sealing the growth and augmentation of the Covenant as an unfit expression truely I thought every child would have understood that by nourishment and augmentation I meant nothing but the nourishment and growth of those graces of the Covenant which the Covenant promiseth and all are tied to seek after As to that of the Jewes Infants eating the Passeover I answered there is no such thing mentioned in the books of God It is said indeed that the severall families were to eate the Lambe and if the family were too little to eate a Lambe severall families were to joyne together and that when their children should aske them the meaning of it they were to instruct them about it but not a word of institution appointing them to eate it nor any example witnessing that they did eate it You answer All the males were appointed three times a yeere to appeare before the Lord one of which was the Passeover and at that time there was no other food to bee eaten but unleavened bread and the Pascall Supper and you observe out of Ainsworth that every child that could hold his father by the hand and could goe up from Jerusalem gates to the mountaine of the Temple his father was bound to carry him up to the end hee might catechise him in the Commandements and they who went up were bound to keepe the feast I answer were the Jewes bound to carry all their Babes up with them to Jerusalem or any of them before they had understanding in those rites and mysteries and was there no food among them all that time but the Sacramentall food were the uncleane and uncircumcised in their families to fast all that time produce any Scripture that witnesseth these you indeed quote two or three broken testimonies out of the Rabbins who lived some hundred yeers after Christ but not one text of Scripture and yet even your Rabbins say no more then I am willing to grant that when they could understand the service they might partake of it nor doth the Gospell prohibite such young ones to partake of the Lords Supper who are able to discerne the Lords body I observe also that when a testimony out of a Jewish Rabbi seemes to make any thing on your side you draw more confident conclusions from it and fetch consequences further then you will allow mee to doe out of the holy Scriptures The application of my Sermon you passe over as not being argumentative onely in the first use you againe fall upon the comparison which I made betwixt Hazaels slaying the Infants of Israel and the principles of the Anabaptists in putting the children of beleevers out of the Covenant of grace and this you aggravate to the utmost calling it a false accusation a fruit of passion not of holy zeale this also you fell upon in the very beginning of your treatise where I answered I compared not their intentions with his but the fruit of their principles casting all beleevers children as much out of the Covenant of grace as they doe the children of Turkes and Pagans and this I am sure they doe and your selfe joyne with them who acknowledge no more promise for the children of beleevers then for the children of Turkes and leave them to have their actuall standing in the visible kingdome of the Devill This I said in a spirituall sense was more heavy to the bowells of Christian parents then to see their Infants slaine before their face while in the meane time they might looke upon their Infants so dying to bee within the pale of the Church where salvation is ordinarily to bee found this I leave the Reader to judge of Whereas you adde that this followes not upon the doctrine of Antipaedobaptisme that Infants are thus excluded and that if to be within the Covenant of grace bee rightly expounded you exclude them from the Covenant of grace no more then I doe of the truth of this without any needlesse repetition I leave the Reader to judge by what hath been disputed betwixt you and mee if they find this assertion of yours to bee true I give them leave to charge mee with the same rashnesse false accusations and passions which here you powre upon mee if not I am sure they will lay it all at your dore I now come to your Epilogue wherein you intimate first that you presume you have said so much against my Sermon that you hope I see cause to consider more exactly of this businesse then I had done before that I am not now so confident as I was that this is Gods truth I answer as in the presence of the same great God to whom you and I both must give an account I have seriously weighed what you have written or any other who have come to my hands with a full resolution not to shut my eyes against what light hee would cause to shine upon mee and upon my most diligent study accompanied with my weake yet sincere and earnest prayers I am more confirmed in it and the more I have studied the clearer it appeares unto mee Secondly you say you have endeavored to examine every thing of weight delivered in my Sermon and what you could remember of Mr. Thomas Goodwins and what Mr. Blake or any other have written about this thing and I likewise have seriously weighed and not past over any thing of weight in this your Examen Thirdly you say you chose out my Sermon because I am in print stiled the Antefignanus the Ensigne-bearer a title which I neither deserve nor desire Fourthly you motion that all wee who have appeared in publique in this cause would joyne our strength together in a reply to this your Examen that you might see the whole strength imbattel'd that you might not be put to the reading of every Pamphlet Truely Sir this smells a little too rankly thus confidently to challenge all men not contented with Goliah to say Give mee a man that I might fight with him but to defie a whole host argues a little too much selfe-confidence But for your satisfaction here is my booke you may try your strength against it and though I find my impaired health and multitude of imployments is like to bee an apology for mee from drawing this saw any longer nor indeed is it needfull there being no end of writing all knowing that there is no controversie of faith wherein learned and prejudiced men have not been able to write booke after booke against the truth especially when they choose such a way of disputing as you have chosen However I feare not but it will indure your uttermost opposition and if my booke alone bee looked upon as too poore a businesse
Ergo the last is an errour as well as the first for the same men have opposed Popery and the Sabbath the same men have denyed Prelacy and the blessed Trinitie Is it not possible for the same man to oppose a multitude of cursed errors and yet to oppose some one blessed truth Secondly I also deny your minor they who thus opposed invocation of Saints c. did not oppose baptisme of Infants Bermgarius the Waldenses Albingenses Wickluites Hussites and others are indeed slandered by some of their adversaries as if they denyed Infant-baptisme but are cleared out of their owne confessions as I have made abundantly manifest Part 2. Sect. 2. What under the head of this tenth Argument you mention out of Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen hath beene fully confidered of Part 1. Sect. â— Your eleventh Argument runs thus The asserters of Infant-baptisme little agree among themselves upon what foundation to build Infant-baptisme some from universalitie of divine grace some from necessitie of Baptisme to salvation some from the promise of the sureties some from the faith of the Infants some from the faith of the next parents Ergo What what conclusion can you make from this The Antipaedobaptists reject the Baptisme of Infants upon severall grounds some because Infants have no sinne some because they have no more to doe with the Covenant of grace then the Infants of Turkes some because Infants are not capable of grace some because they are unbeleevers some because we cannot know whether they have grace or no will you therefore say Antipaedobaptisme is to bee rejected So for the Lords day fome pleade it upon one ground others reject that ground and plead it upon another have therefore none of them hit upon a right ground the like may bee said of many other points both of faith and practise in Christianitie the utmost that can bee collected from mens different grounds in pleading for such or such a truth is that God hath not left that truth so cleare as possible he hath done others wherein there is a greater consent but to collect that therefore the opinion is to be rejected is a strange consequence I add farther that almost all both ancient and moderne doe agree in the argument from Circumcision to Baptisme which necessarily implies our Covenant to be the same with theirs our Infants right to be the same with theirs and our Sacrament of Baptisme to be the same with theirs of Circumcision as to the use of an initiall Seale Your twelfth and last Argument which brings up your reere which you call a weighty reason runs thus Because Infant-Baptisme seemes to take away one perhaps the primary end of Baptisme viz. that it should bee a signe that the baptized shew himselfe a Disciple and confesse the faith in which hee hath been instructed and this you prove from Iohn the Baptist and other passages in the New Testament which put Baptisme for Doctrine from the forme of Christs institution and by the use of Baptisme in the initiating of Proselytes and hence you collect that Baptisme doth not onely confirme a benefit but signifies also a profession made To which I answer This Argument how weightie soever it bee is but a branch taken from your second argument out of Mat. 28. and from your third argument from the practise of John and Christs Apostles and is but a Crambe of what you have often prest before and hath received its full answer Part 3. Sect. 13. and Part 4. Sect 1. and I adde further that even that which your selfe here sets downe gives a full answer to your own Argument for you say that a Sacrament is not only a visible signe of an invisible grace â—r appointed to signifie only a divine benefit but it likewise serves to signifie his dutie who receives the Sacrament It signifies a profession made as well as confirmes a benefit for doth it not thence necessarily follow that the Infants of the Jewes made by their Circumcision a profession as well as received the signe of a benefit and that therefore the Baptizing of Infants doth not frustrate that end of initiating them to bee Disciples or Professors And that which you adde of the use of Baptisme in the initiating of Proselytes into the profession of Judaisme is as full to the purpose as can bee to prove what I affirme for wee know from all the Authors who write about it that Infants as well as growne men were initiated into the profession of Judaisme by the rite of Baptisme In the last place you shut up your Exercitation with a discourse about the Devills indenting with witches to renounce their Baptisme as if some would thence argue that Infant-Baptisme is good because the Devill would have them renounce it but you who it seemes know the Devills mind in it say the true reason why hee requires witches to renounce their Baptisme is not because the Baptisme is good in respect of the administration of it but because the faith mentioned in the forme â—f Baptisme is good for my owne part I am so little acquainted with the Devills practise in it and see so little strength of Argument for or against Infant-Baptisme from the trading betwixt the Devill and the witch that I intend not to meddle with this Argument 〈◊〉 from hâ—ll I rest contented with those which I find in the â—â—â—ke of God FINIS A Table of Authors cited or vindicated and other materiall things cited in this Treatise A ABraham thâ— Covenant with him no more mixt then with us p. 97. Prosâ—lytes were his seed 100. So were civill Justiciaries reputed p. 101 104. Adeodatus why not baptized in his infancy p. 48. Alipius why not baptized in his insanâ—y Ainsworth p. 171. Albigensesâ—o â—o An aboptists p. 64. An abaptists not like the Non-conformists p. 72. Their ancient errours newly sprung up againâ— p. 73. Opposed Magistrâ—cy p. 75. Pâ—â— no difference between Infants of Christians and Turkes p. 86 87. Aretius vindicated p. 175. Proves Baptisme to succed Circumcision by the Anâ—ionts p. 176. Athanasius mentions Infant-baptisme p. 20. Augustinâ— vindicated p. 43. c. Why 〈◊〉 baptized in his infancy p. 46 47. B Ball vindicated p. 6. Baltazzar Lydius p. 64. Baptisme called a new 〈◊〉 by thâ— Scripture and the Anciâ—â—â—s p. 1â— Anciâ—ntty deferred p. 22. Salvation may be obtained without it p. 52 5â— Whether it may be repeated p. 67 68. Succeeds Circumcision p. 164 â—â—rallelled with it p. 145. In use among the Iews and applyed to Infants as well as â—â— men 170. How it may be pleaded p. 239. Beza cited against his owne judgement p. 147 150. Balâ—â—mon 〈◊〉 p. 31 32. Bayne vindicated p. 101 102 Berengarius no Anabaptist p. 65. C Catechumeni p. 50. Chrysostome not baptized in hiâ—â—â—fancy p. 27. vindicated p 177. Circumcision women not capable of it p. 93. Seales the spirituall part of the Covenant p. 98. Baptisme sâ—â—ceeds if p. 164 â—ar aâ—â—â—led with baptisme p. 145. Why
Christ 〈…〉 circumcised and baptized p. 168. Why Jewes infants circumcised p. 1â—â— How the Jews received it p. 1â—â— Christianity how is may bee called â—â— birthright p. 119. Chamler often ciâ—ed to 〈◊〉 purpose 〈◊〉 Against hiâ— ownâ— judgment p. 144. Constantine M. why not baptized in his infanty p. 25. Cotton vindicated p. 114. 〈…〉 Mr. Rutherford reconciled p. 123. Cyprian vindicated p. 38. c. Covenant and Seal connected together p. 89. What is meant by being in the Covenant p. 89. Covenant of grace alwayes 〈◊〉 and the same p. 97. Infants taken into the Covenant with their Parents p. 105. Men may bee under is severall wayes p. 106. Priviledges of them who are under the externall Covenant p. 108. Anexternall right to it proved p. 140. The promise in it not peculiar to Abraham p. 127. D Disciples What it is to make Disciples p. 212 213 214 c. E Epiphanitis mentions infant-baptisme p. 21 45. F Sâ—eâ— of Flesh what p. 104. G Goodwin vindicated p. 143. Grotius not to bee relyed on about infant-baptisme p. 29. Misreports the Greek Church p. 32 33 34. Gospel how conditionall p. 236. H Hacket his Story p. 72. Henricus Stephanus mis-retited p. 151. Holinesse derivative and inherent not â—pposed p. 142. Fedrall holinesse assented by the Ancients p. 148. I Infants taken into covenant with their Parents 105. of beleevers left by Mr. Tombes to be under the Devils kingdome p. 112. Why Jewish Infants circumoised p. 180. Whether Infants may be said to bee beleevers p. 231. Ought to be baptized though we know not that they have grace p. 232. How their Baptisme is commanded in Matth. 28. p. 207. Capable of the grace whereof Baptisme is a signe p. 219 224 226. Infant-baptisme Antiquity of it vindicated p 7 c. p. 44 45. Episcopacy not so ancient as it p 8. Why some Ancients speake not of it p. 19. Athanasius p 20. And by Epiphanius p. 21 45. Not dispreâ—ed because of questions put to the party that was to be baptized p. 21. c. Grotins not to be relyed upon in it p. 29. The Greek Church received it p. 32. Asserted by Tertullian p. 35. And Cyprian p. 38 39. c. By Augustine p 43. c. By Fulgentius p 50 How it is called a Tradition p. 44. Why not mentioned in Councels before that of Carthage p. 49. Still acknowledgâ—d in the Church p. 63. The rejecting of it not the way to Reformation p. 76. Examples of it by consequence p. 218. Not a Will worship p. 195 225. Benefits of Infant-baptisme 236. No occasion of humane inventions c. 253. John Baptist initiated to the Christian Church p. 171. Irenausâ—ind â—ind indicated p. 10 11 12. Justine Martyr vindicated 9 10. L Ludovicus Vives examined p. 37 38. Lords-day p. 80 81 82. Proved by consequence from the Sabbath p. 205. Comparison between evidâ—nce for it Paedo-Baptisme p. 81 82. Lords Supper not eaten by unbaptized persons p. 167. not by Infants p. 240. N Nazianzen vindicated p. â—8 not baptized in his Infant p. 26. Nation when it is to bee reputed Christian p. 211. Neocaesarean Councell vindicated p. 30 31. O Origen vindicated p. 15 16 17. P Parents beleeving are roots of their children p. 142. Passeover our Sacrament comes in stead of it p. 203. Priviledges ours not straitned but enlarged p. 185. A great abridgement of them to have our children left out of the Covenant p. 193. Photius Patriarch p. 33. Q. Questions put to the baptized disprove not baptisme p. â—1 â—ay they prove it p. 52. R Rogers vindicated p. 5. S Selden p. 170. Strabo examined p. 37. Sacrament what it seales absolutely and conditionally 117. How they are Seales p. 201. our rule in administring them p. 233. how we may argue from Jewes Sacraments to ours p. 198. 201. T Tombes his way of reasoning p. 3. 105. 125. 134. Vnjustly charges the Assembly p. 79. thinkes some may be saved out of the communion of the visible Church p. 88. He joynes with 〈…〉 Circumcision to bee a seale of any thing p. 183. makes it a priviledge not to have Infants baptized p. 187. He makes the Covenant Heb 8. to be the Covenant of workes p. 188. Misinterprets the 2 Cor. 3. 10. p. 188. Leaves all Infants of beleevers to bee under the Devills 〈◊〉 p. 112. Symbolizâ—th 〈◊〉 Arminius p. 144. compares Priest and Ministers to 〈◊〉 purpose p. 108. 〈◊〉 his ownâ— opinion â—â—â—nfants condition p. 238. Tortulliaâ— speakâ— for Infant-Baptism p. 35. Talmud p. 171. V Vines vindicated p. 73. Usher de successione Chr. Eccles p. 64. 65. Voâ—â—â—i 〈◊〉 p. 68 69. W Waldenses p. 64. no Anabaptists p. 65. History of Waldenses p. 64. Women not capable of Circumcision p. 93. how Circumcised in the men p. 94. if they had not been esteemed as circumcised they could not have eaten the Passeover 96. Errata PAge 1. 10. Line 11. read you will not doe p. 144. l. 34 for where r. were p 145. l. 35. r. thrasi p. 157. l. 23. dele not p. 164. l. 22. â— sequitur p. 166. l. 5. r. 〈◊〉 p. 167. l 6. r. Catechumeni p. 173 l. 3. r. impure to you a sense p. 175. l. 〈…〉 â— 176. l. 13. 1. 〈◊〉 1. 16. r. tempore p. 178. l. 38. r. faâ—â—â—uâ— p. 191. l. 33. for That r. But p 199. l. 1. dolâ— comma after omnibus p. 213. l. 1. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 213. l. 5. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p 222. l. 7. â— as for â—a p. 226 l. 19. 〈◊〉 Baptisme and prayer all one r. baptizing into the name of the Father Sâ—nne and holy Ghost and prayer all one l. 22. for his Baptisme and prayer was all one read that Ananidâ— his baptizing Paul into the name of Christ or into the name of the Father Some and holy Ghost and Pauls calling upon the name of the Lord was all one Jude 3. Mr. John Goodwins answer to Mr. Edwards Gaâ—gr p. 20. Psal 76. 3. James 1. 20. Psal 25. 9. Reply to the Preface Sect. 2. Reply to the Historical part vindicating the Antiquity of Infant Baptism Justine Martyr or the Treatise under his name vindicated Hoc Ecclesia semper habuit semper tenuit hoc a majorum fide accepit hoc usque in finem per severanter custodit Aug. Serm. 15. de verbis Apost Iust Mart. qu. 56 P. 5. Irenaeus testimony vindicated Trithem P. 6. Answ Just Mart. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dionys Areop Hierarch ca. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De Sab Circumcis Basil exhortatione ad baptismum Lib. de initiandis ca. 2. P. 6. Mr. Mede P. 6. Ezek. 37. De resur ca. 31. Origens Test vindicated Hierom ad Pammachium Ruffini peroratio in Ep. ad Rom. He contracted it halfe in halfe Ruffi praefat aâ— Rom. Epiph. in sâ—ne operis Ign. ep ad Hier. Greg. orat 40. in Bapt. Nazian vindicated P. 8. P. 9. Vide Clem. Alex paedagog Athan.
dicta interpretatio Script qu. 94. Athanasiuâ— gives testimony to Infant Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. qu. ad Antioch 114. P. 4. Athan. ad Antioch qu. 114. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ephiphan contr Cerinthianos Epiphanius owned the argument from Circumcision to Baptisme The questions put to the Baptizes disprove not Insant-Baptisme Paedag. Of old some defer'd their owne Baptisme as well as their Infants Vbi prius Euseb de vit Const lib 4. Vbi prius Aug. Confes 1. 11. Orat. 40. Sozom. 4. 38. Theod. 4. 14. Gen. 17. Constantines Bap. no Argument that Infants were not then baptized Nor Gregory Nazianzen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Socr. 4. 21. Soz. 6. 16. Greg. vita Orat. 40. Nor Chrysost Socr. hist 5. 2. Siz 8. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Orat. ad viduam juniorem Grotius not to be relâ—ed upon in this point Rivet Apol. provera pace Ecclesia contr votum Grotii Rivet exam animad Grotii Grotii votum pro pace Eccles ad articulum 9. P. 9. 10. The Councell of Neocaes not against baptism of Infants 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Con. 6. Con. Neocaesariensis Proles baptizari non solereâ— nisi propria vo untate et professiâ—ne P. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 10. The Greeke Church misreported by Grotius in this point Phot. patriarch Covel anno as some 845. as others 849. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tib. 1. de fide ca. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conc. Carth. ca. 14. Tert. de Bapt. c. 18. In Tertullians dayes Infants were baptized â—ert de Anima c. 13. Cyprians testimony vindicated P. 10. Cyprianus non novum aliquod decretum condens sed Ecclesiae fidem firmissimam servans c. Aug. Ep. 28. ad Hier. Vestigium infantis in primis parus sui diel us constituti mundum non dixisse Ath. de Sab. Circumcis Orat. 40. P. 11. Lib. 4. c. 22. contr Donat P. 12. P. 12. Augustine vindicated Soz. 7. 12. P. 14. Other ancient testimonies for Infant baptism Soz. 7. 19. Soz. 1. 17. P. 1 â— Augustines baptism no argument that Infants were not then baptized Aug. Câ—nf l. 1. c. 11. ille nondum erediderat Confess 9. 9. Possâ—d de vita Aug c. 1. Conf 4 3. Conf. 1. 11. Nor his sonne Adeodaâ—us Conf. 9. 6. Conf. 6 7. Conf. 7. 19. Nor Alipius Pag. 14. Fulgent de fide ad Petrum ca. 30. Pag. 15. Pag. 16. Chapter 23. Reply to Sect. 1. Answ Reply to Sect. 2. Answ Answ That the middle times between the Fathers and Luther were for Baptizing Infants Answ Vsher de successione cap. 6. Sect. 1â— 17. Cap. 8. Sect. 34. Cap. 10. Magdeburgâ—enâ— 12. Cap. 8 col 1â—06 Baltazzar Lidius Tom. 2. Pag. 285. c. History of the Waldenses lib. 1. cap. 3. p. 10. Lib. 1. cap 4. pag. 15. Lib. cap. 6. pag. 43. Tom. 3. Tit. 5. cap. 53. Vsher de Success cap. 7. Sect. 37. Berengarius cleared from Anabaptisme Waldenses Albigenses c. cleared from Anabaptisme Vsh ubi supr ca. 8. Sect. 34. Jos Vicecom Obser Eccl. Vol. Lib. 2. cap. 1. p. 103. To Sect. 3. To Sect. 4. Answ Vide Vossii Theses de Anabaptist Râ—asons against rebaptization of such as are rightly baptized Answ Act. 19. 5 6. vindicated from favoring rebaptiztion Vid. Vossii Theses de Baptismo Johan pag 402. c. To Sect. 5. Answ The old Nonconformists in Qu. Elizabeths days pleading against Episcopacy and Ceremonies il compared with the Anabaptists in Germany To Sect. 6. Answ To 1 2 Mr. Vines vindicated Almost all the Errors of the Germane Anabaptists lately drunke in in England Mr. Dury To 3. 4. 6. 7. To Sect. 7. Answ 2. Answ Sect. 8. To Sect. 9. To Sect. 10. Defence of the third part of Sermon Reply to Sect 1. Of the connexion betweene the Covenant and Seale The consequence of the argument made good Reply The consequence proved by Mr. Tombes owne principle Answ to Melchisedeck Job and â—et And to Infants under eight dayes old Women not capable of Circumcision Women circumcised in the men vindicated Circumcised not put for the major or nobler part Gal. 2. 8. Reply No warrant for women to eate the Passeover unlesse they were to bee esteemed circumcised Reply to Sect. 2. The Covenant of grace always one and the same The Covenant with Abraham no more mixt for substance then the Covenant with us Circumcision seaâ—ed the spirituall part of the Covenant Proselytes were Abrahams seed This is not to joyn with Arminius Mr. Bayne of of my judgement That civill justiciaties were called Abrahams seed Bayne in Ephes p. 138. cap. 1. 5. Mr. Tombes joynes with Servetus Mr. Blake vindicated Phil. 3. interpreted What meant by seed of the flesh Reply to Sect. 3. Infants taken into Covenant with their parents Reply The sence of this second proposition cleared Men may bee under the Covenant severall wayes some spiritually and some under the administration onely Great priviviledges belong to them who are under the externall Covenant Gen. 6. 1. Deut. 14. 1. Gal. 3. 26. Rom. 9 4. Rom. 3. 1. John 8. 17. Deut. 33. 4. Psal 147. 20. John 4. 22. An externall right to the Covenant proved Rom. 11. This proved from Mr. Tombes owne principles Mr. Tombes leaves all Infants of beleevers to be under the visible kingdom of the Devil actually Mr. Cotton viâ—dicated Tombesâ—â—deavours â—â—deavours to 〈◊〉 a sense upon this Proposition never intended by 〈◊〉 not owned by mee What the Sacrament seales absolutely and what conditionally How Christianity may bee called a birth-right Rom. 2. 〈◊〉 To Sect. 5. Comparison betweene Christs kingdom and other kingdoms vindicated Mr. Rutherford and Mr. Cotton reconciled Io Sect. 6. Vindicating Act. 2. 38. 39. as a proofe of Infants of beleevers to belong to the the Covenant of grace Mr. Tombes his method of answering Mr. Tombes his art in multiplying senses The pâ—ame sense scope of this argument opened and vindicated The promise given I will be thy God and the God of thy seed not peculiar to Abraham Isaac and Jacob proved by three Arguments Deut. 30. 6. Esa 44. 2 3. Esa 59. 21. These places vindicated Mr. Tombes his exceptions against this argument answered 1 Exception Answer 2 Exception Answ 3. Exception Answ To Sect. 7. Rom. 11. 6. c. vindicated Joh. 15. 2. proves the interpretation to be true Derivative and inherent holinesse not opsed Beleeving parents are roots to their children Mr. Goodwin Vindicated Children follow the Covenant condition of their parents Mr Tombes symbolizing with Arminius his expounding Rom. 11. To Sect. 8. 1 Cor. 7. vindicated Chamier often cited to no purpose And against his owne judgment Cham. Panstrat Cathol Tom. 4. lib. 3. ca. 10. Beza cited by Mr. Tombes contrary to his owne judgement Tertullian and Athanasius expound this Text for sederall holinesse Mr. Tombes his interpretation of this Text overthrowne by eight Arguments 1 Argument vindicated Deut. 23. 2. vindicated 1. Thess 4.