untill they shew signes to the contrary God having both reckoned them unto his people and given them all the means of salvation which an Infants age is capable of All this passage is but dictates what or how much of it is true or false hath been considered before only that you say all the other Infants of the world have their visible standing under the prince and in the kingdome of darknesse and consequently whilest others have no hope of their childrens spirituall welfare untill they be called out of that condition If you mean by all other Infants all that are unbaptized though the Infants of Believers in the Church it is a very harsh and uncharitable speech and you oppose those that in dispute against the Papists concerning the necessity of Baptisme to salvation do hold that Infants of Believers are holy and in the Church afore they be baptized and joyn with Lutherans and Papists denying it if you mean only the unbaptized Infants of Infidels what comfort do you give more to believing parents that have their children baptized then belongs to them though their children were not baptized And when you say that all others have no hope of their childrens spirituall welfare if you mean it of believing parents that baptize not their children it is in like manner an uncharitable speech and doth border too neer on the opinion of the necessity of Baptisme for Infants to salvation and when you say these need not have any doubt of their childrens welfare if they die in their infancy if you mean it of parents because their children are baptized you do speak like one that did hold that Baptisme doth conferre gratiam ex opere operato conferre grace by the work done but for ought you can shew out of Scripture a believing parent hath as much ground of hope for his Infant that dies unbaptized as for the baptized and as much reason of doubt concerning the baptized as the unbaptized And therefore what you here speak doth no whit encourage parents to baptize children if it be well weighed except there can be proved an institution and a promise But you say secondly here is much priviledge and benefit to the children when as beside what inward secret work God is pleased to work 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 By your parenthesis you intimate some inward secret work God is pleased to work in the Infants baptized by Baptisme If you conceive a bestowing of grace ex opere operato by the work done or baptismall initiall regeneration of the elect supposed to be in the Infants in baptisme notwithstanding till death they live wickedly speak plainly that we may know what you mean and then an answer may be framed to your speâ—ch As for being members of the Church if you meâ—n the invisible Church neither I nor you can affirm or deny it s in Gods bosome alone if you mean the visible you must make a new definition of the visible Church afore Infants baptized will be proved members For their remembring at the Throne of grace daily if you mean it particularly and by name I do not finde that to be in use after Baptisme any more then afore and I think they are remembred by the godly in generall as well afore Baptisme as after and for the praying for Gods blessing upon his Ordinances if Infant-baptisme be not Gods Ordinance this prayer in reference to Infant-baptisme at that time might be better spared You say And lastly it 's no small priviledge to have that seale bestowed on them in their infancy which may afterwards plead when they are growne and come to fulfill the condition When where and how Baptisme should be pleaded as you shew not neither doe I well conceive It is not Baptisme of it selfe that will yeeld a plea of any force either in foro soli in the Court of earth or in foro poli in the Court of heaven but the promise of God and the condition of faith in Christ. And these will be good pleas in prayeâ—s to God and in the court of conscience when Infant-baptisme will stand in no stead The plea of the Apostle will hold Rom. 8.31 32 33 34. which baptisme rightly administred doth strengthen 1 Pet. 3.21 But I never knew any Saint that pleaded his infant-baptisme in such cases YOu say further But if their being capable of the spirituall part must intitle them to the outward signe why then doe we 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 this is urged the rather because say they the infants of the Jewes did eate of the Passeover as well as were circumcised Now if our infants have every way as large a priviledge as the infants of the Jewes had then can we not deny them the same priviledge which their infants had and consequently they must partake of the one Sacrament as well as the other This argument is good ad homines against the partie opposite proceeding upon the Paedobaptists hypotheses or suppositions to wit 1. That those to whom the Covenant belongs to them the seale belongs 2. That to the infants of believers the Covenant belongs 3. That the Lords Supper is a seale of the Covenant as well as Baptisme And these are your hypotheses Now then if this be a good argument children are to be baptized because they are in the Covenant and the seale belongs to those in Covenant by the same reason they are to receive the Lords Supper because they are in Covenant and the seale belongs to those in Covenant Now this argument is strengthened from other hypotheses as that the Lords Supper succeeds the Passeover as Baptisme Circumcision but children not of yeares of discretion had the Passeover therefore they are to havâ— the Lords Supper And this is confirmed by the practise and opinion of the Ancients that gave the Lords Supper to infants for 600 yeares after Christ as well as baptisme To this you say I answer that infants are capable of the grace of Baptisme we are sure not sure that they are capable of the grace signed and sealed in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper This answer supposeth that there is grace sealed in the Lords Supper which is not sealed in Baptisme To me that Sacrament that confirmes the covenant of grace confirmes all the promises in it and therefore if Baptisme be the seale of the covenant it seales all the graces and all the promises in it and therefore you are as sure that infants are capable of all graces annexed to the Covenant as of one But you say For both of them are seales of the new Covenant yet it is
them to him by his Spirit forgiving them their birth-sin through Christs obedience â—lthough they be not baptized As corrupt as the Schoolmen were they could say Gratia Dei non alligatur Sacramentis The grace of God is not tyed to Sacraments If most of the Anabaptists hold universall grace and free-will there may be as much said of most of the paedobaptists taking in a great part of the Papists almost all the Lutherans and Arminians and if they denyed originall sin it is their dangerous error but it is not consequent on their denying Paedobaptisme But the late confession of faith made â—n the name of 7. Churches of them in London Art 4 5 21 22 23 24 26. will abundantly answer for them in this point of Pelagianisme The third is Or that although they be tainted with originall corruption and so need a Saviour Christ doth pro bene placito save some of the infants of Turks and Indians dying in their infancy as well as some of the infants of Christians and so carry salvation by Christ out of the Church beyond the Covenant of grace where God never made any promise Nor doth this follow for it may be said all that dye in their infancy are not damned nor all saved because they have no birth-sin nor some of the Indians saved For the some that may be saved may be the infants of believers to whom God may forgive their birth-sin without baptisme Thus you may perceive how the push of all the horns of your horned Syllogisme may be avoyded But you conceive it a great absurdity to say That Christ doth pro bene placito save some of the infants of Indians it is true it is a bold saying to say he doth save them but â—is as bad to say that God may not save them pro bene placito according to his good pleasure He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy Buâ— then salvation by Christ is carried out of the Church where he hath made no promise if you mean by the Church the invisible Church of the elect the Church of the first-born that are written in heaven of which Protestant Divines as Morton de Ecclesia and others against Bellarmine understand that saying Extra Ecclesiam non est salus without the Church is no salvation then it follows noâ— that if the infants of Indians be saved salvation is carryed without the Church for they may be of the invisible Church of the elect to whom belongs the promise made to Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy seed But if you mean it of the visible though I disclaim Zuinglius his opinion who was a stiffe assertor of Paedobaptisme and I think the founder of the new way of maintaining it by the new addition to the Covenant of grace that Hercules Arist des Socrates Numa and such like heathens are now in heaven yet I cannot say no persons without the communion of the visiblâ— Church are saved He that could call Abraham in Vr of Chaldea Job in the land of Vz and Rahab in Jericho may save some amongst Turks and Indians out of the visible Church You will not call Rome a true visible Church nor will you I think say that all are damned that are in Rome You adde That God hath made a promise to be the God of believers and of their seed we all know If you know it yet I professe my ignorance of such a promise I reade indeed of a promise made to Abraham That he would be his God and the God of his seed and I reade That they that are of the faith of Abraham are the children of Abraham Gal. 3.7.29 Rom. 4.11 12 13 16. But I am yet to seek for that promise you speake of to be the God of believers and their seed You say But where the promise is to be found that he will be thâ— God of the seed of such Parents who live and die his enemies and theâ—â— seed not so much as called by the preaching of the Gospel I know not Nor do I. Only I know this I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion Rom. 9.15 which is the Apostles answer in this very case Thus have I entred your out-works I shall now try the strength of your walls I mean the third part of your Sermon Infant-baptisme cannot be deduced from holy Scripture PART III. Concerning the Arguments from Scripture for Infant-baptism YOu say My first argument to â—his The Infants of believing parents are foederati therefore they must be signati They are within the Covenant of Grace belonging to Christs body Kingdome Family therefore are to partake of the seal of his covenant or the distinguishing badge between them who are under the Covenant of grace and them who are not The ordinary answer to this argument is by denying that Infants are under the Covenant of grace only some few deny the consequence that although they were within the Covenant yet it follows not that they must be sealed because say they the women among the Jews were under the covenant yet received not circumcision which was the seal of the Covenant They that deny the consequence of your argument do it justly for the consequence must be proved by this universall All that are foederati must be signati all that are in the covenant of Grace must be sealed which is not true If it were true it must be so either by reason of some necessary connexion between the termes which is none for it is but a common accident to a man that hath a promise or a covenant made to him that he should have a speciall sign it may adesse vel abesse a subjecto it may be present or absent from the subject God made a speciall promise to Joshuah that he should bring Israel into the Land of Canaan to Phineas a covenant of an everlasting Priesthood without any speciall sign or seal distinct from the Covenant or else it must be so by reason of Gods will declared concerning the covenant of Grace but that is not true The promise made to Adam which you confesse was the same in substance with the covenant of Grace had no speciall sign or seal annexed to it Noah Abel were within the covenant of Grace yet no speciall sign appointed them therefore it is not Gods will that all that are foederati in the Covenant must be signati Sealed if they had been signati though they were foederati it had been will-worship God not appointing it to them But you will say all that are foederati should be signati since the solemn Covenant with Abraham But neither is this certain sith we finde no such thing concerning Melchizedeck and Lot that lived in Abrahams time nor concerning Job that it 's conceived lived after his time You will say but it is true of all the foederati in Abrahams family but neither is that true for male children before
to account Infants of believers by an act of opinion according to a rule of prudence by which the Sacraments are to be administred to belong to God in facie Ecclâ—siae visibilis in respect of outward profession as the Catechumeni or participation of baptisme and the Lords Supper as compleat Christians And as for being accounted by an act of opinion according to a rule of charity to belong to God it hath no place in this matter For judging of mens present estate by a rule of charity is when men judge of others the best that their words and works may be interpreted to signifie according to that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 13.7 Charity believes all things But infants do not shew any thing by words or works that may signifie their thoughts and therefore in respect of them whether they be good or bad we can have no judgement but must only suspend our act of judging them But if by judgement of chariry be meant as some expresse it conceiving a thing to be so because we know nothing to the contrary then are we to conceive all infants to belong to God yea almost all men in the world by the judgement of charity because for ought we know to the contrary all may be elected Wherefore I must either here stop or else gather your meaning by your expressions in other parts of your Sermon and the expressions of those with whom I conceive you concurre in opinion and therefore if I should not exactly light on your meaning you are to thank your selfe but not to blame me This is then that which I conceive you meane That in the promise which God made to Abraham That he would be his God and the God of his seed as this promise comprehends Evangelicall blessings the infants of believers are comprehended and therefore they are foederati taken into Covenant with their Parents And yet I am at a stand whether when you say they are taken into Covenant with their Parents and that the promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed belongs to them in respect of Evangelicall blessings you mean it in respect of saving graces or the priviledge of outward Ordinances though the latter is no more true then the former yet it is lesse dangerous and sometimes your expressions incline me to think you mean no more especially that which you say pag. 13. Secondly All true believers are Abrahams seed Gal. 3.29 These only are made partakers of the spirituall part of the Covenant neverthelesse because the most of your expressions carry it thus that you conceive that God hath promised according to the Covenant with Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy seed to be the God of the naturall seed of believers in respect of the saving benefits of the Covenant of grace in Christ and your proofes tend that way I shall oppose that assertion But that I may not be thought to wrong you or cum larvis luctari to fight with a vizour the reasons why I conceive you mean or at least your readers are likely to take your meaning so are these you say pa. 8. My first argument is They are within the Covenant of grace belonging to Christs body kingdome family therefore are to partake of the seal of his Covenant or the distinguishing badge between them who are under the Covenant of grace and them who are not Pag. 9. You expresse your second conclusion thus God will have the Infants of such as enter into Covenant with him to be accounted his as well as their Parents You set downe the substance of the Covenant of Grace pag. 10. to consist in those benefits and then you often say The children are in the Covenant of grace with their believing Parents and pag. 31. You reject the asserting to the Infants of believers priviledges peculiar to some and assert the priviledges belonging to the Covenant of grace which all that are in Covenant may claime which you say God made to Abraham and all his seed Besides your Texts you produce tend to prove that as Acts 2.39 c. and you say pag. 15. They shall be made free of Gods City according to Abrahams Copy I will bee thy God and the God of thy seed which in respect of us Gentiles can have no other meaning then in respect of justification sanctification and salvation p. 16. speaking of Zacheus you say Let him professe the faith of Christ and the Covenant of salvation comes to his house for now he is made a son of Abraham that is Abrahams promise now reacheth him And pag. 26. The proving of the two first conclusions gains the whole cause if the Covenant bâ— the same and children belong to it then they are to be owned as Covâ—nanters pag. 37. The whole Covenant of grace containing all the promises whereof this is one viz. That God will be the God of believers and of their seed that the seed of believers are taken into Covenant with their parents This is a part of the Gospel preached unto Abraham and the Apostles were to baptize them that is to administer baptisme as a seal of the Covenant to all those who received the Covenant And Master Vines in his Sermon pag. 19. cals them confederates with their believing parents and Mr. Blake pag. 16. God promisâ—s to be a God in Covenant to his and their seed which people in Covenant have also a promise from him of the Spirit Nor do I doubt but that your meaning is agreeable to the Directory which directs the Minister at Baptisme to teach That the promise is made to believers and their seed which promiâ—e what it is appears by the words following make this baptisme to the infant a seal of adoption remission of sins regeneration and eternall life and of all other promises of tht Covenant of grace And the truth is although in some passages especially Mr. Blake you speak more warily as if you would avow onlâ— a Covenant for outward priviledges as when Mr. Blake saith pag. 14. This birth-right intitles only to outward priviledges yet in applying thosâ— Texts Gâ—n 17.7 Act. 2.39 Mat. 19.14 and others you are inforced to expresse your selves as if you meant the Covenant whereby salvation is promised by Christ as knowing that those Texts you produce do otherwise speak nothing to the purpose bring plâ—inly meant of saving grâ—câ—s and the Covenant now of the Gospel is not of outward priviledges as the mixt Covenant made with Abraham waâ— and therefore if there be not a promise of saving graces to Infants they are not now under an Evangelicall Covenant of free grace and that baptism seals only the promise of saving grace remission of sins c. and therefore if there be not a promise of saving grace to infants in vain are they baptized the seal is put to a blank as some use to speak And if that there be no covenant of saving grace to no end is so much weight laid on
this for the comfort of parents and such an Odium cast on Anti-paedobaptists for denying it and therefore I see not but your assertion if you do not revoke your plea for paedobaptisme must be conceived thus That God hath made a Covenant or promise of saving grace in Christ not only to believers but also to their seed whom you baptize for this reason The Author of the little book intituled Infants baptizing proved lawfull by Scripture pag. 3 4 5. Intâ—rprâ—ts the Covenant I will be thy God and the God of thy seed thus I will be the God of every believer and the God of every believers seed in respect of outward Church-priviledges to be members of the visible Church partakers of baptisme c. to the naturall seed in respect of inward and meerly spirituall to none but true Saints in whom the new creature is formed But I say againe Abraham or thee in that Covenant is put only for Abraham and not for evâ—ry believer For sith the Apostle plainly interprets believers to be Abrahams seed Rom. 4.13 16. Gal. 3.29 to say Abraham is put for any believer makes the speech to have an inept tautology I will be the God of Abraham that is of every believer according to that Authors sense and I will be the God of thy seed that is of every believer according to the Apostles sense And that in that Covenant should be a promise to us believing Gentiles That to our seed should be conferred visible Church-priviledges to be members of the visible Church partakers of baptisme c. is but a dream the Scripture no where explaining it so and being so understood were not true there being many of the seed of believers that neither de facto in event nor de jure of right have those visible Church privilâ—dges to be members of the visible Church partakers of bapâ—isme c. and if there were such a promise God could not take away the Candlestick from the posterity of believers which he threatens Rev. 2.5 George Philips vind of Infant bapt p. 37. Cals the Covenant an offer to become their God and all along supposeth infants under the Covenant because grace was offered in circumcision and they sealed because it was offâ—red But the Covenant is not an offer but a promise nor is a man under the Covenant of grace or in the Covenant of grace because an offer is made for then refusers might be said to be under the Covenant but because God hath promised or performed to them And if infants are to be bapâ—ized which is his ground because the Covenant is offered to them in baptisme then in effect it is to argue they are to be baptizâ—d because they are to be baptized which iâ— nugatory I hâ—ve discussed this matter more fully that I may shew you how doubtfull your speeches are and give you the reason why I set down this as your conclusion to be denyed by me That the Covenant of saving grace in Christ expressed Gen. 17.7 In thâ—se words I will be thy God and the God of thy seed is made to believers and their naturall seed Now I will shew you the reason why I take this to be an error and that very dangerous MY first reason is taken from the Apostle Rom. 9 6. c. in which place this very Text that is now the apple of our contention was brought into question Beza thus expresseth the question Qui fieri possit ut rejectus sit Israel quin simul â—onstituendum videatur irritum esse pactum Dei cum Abrahamo ejus semine sancitum I deny not but there was also some other promise included in that objection to wit some promise made to Israel or the house of Israel probably that Jer. 31.33 36.37 for so the words ver 6. They are not all Israel which are of Israel do intimate But without question the promise made to Abraham Gen. 17.7 was one which was included in that objection Beza Twisse Ames and others answering Arminius call it the Covenant of God with Abraham which was that Gen. 17.7 and the very phrase of Abrahams seed In Isaac shall thy seed be called ver 7. The children of the promise are counted for the seed ver 8. Sarah shall have a son ver 9. do evidently shew that the promise objected to prove that if the Jews were rejected from being Gods people then God failed in making good his word was that promise to Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Whereto I may adde that the Answerers of Arminius and the cited Remonstrants to wit Baine and Ames do say It was the word of promise not of the Law as Arminius conceived for the word of promise saith Ames Animadv in Remonstran script Synod de praedest cap. 8. Sect. 4. Is distinguished and opposed to the words of the Law Gal. 3.17 18. Now the word of the promise there is to Abraham and his seed ver 16. and this is there called by him verbum foederis the word of the Covenant Now let us consider how the Apostle answers it He denies that Gods word made to Abraham did fall though the Jews were rejected because that promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed as it coÌ„prehended saving grace was never meant by God of all Abrahams posterity or of any barely as they were descended from Abraham by natural generation but of the Elect whether descended by natural generation from Abraham or not And this is apparent both from the words v. 7. Neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children but in Isaac shall thy seed be called c. v. 8. It is expounded thus That is they which are the children of the flesh these are not the childâ—en of God but the children of the promise are counted for the seed Whence it is apparent that the same are not alwayes the seed by calling which are the seed of Abraham by naturall generation and that the children of the flesh are not the same with the children of promise and that the Apostle conceived this the right way of answering those that objected the falling of Gods word upon the rejâ—ction of the Jews by restraining the promise of being God to Abrahams seed only to the Elect whether of Abrahams naturall posterity or not with so little respect to any birth-right priviledge that he not only rejected Ismael and took Isaac but also loved Jacob and hated Esau by prophesie declaring his minde the elder shall serve the younger and in this the Apostle acquits God from unrighteousnesse in that He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy and whom he will he hardens notwithstanding his promise made to Abraham and Israel or any birth-right priviledge they could claime That I may not be thought to go alone in this I will recite some others concurring with me in this Dr. Twisse vind Grat. l. 1. part 3. digr 2. ArgumentuÌ„ Apostoli ad probanduÌ„
Gal. 3.25 26 27. the Apostle speaks thus But after faith is come we are no longer under a Schoolmaster meaning Circumcision c. For we are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ which Text is apparently answerable to Col. 2.8 9 10 11 12. And again Rom. 6.3 4 5. Know you not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death therefore are we buried with him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by baptisme into death that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father even so we also should walk in newnesse of life For if we have been planted together in the likenesse of his death we shall be also in the likenesse of his resurrection In which places you may easily perceive that by putting on Christ we come to be exempted from the Schoolmaster that is the Law and so from Circumcision that being planted into Christ we walk in newnesse of life that is as Rom. 7.6 that now we are delivered from the Law that being dead wherein we were held that we should serve in newnesse of spirit and not in the oldnesse of the letter and that the means hereof is by Baptisme by which we put on Christ and are baptized into his death and by faith whereby we are no longer children under age but sons come to their inheritance Thus have I at last waded through your third Conclusion and the Text Col. 2.11 12. the misunderstanding of which hath been the ignis fatuus foolish fire which hath led men out of the way in this matter into bogs YOur fourth Conclusion followes That by Gods own expresse order Infants as well as grown men were in the time of the Jews to be initiated and sealed with the signe of Circumcision whether Jews by nature or Proselytes of the Gentiles one Law was for them all if they receive thâ— Covenant they and their children were circumcised It is true this was Gods expresse order and it is as certain that this expresse order of God is now revoked or repealed Acts 15.10.20.26 Gal. 5.1 2 3. as belonging to that administration which was before Christ came That which you adde of the females virtuall circumcision in the males hath been examined before I passe on to that which followes And whereas some who see which way the strength of this Conclusion tendeth do alledge that though Circumcision was to be applyed to their Infants yet it was not as a seal of the spirituall part of the Covenant of Grace but as a nationall badge a seal of some temporall and earthly blessings and priviledges as of their right to the Land of Canaan c. And that Ishmael though he was circumâ—ised for some temporall respects yet he was not thereby brought under the Covenant of Grace which was expresly said to be made with Abraham in relation to Isaac and his seed They that thus object speak that which is truth only whereas you make the objectors say That it was not a seal of the spirituall part of the covenant of Grace I would say to all that were circumcised and when you say but as a nationall badge c. that Ishmael was circumcised for some temporall respects I would leave out those words and say because God commanded it Thus did I expresse my self in my Latin paper affirming that not right to Euangelicall promises I now adde nor right to any other benefit by the Covenant made with Abraham was the proper and adequate reason why these or those were circumcised but Gods Precept For as much as persons were to be circumcised who had no right either to the Euangelicall promises or any other in that Covenant which was confirmed by circumcision and I named Ishmael concerning whom though God heard Abraham in giving him some blessing upon Abrahams prayer when he understood the promise was not intended for Ishmael but to Isaac Gen. 17.19 20. yet he expresly added his determination to hold vers 21. that he would establish his Covenant with Isaac not with Ishmael and on the other side all the females in the Covenant were uncircumcised though some of them had right to all the promises in the Covenant and the Text expresly makes the reason of what Abraham did to be Gods appointment v. 23. and no other Wherefore those that say that Circumcision did not seal the spirituall part of the Covenant of Grace to all and that Ishmael was not by circumcision brought under the Covenant of Grace say no more then what the Apostle saith Rom. 9.6 7 8. Gal. 4.28 29. and your self pag. 13. where you say only true believers are made partakers of the spirituall part of the Covenant Now the end of this objection is to prove that it followes not because a person was appointed to be circumcised therefore he was within the Covenant of Grace or that because persons were within the Covenant of Grace therefore they were to be circumcised Let us now see what you answer to this You say I answer there is nothing plainer then that the Covenant whereof Circumcision was a signe was the Covenant of Grace It is granted that the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. was the Covenant of Grace though not a pure Covenant but a mixt covenant But what then Doth it follow that every one that was circumcised was in the Covenant of Grace It is true the sacrifices did confirm the Covenant in Christs blood but it doth not follow that all that did offer sacrifices were partakers of the Covenant The like may be said of Baptisme the Lords Supper Manna c. which they that did partake of yet were not all of them in the Covenant as the Apostle shews 1 Cor. 10.5 Heb. 3.18 19. It is one thing to be under the outward administration another thing to be in the covenant of Grace This is proper only to elect persons the other is common to Elect and Reprobate and depends meerly on Gods appointment without any other consideration You go on Abraham received circumcision a signe of the righteousnesse of Faith Very true and the Apostle expoundeth this when he saith which he had yet being uncircumcised that he might be the father of all them that believe though they be not circumcised that righteousnesse might be imputed to them also Rom. 4.11 So that the Apostle makes Circumcision a seal of righteousnesse but not to all or only circumcised persons but to all believers whether Jews or Gentiles so that according to the Apostles doctrine Circumcision in as much as it sealed to Abraham the righteousnesse of faith which he had being yet uncircumcised iâ— a seal to the Gentiles that believe of the righteousnesse of faith though they be never circumcised So that it is so far from being true that persons have the promise therefore they must have the seal in their persons that it followes persons
have the promise therefore they have the seal in Abraham though they never are nor may be sealed in their own persons You go on and the Jewes received it not as a Nation but as a Church as a people separated from the world and taken into covenant with God If you take as with reduplication it is true that neither the Jewes received circumcision as a Nation for then every nation should receive it nor as a Church or people separated from the world and taken into covenant with God for then every Church or people separated from the world and taken into covenant with God should receive circumcision which is false but they received it as appointed them from God under this formall reason and no other But what is all this to the answering the objection That it was not the seal of the spirituall part of the Covenant of Grace to all circumcised persons and that circumcision was appointed to persons not under the Covenant of Grace and that the reason why persons were circumcised was not because they were under the covenant of Grace but only Gods appointment But you yet adde It is true indeed that circumcision bound them who received it to conform to that manner of administration of the covenant which was carried much by a way of temporall blessings and punishments they being types of spirituall things It is right which you grant that circumcision bound them who received it to conform to that manner of administration of the covenant but then it is to be considered that circumcision was a part of this administration and that though temporall blessings as of the land of Canaan and rest in it were shadows of the rest of Gods people and so in a sort of administrations of the covenant of Grace yet they were also part of the things promised in the covenant made to Abraham and when you say circumcision bound them who received it to conform to that manner of administration of the covenant which was carried much by a way of temporall blessings and punishments it is hard to shew in what sense they were bound to conform to temporall blessings and punishments they were bound to conform to the sacrifices and offerings and washings c. For these were their acts to be done by them but how they were bound to conform to the administration by temporall blessings and punishments it is hard to understand sith they were Gods acts not theirs You adde but no man can ever shew that any were to receive the Sacrament of Circumcision in relation to those outward things only or to them at all further then they were administrations of the Covenant of Grace The truth is no man was to receive the Sacrament of Circumcision in relation to these outward things only or to them at all either as they were temporall blessings or types of spirituall things and so as you speak administrations of the covenant of Grace but in this respect only and for this reason and no other because God had so commanded though I deny not circumcised persons were by faith to look on the covenant of Grace through these administrations yet the reason of being circumcised was barely Gods command so that if you abstract Gods command notwithstanding the covenant or any other administration of it they were not to be circumcised You go on Sure I am the proselytes and their children could not be circumcised in any relation at all to the temporall blessings of the land of Canaan as they were temporall because notwithstanding their circumcision they were not capable of receiving or purchasing any inheritance at all in the land sojourne they might as other strangers also did but the inheritance of the land no not one foot of it could ever be alienated from the severall Tribes to whom it was distributed as their Possession by the most High For all the land was divided into twelve Tribes and they were not any one of them allowed to sell their lands longer then till the yeer of Jubilee Lev. 25. v. 3. c. Yea I mâ—y boldly sâ—y that their circumcision was so far from sealing to them the outward good things of the land that it occasioned and tyed them to a greater expence of their temporall blessings by their long and frequent and chargeable journyes to worship at Jerusalem This which you say may be granted and the thing which you would prove by it That they which received circumcision did not receive it in relation only to these outward things yet this overthrows not this Proposition That the covenant made with Abraham had promises of temporall blessings and that some were to be circumcised who had no part in the covenant of Grace You adde And as for what was alledged concerning Ishmael the Answer is easie God indeed there declares that Isaac should be the Type of Christ and that the covenant of Grace should be established and continue in his family yet both Ishmael and the rest of Abrahams family were really taken into covenant untill afterwards by apostasie they discovenanted themselves as also did Esau afterwards though he were the son of Isaac in whose family God had promised the covenant should continue When you say that Ishmael was really taken into the covenant meaning of Grace mentioned in a few words before you oppose both the Apostle Rom. 9.7 8. Gal. 4.28 29. as I have shewed before and Gods own speech Gen. 17.19 20. To which I may adde that Isaac and Jacob only are said to be coheirs with Abraham of the same promise Heb. 11.9 And when you say that he and Esau were discovenanted by apostasie you plainly deliver apostasie from the covenant of Grace which I will not call in you Arminianisme but in others it would and that justly be so censured But you will say you mean that Ishmael and Esau were Abrahams seed by profession and outward cleaving to the covenant as you speak pag. 14. But this is not to be taken into the covenant of Grace really as you speak for taking really into the covenant of Grace is Gods act either of election or promise or some act executing either of these but profession and outward cleaving to the covenant is mans act and therefore how to salve your speech I know not As for the objection I see not that you have answered it but that still it stands good that persons were to be circumcised who were not in the covenant of Grace that Ishmael was appointed to be circumcised though it were declared Gods covenant did not belong to him and therefore the reason of circumcising persons was not the covenant of Grace but only the will and command of God to have it so Your fifth Conclusion followes FIfthly and lastly the priviledges of Believers under this last and best administration of the covenant of Grace are many wayes inlarged made more honourable and comfortable then ever they were in the time of the Jews administration This Conclusion with its Explication and
2. styl'd by Mr. Selden A witty and very learned book where he saith I know not what warrant there is for that divinity so mâ—gisterially imposed upon us by some that the Jews had but two Sacraments Circumcision and the Passeover and that it should thence follow by inevitable consequence that the Lords Supper must 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answer only to the Jewish Passeover sure I am the Jews had many more for not to instance in that of Paul 1 Cor. 10.2 3 4. nor to examine all the other Sacramentall ceremonies which they had that were almost as many Sacraments as Ceremonies these feasts upon the sacrifices which we have all this while insisted on were nothing else but true and proper sacraments joyned with sacrifices I adde that according to the received definitions of a sacrament all the sacrifices that were propitiatory were Sacraments that is visible sealing signes of invisible grace in Christ appointed by God to that end Secondly you suppose that of those commâ—nds and institutions of God some did belong to the substance of the covenant some were accidentall to them This last expression is very ambiguous whether you mean by them the Jewes or the Sacraments which seems most likely or whether you would as the law of opposion requires say accidentall to the Covenant Again you here contradistinguish the substance of the covenant and that which is accidentall to it which I construe in the same sense that you distinguish between the substance of the covenant and the administration of it pag. 10. Conceiving by your explication that you call the substance of the Covenant that which is invariable and that which is accidentall that which is variable Substance doth not agree to Covenant which is an action in proper sense but in Schooleâ— it is usuall to distinguish between the substance of the act and the circumstances of it the essence and the accidents but I do not remember that Logicians do oppose the accidents of an act to the substance of it and so your expression of the substance of the covenant and that which is accidentall is not in my apprehension after the usuall speech of the Schooles and therefore I cannot well tell what sense to make of it If them referre to the Jewes then it is said something of the Sacraments was accidentall to the Jewes but I know not how to make any handsome sense of this If you referre them to the Sacraments you make something commanded by God accidentall to the Sacraments which may be yeelded you in this sense that there might something have the essence of a Sacrament without such accidents as it might be true Circumcision though it were not the eighth day it might be a true Passeover though not on the right night Yet in this sense it cannot be yeelded that it was so accidentall that it might be omitted without sin any more then the thing it self For it was as well a sin not to circumcise the eighth day or not to keep the Passeover on the night appointed by God as not to do these acts at all since a command was broken in one as well as the other For these reasons I cannot well tell how to deny or grant that which you suppose that some commands of God about the Sacraments of the Jews were accidentall to them But that which is supposed that some of the commands of God about the Sacraments of the Jews did contain things belonging to the substance of the Covenant meaning of the covenant of Grace I can in no wise assent unto it For if either you mean by substance the essence of the covenant I utterly deny that any of the Sacraments of the Jews were of the essence of the covenant Gods Covenant was and might be without them If you mean by substance that which in no case might be varied I deny it in that sense also Nothing of the sacraments of the Jews was morall and invariable And it is most true that as the sacrifices so Sacraments according to the common distinction were belonging to the administration of the covenant for the time but never of the substance of the covenant for that consists only in the things you expresse for the substance pag. 10. And for the maxime which you fâ—ther on all our Divines which I can hardly believe any one of our Divines have delivered as you have done I utterly deny it to wit that all Gods commands and institutions about the Sacraments of the Jews bind us as much as they did them in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant as being contradictory to those words Art 7. of the Church of England Although the Law given from God by Moses as touching Ceremonies and Rites do not bind Christian men and on the contrary I affirm that they are all abrogated substâ—nce and circumstance whole and part and I thus prove it First those things bind us not which had their complement in Christ but all the Sacraments of the Jews had their complement in Chtist Ergo. The Major is the force of the Apostles prohibition and the reason of it Col. 2.16 17. the Minor is delivered 1 Cor. 5.7 Col. 2.17 Heb. 9.9 Heb. 10.1 And Beza in Annot. in Col. 2.14 Hoc respectu ut Euangelicae gratiae adhuc exhibendae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ceremoniis finis erat impositus ipsius Christi id est veritatis quam antea adumbrarant exhibitione by the exhibition of Christ himself that is the truth which before they shadowed there was an end put to ceremonies in this respect as being seals of Euangelicall grace yet to be exhibited Secondly those things bind not us now which were taken away by Christs death this I suppose you will not deny lest you evacuate the effect of Christs death But Christ hath by his death abolished all the sacraments of the Jews comprehended under the law of commands in ordinances or rites Ephes. 2.15 Col. 2.14 therefore they bind not Thirdly those commands which were only to continue till faith came those bind not now faith is come But the commands of the Sacraments of the Jews were such therefore they bind not now The Major and Minor are delivered Gal. 3.23 24 25. Gal. 4.1 2 3 4. Act. 15.9 10. Fourthly those commands bind us not which were a partition wall between Jews and Gentiles but all the Sacraments of the Jewes in whole and in part were a partition wall between Jews and Gentiles therefore they bind us not The Major and Minor are delivered Ephes. 2.14 Fifthly those commands which were unprofitable and weak rudiments of the world contrary to Christ beggerly rudiments these bind not a Christian now but such are the Jews sacraments Heb. 7.18 Col. 2.8.20 Gal. 4.3.9 therefore they bind not Sixthly those commands that belonged to another Priesthood then Christs bind not Christians but the Jews sacraments belonged to another Priesthood then Christs therefore they bind not The Major and Minor are both delivered Heb.
7.12.16 Heb. 9.10 Seventhly those commands that belonged to another covenant then that which now in force bind not but such are the commands of the Jews sacraments Heb. 8.13 Heb. 9.1 therefore they bind not Eightly those commands which were proper to the Jews bind not us Christians but the sacraments of the Jews were proper to the Jews so was Circumcision the Passeover the Sacrifices therefore they bind us not Ninthly If one part bind us then all the commands bind us and if we be obliged to any one rite then to all for they had all the same authority nor hath that authority dissolved any one part more then another Now it is a sure rule that ubi lex non distinguit non est distinguendum where the law distinguisheth not we must not distinguish therefore either none binds us or else we must revoke Judaisme And indeed to say so far a command of God binds and so far not without a plain declaration of Gods will is an high presumption whereby man takes on him to release or dispense with Gods Law which is of equall authority with the making of a law Lastly those commands bind us not which the Apostle would not have us subject to no not in part but such are the commands of the Jewish sacraments Col. 2.16.20 Gal. 5.1 2 3. and your self say pag. 27. the Apostle would take them off wholly from circumcision therefore they bind us not Yea it is to overthrow utterly our Christian liberty by Christ which the Apostle was so stiffe in maintaining that he would not yeeld no not one houâ— and blamed Peter for diâ—sembling this liberty Gal. 2.5.14 to maintain that all the commands and institutions of God about the Sacraments of the Jews bind us as much as they did them in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant and were not accidentall to them But you endeavour to make good your Maxime by instances and accordingly you say thus As because Circumcision is called a seal of the covenant therefore our Sacraments are seals of the covenant though circumcision no where that I know be called the seal of the covenant but only the seal of the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 4.11 yet because it is called a signe or token of the Covenant Gen. 17.11 it may well be called a seal or confirming signe of the covenant with Abraham and so of the covenant of Grace and our Sacraments may be so called likewise they being confirming signs of the new Testament Luk. 22.10 Acts 2.38 but not because Circumcision was called so but because that phrase expresseth the truth of the thing But what is this instance to your purpose Is there a command or institution of God binding the Jews to call Circumcision so or a command or institution for us by vertue of the command to the Jews to call it so though I should oppose him that should deny our Sacraments to be seals of the covenant because he should deny a truth yet I should not say he did sin that did not call them so Your next instance is beâ—ause Circumcision might be administred but once being the seal of initiation therefore Baptisme being also the seal of initiation is to be administred but once However I conceive no necessity of circumcision or Baptisme above once yet I professe my self unsatisfied in this that there is either a command that a person be but once circumcised or a person once only baptized However if there were a command that a person should be but once circumcised and it could be proved that a person should be but once baptized yet I utterly deny that the command to circumcumcise but once is a cammand to baptize but once and therefore what ever any Divines may dictate Magisterially yet I do not think my self in Pythagoras his School that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he said it should be my rule You adde but that circumcision was to be administred on the eighth day only was an accidentall thing and therefore bindeth not I see no reason why once circumcising should belong to the substance of the covenant and to be circumcised on the eighth day should be accidentall yea if reason may rule the roast there is more reason that circumcising on the eighth day should belong to the substance of the covenant being commanded by God expresly and as many of the Ancients conceive particularly Cyprian Ep. 99. ad finem typifying Christs resurrrection on the eighth day then that to be circumcised but once should be of the substance of the covenant which is neither commanded nor is found in Scripture to typifie any thing belonging to the Covenant So vaine are mens conceits without the light of the Word But you go forward in the other Sacrament The Jewish Passeover being to be yearly repeated binds us to have a repetition of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper which came in roome of it because this belongs to the substance of the Covenant both of them being Sacraments for spirituall nourishment growth and continuance in the Covenant as the other was for birth and entrance but that their Passeover was to be eâ—ten in an evening and upon one set evening in the yeare was accidentall and so binds not us Here is a heape of dictats without proofe I grant the Jewish Passeover was to be yearly repeated because God so commanded it but thaâ— either this belonged to the substance of the Covenant or that this command binds us to the frequenâ— use of the Lords Supper I deny it if it did it were a very good plea for the superstitious custome of keeping Easter and receiving the Communion once a yeare on that day which I thinke you will be ashamed of though you lay the egge out of which it may be hatched I grant the Lords Supper is to be repeated often not because the Jewish Passeover was to be yearly repeated or because it is the Sacrament for spirituall nourishment growth and continuance in the Covenant as the other was for birth and entrance but because it may be plainly gathered from the Institution or Command of Christ and the Apostles declaration thereupon 1 Cor. 11.25 26. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth imply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as oft doth imply not obscurely but plainly a frequency and if example must be a rule as it is conceived in many cases lesse cleare and that have lesse reason that example Acts 20.7 should binde that on the first day of the weeke when Disciples come together they have the Lords Supper for the which the meeting then was intended and that action gave denomination to the whole service and by the relation of Justine Martyr if my memory deceive me not and others it was so in the primitive Church of Christians but I desire to be sparing in matters of command on mens consciences As for that you make the Evening accidentall to the Passeover and so not binding us in the use of the Lords Supper it 's but a
be given why these Infants did belong to Gods Kingdome because they were such as Christ would blesse and then all that you can gather from hence will be that of the Infants of Believers whom Christ blesseth is the Kingdome of heaven But this will never prove your Assumption except you can prove that Christ blesseth all the Infants of Believers Lastly Christs action in this businesse is proper to him as the great Prophet of the Church and extraordinary and therefore yeelds no ground for an ordinary rule of baptizing by the publique Ministery And if an ordinary rule should be made in imitation of it it would serve better for the proving the Sacrament of confirmation which Art 25. of the Church of England puts among things grown from a corrupt following the Apostles then Baptisme And in all probability if Christ would have this accident to be a rule or precedent for bringing Infants to him by a visible signe in the new Testament as Mr. Thomâ—s Goodwin at Bow dictated he would have appointed his Apostles to have baptized these Infants as a samplar For which reason it seems to me that this example rather shews Christ would not have Infants baptized then that he intended to make this accident a precedent for paedobaptisme But you will prove your Minor by reasons and thus you reason Beside what one thing can be named belonging to the initiation and being of a Christian whereof Baptisme is a seal which Infants are not capable of as well as grown men they are capable of receiving the Holy Ghost of union with Christ of adoption of forgivenesse of sins of regeneration of everlasting life all which things are signified and seâ—led in the Sacrament of Baptisme I may apply to you the words of Horace Amphora coepit institui currente rota curâ—â—recus exit A barrell began to be made why the wheel running doth a pitcher come forth The thing you should prove is that all the Infants of Believers are actually partakers of the inward grace of Baptisme but in stead of this you prove they are capable of it they may have it but doth it therefore follow that they actually have it It was once an Axiome in the Schools a posse ad esse non valet argumentum from it may be â—o it is an Argument holds not and I think it is so still Besides must children be baptized because they are capable of Grace Then may all children be baptized for they are all capable of the inward Grace of Baptisme But you have yet something more to say And it is further considerable that in the working of that inward grace of which Baptisme is the signe and seal all who partake of that grace are but meer patients and contribute no more to it then a childâ— doth to its own begetting and therefore Infants as fit subjects to have it wrought in them as grown men and the most grown men are in no more fitnesse to receive this grace when it is given them in respect either of any faith or repentance which they yet have then a very little childe it being the primary intention of the covenant of Grace in its first work to shew what free grace can and will do to miserable nothing to cut miserable man off from the wild Olive and graffe him into the true Olive to take away the heart of stone â—o create in them a heart of flesh to forgive their iniquities to love them freely what doth the most grown men in any of these more then an Infant may do being only passive in them all and of this first grace is the Sacrament of Baptisme properly a seal That which you say it is true is further considerable but to what purpose it is here brought in I cannot readily divine whether it be for a proof of the Minor of your Syllogisme or that which you said immediatly before that Infants are capable of the inward grace of Baptisme or whether you would make a further Argument for Infant-baptisme thus Baptisme is to be given to those that are capable of the first grace as well as grown men and the proof of this seems to be because Baptisme seals properly the first grace But Infants are capable of the first grace as well as grown men and the proof of this seems to be because all who partake of that grace are but meer patients c. Therefore Infants are to be baptized as well as grown men If this be your Argument the Major is to be denyed For a person is not to be baptized because he may have grace but because he hath it And for the reason that Baptisme seals properly the first grace it is obscure what you mean by the first grace is not cleare If the free favour of God mentioned before when you say to love them freely this indeed is the first grace simply Gods eternall love and election and I deny not but Baptisme seals it in some sense properly and so doth the Lords Supper as properly if you mean by the first grace the covenant of Grace which is the first transient act of grace that also is sealed properly in Baptisme and as properly in the Lords Supper if you mean the first grace in execution it is uncertain which you put first justification or regeneration or as some adoption And then which is the second grace is uncertain whether after-sanctification cooperating concomitant subsequent grace sustentation against temptations remission of sins hearing prayers or eternall glory Now I do not well understand in what sense or why Baptisme seals properly rather the first grace then the second sith according to your doctrine it is a seal of the covenant of grace and therefore of all the promises in it Nor can I tell why it should be said that Baptisme seals the first grace properly rather then the Lords Supper I confesse in exactnesse of speech Baptisme seals no grace first or second properly taking it for propriety of speech but improperly because metaphorically as sealing is taken for assuring And if properly notes propriety of right or title or possession in opposition to anothers or that which is alien I see not how Baptisme doth seal that is assure the first grace in respect of the propriety of right more then the second or more then the Lords Supper And therefore your speech seems to me very ambiguous And for the Minor as I conceive you frame it that Infants are capable of the first grace as well as grown men it is true and so they are of the second or at least some of them but both by extraordinary working As for receiving grace by ordinary means they are not capable of one or other And for the speeches which you heap together though I grant that in the first conversion in the sense that some learned men understand it we are meerly passive yet I doubt whether Dr. Twisse and such as have most acutely handled the controversie about the irresistibility of grace in the
that God commanded the one but no where the other and your self say pag. 84. Our knowledge of the will of Christ is that which is the only direction we are to follow But you adde a second answer which I let passe because it is but a declaration of your own conceits how you conceive a childe may seal the covenant in his infancy telling us that their name is put into the Deed and that a child may seal fiâ—st in infancy and then after agnize it and that God is pleased to seal to Infants while they are such and to accept such a seal as they can give without any proof but only spinning out the simile of a seal as if Gods wayes were like mans wayes or a simile did gâ—â—deare in omnibus a similitude were even in all things only where you say that in the mean time Jesus Christ who is the surety of the covenant and surety of all the covenanters is pleased to be their surety this speech is further to be examined 'T is true Jesus Christ is the surety of a better Testament Heb. 7.12 he is the surety of all the covenanters he doth strike hands and becomes a surety of the whole covenant and of every condition in it take it in the largest sense and this of all both on Gods part and ours as very rightly and excellently Mr. Thomas Goodwin in his Teatise intituled Christ set forth Sect. 3. Chap. 3. And to like purpose Mr. Rutherfurd The triall and triumph of Faith serm 7. But are any other among men covenanters but the elect who are purchased by the blood of the everlasting covenant Heb. 13.20 It is a very inconsiderate boldnesse in you to make every baptized person or at least every baptized Infant of a Believer a covenanter for whom Christ is a surety and one to whom God seals when the Scripture makes Christ the surety only for his redeemed ones as may be gathered out of sundry places in the Epistle to the Hebrews but I doubt not but when you have considered it a little better you will easily espie your error in these dictates and therefore I passe on to the next objection BVt what benefit comes to children by such kinde of sealing as this is it seems then say they by your own confession that this is but a conditionall sealing on Gods part viz. that they own it and ratifie it when they come to age and if they then refuse to stand to it all is then nullified were it noâ— therefore better to deferre iâ— to their yeers of discretion to see whether they will then make it their own voluntary act yea or no. In what sense baptizâ—ng may be called sealing I have above shewed Part. 3. Sect. 12. but I cannot allow of this to say that God seals to every one that is baptized It is true that Baptisme is in its nature a seal of the righteousnesse of faith 1 Pet. 3.21 but yet God doth not seal this to every one that is baptized but only to true believers For what is Gods sealing but the confirming of his promise But God promiseth righteousnesse only to Believers therefore he seals only to Believers As for the sealing by God upon condition persons agnize the covenant it is but a notion the Scripture makes not Gods promise in the covenant of Grace conditionall in that sense For Gods promise is for those he enters into covenant with That he will put his Law in their hearts and in their mindes will write them Heb. 10.16 Nor do I know any but Corvinus in his Examen of Moulins Anatomy chap. 9. sect 6. and the Arminians that do so speak of Gods covenant of Grace as if it were common to the elect and reprobates and conditionall in this sense as if God left it to mens liberty to whom he had sealed to agnize or recognize that sealing or to free themselves if they please and so nullifie all yet so as to afford them a while the favour and priviledge of being in covenant with him as you speak I appeal to them who have been conversant in the writings of the Arminians whether these speeches do not symbolize with their language And therefore this that you make an objection I look on as a frivolous supposing a Chimaera and then disputing about it But yet there are some things I shall take notice of in your answer The question is What benefit to Infants by such a sealing you answer thus This objection lay as strongly against Gods wisedome in requiring the Jews Infants even in their infancy thus to seal and therefore argues no great wisdome or modesty in man who would thus reason with God about his administrations It is true God appointed the male children of Abrahams family to be circumcised and thereby they were bound to keep the whole Law and it were a sinfull presumption to reason with God about it and in like manner if God had appointed Infants to be baptized it would silence all arguings about it though we knew not the reason but how it is to be understood that God required the Jews even in their infancy to seal I do not well understand our sealing to God is believing Joh. 3.33 I do not finde that God required this of the Jews Infants in their infancy nor of our Infants nor was Circumcision it self the Infants duty required by God of the Infant though it were its priviledge it was the parents duty Exod. 4.24 You say secondly God hath other ends and uses of applying the seal of the covenant to them who are in covenant with him then their present gain it 's â— homage worship and honour to himself and it behoves us even in that respect to fulfill all righteousnesse when Christ was baptized and circumcised he was as unfit for the Ordinance through his perfection as children through their imperfection being as much above them as children are below them It is true Baptisme is a worship of God but Paedobaptisme for ought yet appears is but a will-worship Christs Baptisme it is true was of a transcendent nature as is said before that children are unfit for the Ordinance is not to be imputed to their imperfection but to the defect of Gods appointment if God did appoint it there would be no doubt of their fitnesse But you adde further 3. I answer The benefit and fruit of it at the present is very much both to the parents and to the children to the parents first whilest God doth thereby honour them to have their children counted to his Church to his Kingdome and Family and to be under his wing and grace whilest all the other Infants in the world have their visible standing under the prince and in the kingdome of darknesse and consequently whilest others have no hope of their childrens spirituall welfare untill they be called out of that condition these need not have any doubt of their childrens welfare if they die in their infancy nor if they live
with some difference Baptisme properly seales the entrance into it the Lords Supper properly the growth nourishment and augmentation of it Baptisme for our birth the Lords Supper for our food Now infants may be borne againe while they are infants have their originall sin pardoned be united to Christ have his image stampt upon them but concerning the exercise of these graces and the augmentation of them in infants while they are infants the Scripture is altogether silent You spake somewhat to like purpose before which I examined part 3. sect 15. To me it is yet as a paradoxe that Baptisme seales properly the entrance into the Covenant and the Lords Supper the growth nourishment and augmentation of it If you make the entrance at remission of sins justification or mortification the Lords Supper that seales Christs death seales the entrance into the Covenant Mat. 26.28 And for Baptisme it seales dying with Christ and rising with Christ Rom. 6.3 4 5. Gal. 3.27 Col. 2.12 1 Pet. 3.21 and therefore not onely the first worke of conversion but also after-growth and exercise of holinesse And the Lords Supper signifies the same receiving the Spirit which Baptisme doth 1 Cor. 12.13 And according â—o the doctrine of Protestants Baptisme seales as well the pardon of other sins as of originall sin And so Peter Acts 2.38 and Ananias Act. 22.16 And therefore this difference you put is a difference which the Scripture makes not that I say nothing of your strange phraseology of the growth nourishment and augmentation of the Covenant But you say And what is said concerning the infants of the Jewes eating the Passeover to which our Sacrament of the Lords Supper doth succeed there is no such thing mentioned in the Book of God It is said indeed that the severall families were to eate their Lambe if the houshold were not too little for it and that when their children should aske them what that service meant they should instruct them about the meaning of it but no word injoyning nor any example witnessing thaâ— their little children did eate of it The Commands were that all the males should thrice a yeare appeare before the Lord one of which was the Passeover Exod. 23.17 Exod. 34.23 Deut. 16.16 And at that time there was no other food to be eaten but the unleavened bread and the paschall Supper Therefore those males that could eate though not come to yeares of discretion fit to receive the Lords Supper yet were to eate the Passeover Ainsworth notes on Exod. 12.26 So both the outward rite and the meaning of it was to be taught to their children Touching whom the Jewes hold from the Law in Exod. 23.14.17 Deut. 16.14.16 that every child that could hold his Father by the hand and goe up from Jerusalem gates to the mountaine of the Temple his Father was bound to cause him to goe up and appeare before God with him to the end he might catechize him in the Commandements And who sow as bound to appeare was bound to keep the feast Maimâ—ny in Hagigah Chap. 2. sect 3 4. Also they say A childe that is able to eate a marsell of bread they catechize him in the Commandements and give him to eate so much as an Olive of the unleavened bread Maimony Treatise of leaven and unleavened bread c. 6. sect 10. But you say If they say as some of them doe that those little ones who were able to enquire concerning the meaning of that service and capable to receive instruction about it did eate of the Passeover with their parents I answer although the Scripture speaks nothing of their eating yet if that be granted it is no prejudice to us because the Gospel prohibites not such young ones from the Lords Supper who are able to examine themselves and discerne the Lords body True but children that were to appeare at the Passeover and to partake of it were many of them such as might be instructed concerning the meaning of that service and yet too young to examine themselves or to discerne the Lords body so that if the Lords Supper succeed the Passeover and a rule may be drawne from the Passeover to the Lords Supper children unable to examine themselves may be admitted to the Lords Supper THe rest of your Sermon is application which being not argumentative I shall let it passe Onely whereas you charge Anabaptists with a rash and bloudy sentence condemning infants as out of the state of grace condemning all the infants of the whole Church of Christ as having nothing to doe with the Covenant of grace and then tragically aggravate this thing as parallel or rather exceeding the cruelty of Herod and Hazael in slaying and dashing the infants of Israel against the wall till you produce some testimonies of those you call Anabaptists so determining I shall take it to be but a false accusation and a fruit of passion not of holy zeale For the thing it selfe I have shewed part 2. sect 10. that it doth not follow on the doctrine of Antipaedobaptisme and I conceive that if to be in the Covenant of grace be rightly explained to wit so as to signifie the having of the promise of justification and salvation by Christ Jesus besides which I know not any other Evangelicall Covenant of grace your selfe will be found to exclude them from the covenant of grace as much as they As they dare not say that this or that particular infant of a believer is in the covenant of grace that is certainly elected justified and to be saved so neither dare you Your owne words are pag. 48. Charitie being not tyed to conclude certainly of any of them because they ought to know that all are not Israel who are of Israel and that many are called but few are chosen If you should you would gainsay the Apostle Rom. 9.6 7 8. And on the other side as you will not say they are damned so neither will they I am perswaded but suspending any sentence concerning this or that in particular leave them to God who is the soveraigne Lord both of them and us THus have I at last in the middest of many wants distractions discouragements and temptations with the assistence of God who hath never failed me to him be the praise examined your Sermon and thereby shewed that it doth not satisfie and how little reason you had to say in your Epistle I am assured that it is Gods truth which I have preached and which he will blesse Notwithstanding which confidence I presume you will see cause to consider more exactly of this matter upon the reading of this answer I dare not thinke any otherwise of you then as of one who loves and seekes the truth Nor doe I know any reason why you should conceive that I have taken this paines for any ends crosse to the finding of truth My reall intention in this worke is to discover truth and to doe what is meete for mee in my calling towards
An Examen OF THE SERMON Of Mr. STEPHEN MARSHAL About Infant-Baptisme in a Letter sent to him Divided into Foure Parts 1. Concerning the Antiquity of Infant-baptisme 2. Concerning the prejudices against Antipaedobaptists from their miscarriages 3. Concerning the Arguments from Scripture for Infant-baptisme 4. Concerning the Objections against Infant-baptisme In which are maintained these Positions 1. Infant-baptisme is not so ancient as is pretended but as now taught is a late Innovation 2. Antipaedobaptisme hath no ill influence on Church or Common-wealth 3. Infant-baptisme cannot be deduced from Holy Scripture 4. Infant-baptisme is a corruption of the Ordinance of Baptisme LONDON Printed by R. W. for George Whitington 1645. Infant-Baptisme Is not so Ancient as is pretended As now Taught Is a late Innovation PART I. Concerning the antiquity of Infant-Baptisme SIR IT is now full nine moneths since that being informed by one of the Members of the Assembly in which you are one that there was a Committee chosen out of the Members of the Assembly to give satisfaction in the point of Paedo-baptisme and advised by the same person out of his tender love to me to present the reasons of my doubts about Paedo-baptisme to that Committee I drew them up in Latine in nine Arguments in a scholastique way and they were delivered unto Mr. Whitaker the Chair-man of the Committee about nine moneths since to which I added after an addition of three more reasons of doubting with a supplement of some other things wanting which was delivered to Mr. Tuckney and joyned by him to the former Papers My aim therein was either to find better ground then I had then found to practise the baptizing of Infants from that Assembly of learned and holy men whom I supposed able and willing to resolve their Brother in the Minâ—stâ—ry Or else according to the solemn Covenant I have taken to endeavour the reformation of these Churches according to Gods word by informing that Assembly what I conceived amisse in the great ordinance of Baptizing The successe was such as I little expected to this day I have heard nothing from the Committee by way of answer to those doubts but I have met with many Pamphlets and some Sermons tending to make the questioning of that point odious to the People and to the Magistracie Among others reading the Sermon of Mr. Richard Vines on Ephes. 4.14 before the Lord Major and the Sermon you preached at Westminster Abbey I perceive there is such a prejudice in you and it may seem by the Vote passâ—d about the members of the visible Church in the generality of the Assembly that he is likely to be exploded if not censured that shall but dispute against it and therefore little or no likelihood that this matter will be argued as I conceive it doth deserve in your Assembly And further I perceive there is a great zeale in your spirit against the denying of Children baptisme as if it were a more cruâ—ll thing than Hazaels dashing out Childrens brains That it were an exclusion of them out of the Covenant of Grace c. Which I the more admire considering the report which hath been of you as a sober learned holy well-tempered man that you should be so transported in this matter as to be so vehement in maintaining that which was accounted heretofore in many ages but an Ecclesiasticall tradition for which you are fain to fetch a command from Circumcision and confâ—sse no expresse example in Scripture for it and go not about to prove it but by consequence inferr'd from five Conclusions which though you call undeniable yet others do not think so nor yet see reason to subscribe to your judgment You are not ignorant I prâ—sume that Mr. Daniel Rogers in his Treatise of the Sacrament of Baptisme part 1. pag. 79. confessed himself yet unconvinced by demonstration of Scripture for it And whereas your Achilles for Paedo-baptisme is the Circumcision of Infants me thinks Mr. Balls words Reply to the Answer of the New-England Elders about the third and fourth Positions pag. 38 39. cut the sinews of that argument But in whatsoever they agree or differ we must look to the Institution and neither stretch it wider nor draw it narrower then the Lord hath made it â—or he is the Institutor of the Sacraments according to his own good pleasure and it is our part to leaâ—n of him both to whom how and for what end the Sacraments are to be administred how they agree and wherein they differ In all which we must affirm nothing but what God hath taught us and as he hath taught us And whereas the words of Paul 1 Cor. 7.14 are your principall strength to prove the Covenant-holines of Infants of a believing parent Musculus a writer of good esteem in his Commentary upon that place confesseth that he had abused formerly that place against the Anabaptists but found it impertinent to that purpose And for my part after most carefull and serious reading and perusing of many Authors and among the rest your Sermon I cannot yet find it to be any other then an innovation in comparison of many other things rejected late maintained by erroneous and dangerous principles having no true ground from Christs institution which alone can acquit it from Will-worship and which hath occasioned many errors in doctrine corruptions in discipline and manners unnecessary and vain disputes and almost quite changed the ordinance of Baptisme Wherefore upon advise I have resolved to examine your Sermon who are a leading man and in respect of your eminency either likely to be a very good or very bad instrument as you are guiâ—dd that you may either rectifie me or I you and that we may if the Lord shall see it good give one another the right hand of fellowship and stand fast in one mind in the truth of the Gospel and cleare the truth of God to the people whose eyes are upon us And so much the rather have I pitched upon your Sermon because I conceive it contains in a plain way as much as can be wel said for Poedo-baptisme and your Epistle seems to intimate your publishing of it to be for the ease of the Assembly and possibly it may be all I may expect from them Now the Lord vouchsafe to frame both your spirit and mine that we may seek and find truth in humility and love in this great businesse which concerns the soules perhaps lives and estates of many millions yea of all godly persons and the glory of God and honour of our Lord Jesus Christ and that we may trample under our feet our own credit our own opinion if it stand not with the honour of Christ and the truth of God LEtting passe the Epistle and leaving the various Questions and allowing the stating of the Question conceiving you mean it of baptizing by warrant of ordinary rule of Scripture without extraordinary revelation or direction Whereas you affirme that the Infants of
Believers are to be baptized with Christs baptisme by the lawfull Minister according to ordinary rule I deny it That which you say for the practise of baptizing infants may be reduced 1. To the testimonies of Antiquity 2. To the novelties and miscarriages of the opposers of it 3. To the arguments produced for it 4. To the answering objections against it I shall by Gods assistence examine each of these First you affirm That the Christian Church hath been in possession of it for the space of fifteen hundred years and upwards as is manifest out of most of the Records that weâ— have of Antiquity both in the Greek and Latine Churches To this I answer that if it were true yet it is not so much as may be said for Episcopacy keeping of Easter the religious use of the Crosse c. which I conceive you reject 2. That the highest testimonies you produce come not so high 3. Those that be alleaged being judiciously weighed will rather make against the present doctrine and practise then for it 4. There are many evidences that do as strongly prove as proofes usually are taken in such matters Quod ab initio non fuit sic That from the beginning it was not so and therefore it is but an innovation The first of these I presume you will acknowledge that for Antiquity not-Apostolicall there are plain testimonies of Episcopacy keeping of Easter the religious use of the Crosse being in use before any of the testimonies you or any other can produce for baptizing of infants and therefore I will forbear mentioning proofes so obvious to Schollars The second and third thing I shall make good in the weighing of the Testimonies you produce and the fourth in the close YOur Testimonies are either of the Greek or Latine Churches Of the Greekes you alleage foure The first is Justine Martyr of whom you say That he lived Anno 150. which wants somewhat of 1500. years and therefore you did somewhat overlash in saying that it is manifest out of most of the Records of the Greeke and Latine Church The Church hath been in possession of the priviledge of baptizing Infants 1500. years and upwards and then you say In a Treatise that goes under his name By which it is manifest that you know that it was questioned whether it was his or no and I conceive you could not be ignorant that it is not only questioned but also proved by Perkins in his preparative to the demonstration of the Probleme by Rivet in his Critieus sacer by Robert Cooke of Leeds if my memory faile me not to which I am inforced to trust in many things being spoiled of my bookes in his Censure and confessed by Papists to be none of Justine Martyrs but to bee written a great while after his dayes for as much as it mentions not only Irenaeus but also Origen and the Manichees Now what doth this bastard Treatise say You say Question 56. Justine Martyr disputes the different condition of those children who die baptized and of those children who die unbaptized The question propounded is If Infants dying have neither praise nor blame by works what is the difference in the resurrection of those that have been baptized by others and have done nothing and of those that have not been baptizâ—d and in like manner have done nothing The Answer is this is the difference of the baptized from the not baptiâ—â—d that the baptized obtaine good things meaning at the Resurrection by baptisme but the unbaptized obtain not good things And theâ— are accounted worthy of the good things they have by their baptisâ—â— by the faith of those that bring them to baptisme You may by thâ—â— testimony see what ever Age the book was made in what the reason of baptizing of Infants was Not the supposed Covenant of grace made to believers and their seed which you make the ground of baptizing of infants but the opinion that the not baptized should not obtain good things at the resurrection meaning the Kingdome of God mentioned Joh. 3.5 but the baptized should and that by reason of the faith of the bringers what ever the Parents were and therefore they baptized the children of unbâ—lievers as well as believers if they were brought YOur next Greek Author is Irenaeus who was indeed a Greeke and wrote in Greek but now only we have his works in Latine except some few fragments for which reason we are not so certain of his meaning as we might be if we had his own words in the language in which he wrote You say he lived in the same Century and it is acknowledged he lived in the same Century with Justine Martyr but not with the Author of the Questions Answers ad Orthodoxâ—s who as hath been said lived in some Age after Irenaeus is by Vsher placed at the yeare 180. by Osiander at the yeare 183. so that though he were of that Century yet he flourished in the latter part of it and so reacheth not to your 1500. years upwards Of him you say that l. 2. c. 39. he saith Christus venit per seipsuÌ„ omnes salvare omnes inquaÌ„ qui per eum renascuntur in DeuÌ„ infantes parvuloâ— pueros c. Now it is well knowne say the Glossers upon that text renascentiâ— nomine Dominica Apostolica Phrasi Baptismum intelligi You might have added what follows Aperte confirmans Apostolorum traditionem de baptismo infantium parvulorum adversus Anabaptisticam impietatem But I pray you whose Glosse was this Was it any other then Fevardentius if I mistake not of whom Rivet Crit. Sacr. lib. 2 cap. 6. Juniores tantum qui in opera Irenaei incident monitos volo ut caveant ab illis Editionibus quas impudentissimus ille Monarchus Fevardentius homo projecta audacia et nullius fidei foede in multis corrupit annotationibus impiiâ— et mendacibus conspuâ—cavit And for the glosse its false for no where doth our Lord or the Apostles call baptisme Now birth although our Lord speake of being borne againe of water Ioh. 3.5 and Paul of the washing of regeneration Tit. 3.5 and for the words themselves without the glosse all the strength lyes in this that the word Renascuntur is used for Baptisme by the Ancients which yet possibly was not the word Irenaeus used in his owne writing and how the Latine translation alters the meaning of Irenaeus you may see somewhat in Rivet Vossius Thesibus Theologic de Padebapt Thesi. 7. intimates that the proper acception is of sanctification and that the word may be so taken yea and that it is not meant of Baptisme the words and the whole scope of Irenaeus in that place shew For the scope of Irenaeus in that chapter is to refute the Gnosticks who sayd that Christ did not exceede one and thirty yeeres of age against whom Irenaeus alleageth that Christ lived in every age of infancy youth old age that by his age example
Italy and all Europe and it seemes he denyed not the baptizing of growne persons in Asia still whence I collect that even in the Latine Church after Augustines dayes in sundry ages the baptizing of persons of growne age did continue as well as baptizing of infants till the great darknes that over-spred the Wâ—sterne Churches spoiled by Barbarâ—us Nations destitute of learned men and â—uled by ambitious and unlearnâ—d Popes when there were none to Catechizâ— and therefore they baptized whole Countries upon the baptisme of the King of that Country though both Prince and people knew little or nothing of Christianity but were in respect of manners and knowledge Pagans still which hath beene the great cause of the upholding of Papacie and corrupting of Christian Churches I mean this great corruption of baptizing making Christians giving Christendome as it is called afore ever persons were taught what Christianity was or if they were taught any thing it was only the ceremonies and rites of the Church as they called them 2. You may conceive how light Augustine's juâ—gement was by considering the ground upon which Augustine held and urged the baptisme of Infants so vehemently which was as all know that read his works the opinion he had that without baptisme Infants must be damned by reason of originall sinne which is not taken away but by Baptisme yea though he wanted baptisme out of necessity urging those places Joh. 3.5 Rom. 5.12 continually in his disputes against the Pelagianâ— particularly tom 7. de natura gratia c. 8. And tom 2. ep 28. he saith Item quisquis dixerit quod in Christo vivificabuntur etiam parvuli qui sine Sacramenti ejus participatione de vita exeunt hic profecto contra Apostolicam praedicationem venit totam condemnat ecclesiam And in the close of the Epistle calls it robustissimam fundatissimam fidem qua Christi ecclesia nec parvulos homines recentissime natos a damnatione credit nisi per gratiam domini Christi quam in suis Sacramentis commendavit posse liberari And this Perkins in his Probleme proves was the opinion of Ambrose and many more And hence as Aquinas so Bellarmine proves baptisme of Infants froâ— Joh. 3 5. And this hath been still the principall ground The ground that you go on that the covenant of grace belongs to believers and their seed I cannot find amongst the Ancients Yea as you may perceive out of Perkins in the place alleadged although Ambrose and Augustine in his 4. book de Baptismo contra Donatistas c. 22. yielded that either Martyrdome or the desire of Baptisme might supply the defect of Baptisme and some of the School-men Biel Cajetan Gerson do allow the desire and prayer of parents for children in the wombe in stead of baptisme Yet we finde no remedy allowed by them but actuall baptisme for children born into the world So strictly did Augustine and the Ancients urge the necessity of Baptisme for Infants born 3. You may consider that Augustine held a like necessity of Infants receiving the Lords supper from the words Joh. 6.53 as is plainly expressed by him lib. 1. de peccat merit remis c. 20. And accordingly as in Cyprians time the Communion was given to Infants as appears by the story which he relates of himself giving the Communion to an Infant in his book de lapsis mentioned by August epist. 23. So it is confested by Maldonat on Joh. 6. that Innocentius the first Bishop of Rome held it necessary for Infants and that this opinion and practise continued about 600 yeares in the Church though it be now rejâ—cted by the Romane Church in the Councel of Trent 4. You may consider that Augustine held such a certainty of obtaining regeneration by Baptisme that not only he puts usually regeneration for Baptisme but also he makes no question of the regeneration of Infants though they that brought them did not bring them with that faith that they might be regenerated by spirituall grace to eternall life but because by Baptisme they thought to procure health to their bodies as is plain by his words epist. 23. ad Bonifacium Nec illud te moveat quod quidam non ea fide ad Baptismum percipiendum parvulos ferunt ut gratia spiritali ad vitam regenerentur aeternam sed quod eos putant hoc remedio temporalem retinere aut recipere sanitatem non enim propterea illi non regenerantur quia non ab illis hac intentione offeruntur celebrantur enim per eos necessaria ministeria By which last words you may perceive how corrupt Augustine was in this matter so as to excuse if not to justifie their fact who made use of Baptisme in so profane a manner as to cure diseases by it which is no marvaile if it be be true which is related of the approbation that was given of the Baptisme used by Athanasius in play amongst boyes 5. You may consider that in the same Epistle when Bonifacius pressed Augustine to shew how Sureties could be excused from lying who being asked of the Childs faith answered He doth believe for even in Baptisme of Infants they thought in all ages it necessary that a profession of faith go before He defends that act in this absurd manner Respondetur credere propter fidâ—i Sacramentum And thence is he called a believer because he hath the Sacrament of faith Which as it is a ridiculous playing with words in so serious a matter before God so it is a senslesse answer sith the interrogation was of the Childs faith before it was baptized and the answer was given before and therefore it cannot be understood of believing by receiving the sacrament of faith which came after 6. It is apparent out of the same Epistle that Infants were then admitted to baptisme whether they were the children of believers or not it was no matter with what intention they brought them nor whose children were brought yea it was counted a work of charity to bring any children to baptisme and in this case the faith of the whole Church was counted a sufficient supplement of the defect of the parents or bringers faith So that whereas the present defenders of Infant-baptisme pretend Covenant-holinesse a priviledge of Believers it was no such matter in the time of the Ancients but they baptized any Infants even of Infidels upon this opinion That Baptisme did certainly give grace to them and if they dyed without baptismâ— they did perish And thus I grant that it is true the Epistle of Cyprian is cited and approved by Augustine but neither is Augustine to be approved for approving it nor doth it advantage your tenet that you have cited his citation of it NExt to Augustine you place Hierom and it is true that he cites and approves Cyprians Epistle in the end of his third book of his Dialogues against the Pelagians and he cites and approves and commends Augustine's books de peccat merito
to Christians and such doe they conceive a Sabbath to be as being of the Law of nature that outward worship being due to God dayes are due to God to that end and therefore even in Paradise appointed from the creation and in all nations in all ages observed enough to prove so much to be of the Law of nature and therefore the fourth Commandement justly put amongst the Morals and if a seventh day indefinitely be commanded there as some of your Assembly have indeavourd to make good I shall not gainsay though in that point of the quota pars temporis which is moral I do yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suspend my judgement Now Circumcision hath nothing moral in it it is meerely positive neither from the beginning nor observed by all nations in all ages nor in the Decalogue and therefore a Sabbath may stand though it fall 2. The other explication is that when they require expresse institution or command in the New Testament they doe not meane that in positive worship there must be a command totidem verbis in so many words in forme of a precepâ— but they conceive that Apostolicall example which hath not a meere temporary reason is enough to prove an institution from God to which that practise doth relate And in this after some evidences in the Scripture of the New Testament they ascribe much to the constant practise of the Church in all ages Now then if it be considered that when Paul was at Troas Acts. 20.7 the Disciples came together to breake bread and Paul preached upon the first day of the weeke and Paul 1 Cor. 16.1.2 as he had appointed in the Churches of Galatia so he appoints at Corinth collections for the poore the first day of the week Revel 1.10 it hath the Elogium or title of the Lords day and it was so Sacred among Christians that it was made the question of inquisitors of Christianity Dominicum servasti Hast thou kept the Lords day to which was answered Christianus sum intermittere non possum I am a Christian I may not omit it it is cleare evidence to me that either Christ or the Apostles having abrogated the old Sabbath Col. 2.16 subrogated the first day of the weeke instead of it Now if a moity of this could be brought for Paedobaptisme in the stead of Circumcision of infants I should subscribe to it with you But Paedobaptisme not consisting with the order of Christ in the institution being contrary to the usage of it by John the Baptist the Apostles there being no foote-steps of it till the erroneous conceit grew of giving Gods grace by it and the necessity of it to save an infant from perishing some hundreds of yeares after Christs incarnation I dare not assent to the practise of it upon a supposed analogy equity or reason of the rule of Circumcision and imaginary confederation with the beleiving parent in the Covenant of grace For to me it is a dangerous principle upon which they go that so argue to wit that in meere positive things such as Circumcision and Baptism are we may frame an addition to Gods worship from analogy or resemblance conceived by us betweene two ordinances whereof one is quite taken away without any institution gathered by precept or Apostolicall example For if we may doe it in one thing why not in a nother where shall we stay They that read the Popish expositors of their Rituals doe know that this very principle hath brought in Surplice Purification of women c. that I mention not greater matters I desire any learned man to set me downe a rule from Gods Word how far I may go in my conceived parity of reason equity or analogy and where I must stay when it will be superstition and will worship when not when my conscience may be satisfied when noâ— That which Christ and his Apostles have taken from the Jewes and appointed to us we receive as they have appointed buâ— if any other man if a Pope or Occumenicall Councel take upon them to appoint to mens Consciences any rite in whole or in part upon his owne conceived reason from supposed analogy with the Jewish ceremonies it is an high presumption in such against Christ and against the Apostles command to yeeld to it Col. 2.20 though it hath a shew of wisedome v. 23 And the Apostles example Gal. 2.3.4 5. binds us to oppose it when it is likely to bring us into bondage And for the other pillar upon which at this day paedobaptisme is built it is to me very dangerous viz. That the Covenant of Evangelicall grace is made to beleivers and their seede that the children are confederates with the Parents in the Covenant of grace Which without such restrictions or explications as agree not with the common use of the words which in the plaine sense import this that God in his Covenant of grace by Christ hath promised not only to justifie and save beleiving Parents but also their children is in my apprehension plainly against the Apostles determination Rom. 9.6 7 8. makes an addition to the Gospell mentioned Gal. 3.8 9. and drawes with it many dangerous consequences which I abhorre You adde Now God hath so blessed the religious observation of the Lords day in this Kingdome above other Churches and Kingdomes that such as indeavour to overthrow it deserve justly to be abhorred by us Upon occasion of which passage I only desire to intimate to you that from happy events it s not safe to conclude that a thing pleaseth God You know it is the way the Monks and Prelates use to inferre that their institution is of God because their Orders have yeelded so many pious Confessors Martyrs and Saints it too much countenanceth the way of arguing for Independency by which it hath prevailed in Letters from abroad and suggestions at home still harping on this string that it is the way of God because they that are in that way thrive grow more spirituall then others And if this arguing be good It prospers therefore it pleaseth God then it will follow on the contrary It prospers not therefore it pleaseth not God And if so we might inferre Infant baptisme is of men not of God sith if conscience and experience may speake there are but few Christians that have tasted the sweete comfort of their baptisme as Mr. Shepard in his Epistle before Philips vind of infant-bap The other note is this that when you say that such as indeavour to overthrow the religious observation of the Lords day deserve justly to be abhorred by us it must be taken cum grano salis with cauâ—ion of such as doe it against cleare light with a malitious spirit Otherwise your words reach to forraigne reformed Churches their teachers yea in a sort to your selfe who may be said interpretatively to indeavour to overthrow it while you build it on the same ground with paedobaptisme But I proceede YOu say
Secondly the teachers of this opinion where ever they prevaile take their Proselites wholy off from the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments and all other acts of Christian Communion both publique and private from any but those that are of their owne opinion condemning them all as limbes of Antichrist worshippers and followers of the Beast This is indeed a wicked practise justly to be abhorred the making of sects upon difference of opinion reviling separating from their teachers and brethren otherwise faithfull because there is not the same opinion in disputable points or in cleare truths non-fundamentall is a thing too frequent in all sorts of Dogmatists and yet so contrary to common charity which teacheth us to beare all things to the rules of heathens who could say Non eadem sentire duos de rebus iisdem incolumi licuit semper amicitia It hath bin alwayes allowed that friends should differ in opinion about the same things yet continue fâ—iends much more against that neare concorporation of Christians that I looke upon it as one of the great plagues of Christianity you shal have me joyne with you in shewing my detestation of it Yet neverthelesse First It is to be considered that this is not the evill of Antipaedobaptisme you confesse some are otherwise minded and therefore must be charged on the persons not on the assertion it selfe and about this what they hold you may have now best satisfaction from the confession of faith in the name of seven Churches of them Art 33. and others following Secondly It is fit when such things happen that godly Ministers should looke upon it as their affliction take occasion excutere semetipsos to search themselves whether they have not by their harsh usage of their brethren unjust charging them misreporting their tenents stirring up hatred in Magistrates people against them â—nstead of instructing them unsatisfying handling of doubtfull quâ—stions and by other ways alienated them from them And I make bold to let you understand that among others you have beene one cause at my startling at this point of Paedobaptisme remembring a very moveing passage which is in your Sermon Preached and printed on 2 Chron. 15.2 Concerning the hedge that God hath set about the 2. Commandement that you admire that ever mortal man should dare in Gods worship to meddle any jot further then the Lord himselfâ— hath commanded I Come after you Thirdly this opinion puts all thâ— Infants of all believers into the self-same condition with the Infants of Turkes and Indians And so doth the opinion of Cyprian with his 66. Bishops that would have Gods grace denyed to none And so do the words of the grave confutation of the Brownists put forth by Mr. Rathband Part. 3. pag. 50. Children may be lawfully accounted within Gods Covenant if any of their Ancestors in any generations were faithfull Exod. 20.5 But it may be you do not so I pray you then tell me wherein you make their condition different Possibly if you open your selfe plainly there will be no difference between us I will deale freely with you herein 1. Concerning Gods Election I am not certaine any more concerning the election of a believers Infant then an unbelievers I rest upon Gods words I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy Rom. 9.15.2 For the Covenant or promise of grace that is righteousnesse and life in Christ though I acknowledge a peculiar promise to Abrahams naturall posterity mentioned Rom. 11 27. Yet I know not that God hath made such a covenant to any much lesse to all the naturall seed of any believing Gentile if you can shew me such a Character I shaâ—l count it a treasure but I dare not forge such grants 3. Yet I grant that the present estate of a believers Infants hath a more comfortable likelihood that they are in Gods election then the infants of Turks and Indians both because they have their parents prayers and the Churches for them they have some promises though generall indefinite and coÌ„ditional we find by experience God doth very frequeÌ„tly coÌ„tinue his Church in their posterity though it often happen that the childâ—eÌ„ of godly parents prove very wicked But this I dare not ground upon any promise of free grace made to the child of a believer as such for feare leâ—t I incurre blasphemy by challenging a promise which God doth not keep nor upon any pretended law of friendship lest that objection râ—flect on me Is there unrighteousnesse with God Rom. 9.14 which the Apostle thought best to answer by asserting to God the most absolute liberty v. 15.18 4. That the condition in respect of future hopes of a believers Infant is a thousand times better then of a Turk or Indian because it is born in the bosome of the Church of godly parents who by pâ—ayers instruction example will undoubtedly educate them in the true faith of Christ whereby they are not only as the Turks children in potentia Logica in a Logick possibility or in potentia remota in a remote possibility but in potentia prâ—quînqua in a near possibility to be believers and saved And surely this is a great and certain priviledge enough to satisfie us if we remember the distance between God and us Nor do I feare to be gored by any of the three horns of your Syllogisme of which one you say must unavoidably follow The first is That either all are damned who die in their infancy being without the Covenant of grace having no part in Christ. But this follows not there is no necessity from any thing said before of their condition that all of them should be damned or be without the Covenant of grace having no part in Christ God may choose them all or some take all or some into the covenant of Grace which is I will be thy God and the God of thy seed that is mine Elect Rom. 9.8.11 into communion with Christ who dyed for the Elect Rom. 8.33 34. notwithstanding any thing I have said of their condition The second is Or else all are saved as having no originall sin and consequently needing no Saviour which most of the Anabaptists in the world do owne and therewith bring in also all Pelagianisme universall grace free-will c. This I imagine is the error you conceive depends upon Anti-paedobaptisme I finde Mr. Blake stands much upon this in his Birth-right-priviledge pag. 17. where he saith The Anabaptists in this present age well see that all that joyn in this tenent saile between those rocks either to affirm that infants die in their pollution or perish in their birth-sin or else to deny this originall pollution or any birth-sin at all But for my part I see no reason of this unlesse it be granted that no infant can have sin forgiven unlesse it bâ— baptized May it not be said that some or all infants are saved notwithstanding their birth-sin by the grace of God electing them putting them into Christ uniting
the eighth day and women though federate yet were not to be signed So that you see it is so far from being universally true that all that are foederati must be signati that this is all which is true all the male children of Abrahams family if they were eight dayes old must be signed with the sign of Circumcision which never will be able to prove the consequence of your Enthymâ—me according to true Logick But you say this receives an easie answer the women were circumcised in the males else God could not have said that the whole house of Israel were circumcised in the flesh else could not the whole Nation of the Jews be called the Circumcision in oppâ—sition to all the world besides who were called the Vâ—circumcision 'T is true the answer you give is an easie answer because easie to be answered but it is not a sufficient answer to takâ— away the exception against that universall proposition which must prove the consequence of your Enthymeme The answer is That women were circumcised in the males You expresse it thus pag. 28. where you repeat the same thing This sign was actually applyed only to the males yet the females were virtually circumcised in them So this is your meaning The women were not circumcised at all yet that the males were circumcised it was all one as if they had been circumcised in their persons Now then let us scan this answer the conclusion to be proved was that Infants were to be sealed actually not virtually For if a virtuall sealing or baptizing were all that you would prove we might grant it we may say infants are virtually baptized in their parents and yet it may be unlawfull to baptize them actually as it would have been unlawfull to have circumcised women actually notwithstanding their virtuall circumcision For it had been a will-worship there being no command to do it And indeed to speak exactly women were not circumcised virtually in the males for he is said virtually to have a thing by another as by a Proxie or Attorny that might receive it by himselfe yet quoad effectum juris according to the effect of Law anothers receiving is as if he had received it but so the males did not receive circumcision for the females for the females might not be circumcised in their own persons it had been their sin if they had recieved it God not appointing it As it had been a sin for a childe to be circumcised afore or after the eighth day in them that altered or swerved from the appointment of God Now then this being the conclusion to be proved That infants of believing parents are to be actually signed or sealed the proposition must be meant of the same signing or sealing and the Syllogisme thus framed All that are foederati must be actually signati All the infants of believers are foederati Ergo All the infants of believers must be actually signati If you do not thus frame your Syllogisme but put in the prâ—position virtually signed and in your conclusion actually signed your Syllogisme hath four termes and so is naught If you do not put actually signed in the conclusion you conclude not that which you should prove Now this also occasions me to note another fault in your argument to wit your concluding that which was not the question which was not of any sign indefinitely but of baptisme You cannot say it is all one for there are other signes of the Covenant besides baptisme as circumcision of old so the Lords Supper now If then I should grant the conclusion That infants of believers are to be signati yet you would say they are not to be paâ—takers of the Lords Supper because it is not appointed for them So in like manner if it were granted you that infants of believers are to be signed yet it follows not that they are to be baptized unlesse you can prove it is appointed to them and the truth is if it were granted that children were foederati yet it were a high presumption in us to say therefore they must be signati without Gods declaration of his minde and if it were granted they must be signati it were in like manner a high presumption in us to say therefore they must be baptized without Gods declaration of his minde concerning that Ordinance Though it may be good to aâ—gue thus it is Gods minde therefore it is to be done yet it is a great pride of spirit for us to argue This should be therefore God hath appointed it As for the reasons you bring to prove that women were virtually circumcised in the males they prove it not for when it is said The whole house of Israel were circumcised in the flesh the sense is not every person is either actually or virtually circumcised but all the house of Israel is put for a great part or the greater or the most eminent as it is frequently elswhere 1 Sam. 7.3 Act. 2.36 Act. 13.24 as the whole Church is said to come together when the most of them come together And in the like manner the people of the Jews may be called the Circumcision from the greater or more famous part though the women be neither actually nor virtually circumcised As a field of wheat may be called from the greater or most eminent part as a Church of believers from the greater or most eminent part though the rest be neither actually nor virtually believers And for your other reason pag. 28. It was Gods expresse order Exod. 12.28 No uncircumcised person might eat of the Passeover which we are sure women did as well as men therefore they were virtually circumcised Neither is this cogent For the Proposition is thus to be limited pro subjecta materia according to the subject matter No uncircumcised person might eat thereof that ought to be circumcised Now women were not appointed to be circumcised at all therefore they need not either actually to be circumcised or to have any circumcised for them or in their stead which you mean I think by virtuall circumcision Now I have dwelt so long on your Consequence because I still stick at this That no reason of ours in positive worship can acquit an action that is performed from will-worship Nothing but Gods will manifest in his institution gathered by some command or example now in force can do it Neverthelesse because I conceive the Antecedent of your Enthymemâ— is not true though your Argument be overthrown by shewing the invâ—lidity of your Consequâ—nce I shal proceed to examine your 5 Conclusions by which you endeavor to make good both your antecedeÌ„â— whole argument YOur first conclusion is this That the Covenant of grace for substance hath always bin one the same to Jews and Gentiles This conclusion I grant but on sundry passages in the pâ—oofe of it I think it necessary to make these animadversions 1. You carry the narration of the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. as if it
did only contain the covenant of Grace in Christ whereas it is apparent ouâ— of the Text that the Covenant was a mixt Covenant consisting of temporall benefits to wit the multiplying of his seed v. 6. the possâ—ssion of Canaan v. 8. the birth of Isaac v. 16. and the spirituall blessings v. 5 7. Yea Cameron thâ—sibus de triplici foedere Dei thesi 78. saith That circumcision did primarily separate Abrahams seed from other Nations sealed the earthly promise it signified sanctification secondarily And indeed this is so plainly delivered in the Scripture that the Psalmist cals the promise of Canaaâ— the covenant made with Abraham Ps. 105.8 9 10 11. He hath remembred his Covenant for ever the word which he commanded to a thousand generations which Covenant he made with Abraham and his Oath unto Isaac and confirmed the same to Jacob for a Law and to Israel for an everlasting covenant Saying unto thee will I give the Land of Canaan the lot of your inheritance If you should say that these promises were types of spirituâ—ll and heavenly things the reply is that though it be true yet the things promised were but carnall and earthly as the Sacrifices were but carnall things though shadowes of spirituall 2. When you say thus The manner of administration of this Covenant was at first by types and shadowes and sacrifices c. It had been convenient to have named Circumcision that it might not be conceived to belong to the substance of the Covenant But of this there may be more occasion to speak at pag. 35. of your Sermon 3. Whereas pag. 14. you place among the third sort of Abrahams seed Proselytes that were selfe-justitiaries carnall and formall professors it behoved you to shew where in Scripture they are called Abrahams seed which I think you cannot Yea the truth is you herein joyn with Arminius who in his Analysis of the 9. to the Romans makes this as the ground of his wresting that Scripture that there is a seed of Abraham mentioned Romans 4.9 10. and Galat. 3. 4. cap. Qui per opera legis justitiam salutem consequuntur Who follow after righteousnesse and salvation by the works of the Law To whom Baine on Eph. 1.5 p. 139. answers Beside though the sons of the flesh may signifie such who carnally not spiritually conceive of the Law yet the seed of Abraham without any adjoyned is never so taken But it is yet stranger to me that which Mr. Blake hath pag. 9. where he saith That there yet remaines in the bosome of the Church a distinction of the seed of Abraham borne after the flesh and after the spirit And that now by vertue of being born after the flesh some have a Church-interest And applies that of Gal. 4 29. Even so it is now to children born of believing parents after the flesh as having there by title to Church-interest Which passages are very grosse though he makes this the medium of his fourth Argument For first whereas the Apostle by being born after the flesh means not infants born of believing parents but those that are under the covenant of Mount Sinai that is who sought righteousnesse by the law and not by faith Mr. Blake means by being born after the flesh birth by naturall generation of infants born of Christian parents 2. Whereas he saith that such are in the bosome of the Church the Apostle saith they persecute the Church and are cast out 3. Whereas â—e makes such Abrahams seed he therein joyns with Arminius against the truâ—h and against the Apostle for though the Apostle makes Ismael to be the son of Abraham and speaks of him as born after the flesh whom he typically makes to represent legall justitiaries yet doth he not call Abrahams seed simply such justitiaries 4. Whereas the covenant of grace is made the reason of baptizing infants by alleâ—ging this place for baptizing of infants To be born of Hagar that is to be in the covenant of works should give a child interest into the Church of Christ. For my part I can see no other consequence than this of that cloudy argument The rest of your explication of the first Conclusion I let passe without any further animadversions as being unwilling sectare minutias to insist on small things or to stand upon matters of expression where I think you mean right and your words are likely to be so taken YOur second Conclusion is this Ever-since God gathered a distinct number out of the world to be his Kingdom City household in opposition to the rest of the world which is the kingdom city and houshold of Sathan He would have the Infants of all who are taken into Covenant with him to be accounted his to belong to him to his Church and family and not to the Devils This Conclusion you expresse so ambiguously that it is a Cothurnus a buskin that may be put on either legge right or left which should not have been in the main Proposition upon which the whole frame of your Argument hangs You say The Infants of all who are taken into covenant with God are to be accounted his but you tell us not in what sense this is to be understood For whereas persons may be said to be accounted his either before God or in facie Ecclesiae visibilis in the face of the visible Church 1. Before God either in respect of his election from eternity or his promise of grace in Christ congruous to it Or of their present estate of inbeing in Christ or the future estate they shall have 2. In facie Ecclesiae visibilis persons may be said to be accounted God's either as born among his people and so potentially members of the Church as being in a way to be in time actuall members of the Church of Christ or who already enquire after God and professe Christ though they do not well understand the doctrine of Christian Religion such as the Catechumeni of old were or they are to be accounted his in respect of actuall participation of Baptisme and the Lords supper 3. The accounting of them to be God's may be either an act of science or faith or opinion and that grounded on a rule of charity of prudence or probable hope for the future You do not declare distinctly in which of these senses or respects the Infants of all who are taken into covenant with God are to be accounted his so that I am almost at a stand what to deny or grant It cannot be denied but God would have the infants of believers in some sort to be accounted his to belong to him his Church and family and not to the Devils which expression I fear you use in this and other places ad faciendum populum to please the peoplâ— It is true in facie Ecclesiae visibilis the infants of believers are to be accounted Gods to belong to his family and church and not to the Devils as being in a neer possibility of
being members of the church of God by an act of opinion grounded on probable hopes for the future But to make them actually members of the visible Church is to overthrow the definitions of the visible Church that Protestant writers give particularly the Church of England Art 19. who make the visible Church a number of Chrâ—stians by profession to make a member of the visible Church â—o whom the note of a member of the visible Church doth not agree to make them visible members that are only passive and do nothing by which they may be denominated visible Christians Yea it will follow that there may be a visible Church which consists only of Infants of believers for a number of visible members makes a visible Church It is also true that we are not to account Infants of believers to belong to God before God in respect of election from eternity or promise of grace in Christ or present estate of in being in Christ or future estate by any act of science or of faith without a particular revelation for there is no generall declaration of God that the Infants of present believers indefinitely all or some either are elected to life or are in the covenant of grace in Christ either in respect of present in being or future estate Mr. Cotton The Covenant of Gods free-grace p. 15. Fifthly it is ordered in regard of the persons to whom it is given Gal. 3.16 It was 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 passage I except That when he saith that the covenant of grace is given in every godly man to his seed he exprâ—sseth himself in an unusuall phrase so obscurely that his meaning is not easily conceived For when he saith it is given in every godly man If he mean it as he said in the words next before in Christ to every godly man that every godly man should be to his seed as Christ to eveâ—y godly man this were to make every godly man a mediator to his seed as Christ is to eveâ—y godly man which would be blasphemy If he mean that every godly man is a root of the Covenant as Abraham it is most false sith this is proper to Abrahamâ—lone â—lone to be the father of the faithfull Rom. 4.11 And the root that beares the branches whether naturall or ingrafted Rom. 11.16 c. And when he saith it is given to his seed he speaks indefinitely which may be understood universally to all his seed which is most manifestly false or else particularly as the words following seem to import But neither is this true as shall be presently shewed Nor doth he tell us whether the covenant of grace be given to the godly mans seed absoluâ—ely as his seed which if he affiâ—m then he must affirm the covenant of grace is given to all the seed of evâ—ry godly man for Quatenus ipsum includes de omni That which is said of any thing as such agrees to all that are such Or whether it be given conditionally Now it is true that some promises do sâ—ppâ—se a condiâ—ion as justification presupposeth believing and if this be the meaning the Covenant of grace is given to every godly man and in every godly man to his seed if they do believe then it is no more then the Covenant of grace is given to every godly man and then it is but trifling to adde and in every godly man to his seed sith nothing more is expressed but what was said before nor any thing convayed from the godly man to his seed some promises have no condition as the promise of writing Gods Laws in our hearts for if any condition be put we shall fall into Pelagianisme that grace is given according to our merits 2. That which he saith he saith without any proofe at all yea contrary to the expresse words of the Apostle Rom. 4.11 l2 13. Rom. 9.6 7 8. Gal. 3.7 14 29. who limiteth this promise Gen. 17.7 to the seed of Abraham and the seed of Abraham he explains to be the elect and believers only whether of Jews or Gentiles and those of the Jews that are in that Covenant not to be in that Covenant because Abrahams naturall seed though God have more regard in his election and covenant of grace to Abrahams naturall seed then to any other godly mans naturall seed that hath been since but as his seed by calling And for that which he saith God will have some of the seed of every godly man to stand before him for ever meaning this as I conceive of election and covenant of grace or some state consequent upon these it is but a bold dictate without proofe imposing on Gods counsell and covenant especially sith God hath declared so expresly after the Covenant Gen. 17.7 That he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy Exod. 33.19 whence the Apostle infers Rom. 9.18 an unlimited freedome notwâ—thstanding his Covenant to Abraham to shew mercy on whom he will any other being passed by and therefore that promise wâ—s made good to Abraham in the calling of the Gentiles Rom. 9.24 Rom. 4 16 17. yea John Baptist saith That God could raise up children to Abraham out of stones Mat. 3.9 And for the thing it selfe it is not true That God will have some of the seed of every godly man to stand before him for ever For millions of godly persons die childlesse as Abel c. millions that have children yet their posterity are rooted up Were there not other godly persons from Seth to Noah besides thâ—se mentioned in the Genealogy Gen. 5. yet it is certain that none of their seed stood before God at the time of the Flood but Noah and some of his Is it not more likely that none of Elies children or Samuels stood before God in Mr. Cottons sense Besides if that which Mr. Cotton saith were true how is it that the Candlestick is removed quite from some people and the naturall branches broken off and the branches besides nature even of the wilde Olive graffed into the true Olive Then suppose a godly man have but one childe that childe must infalliby stand before God It is said indeed Jer. 35.19 and Mr. Cotton seems to allude to it Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me for ever But this standing before God is not meant of election to eternall life and the covenant of grace but of preservation in the destruction of Jerusalem and being after the Captivity of Babylon Scribes as Junius annot in Jerem. 35.19 gathers from 1 Chron. 2.55 and for ever is in many places meant of a temporall duration for some ages This digression will not be thought unnecâ—ssary by those that know how apt many are to swallow down such mens dictates without examination But I proceed Nor are we
foedus dei inituÌ„ cum Abrahamo non omnes Abrahae posteros fimbria sua comprehendere sic simpliciter instituenduÌ„ esse censemus Esavus Jacobus erant ex posteris Abrahae at horuÌ„ utâ—uÌ„que non coÌ„plexus est Deus foedere suo cum Abrahamo inito ergo non omnes posteros Abrahami Probatur autem Deum non complexuÌ„ fuisse utruÌ„que foedere gratiae quiae non complexus est EsavuÌ„ majoreÌ„ sed JacobuÌ„ minoreÌ„ Bain on Eph. 1.5 p. 138. He answereth the assumption of the latter Syllogism by distinguishing of Israel children denying that al Israelites are that Israel to which Gods word belongeth or that all Abrahams seed are those children whoÌ„ God adopted to himselfe v. 7. but such only who were like Isaac first begotten by a word of promise and partakers of the heavenly calling The reason is to be conceived in this manner the rejecting of such who are not the true Israel nor belong not to the number of Gods adopted children cannot shake Gods word spoken to Israel and Abrahams seed but many of the Israelites and Abrahams seed aâ—e such to whom the word of God belonged not ergo the word of God is firm though they be rejected Pag. 139. A childe of the flâ—sh being such a one who descendeth from Abraham according to the flesh For it is most plaine that these did make them thinke thâ—mselves within the compâ—sse of the word because thâ—y were Israelites and the seed of Abraham in regard of bodily generation propagated from him and Arminius doth decline that in objecting and answering which this discourse consisteth Beside that though the sons of the flesh may signifie such who carnally not spiritually conceive of the Law yet the seed of Abraham without any adjoyned is never so taken The assumption which is to be proved is this That many of Abrahams seed are such to whom the word belongeth not The word which belonged not to Ishmael and Esau but to Isaac and Jacob only and such as were like to them that word belonged not to many of those who are the seed of Abraham and Israelites But the word shewing Gods love choice adoption blessing of Israel and Abrahams seed belonged not to Esau Ishmael and such as they were but to Isaac and Jacob. Amesius Animadv in Remonstr citat scripta Synod de Praeâ—estin cap. 8. § 6. thus expresseth the Apostles scope Multi sunt ex semine Abrahami ad quos verbum promissionis non spectat ut Ismael Ismaelitae si autem multi sunt ex semine Abrahami ad quos verbum promissionis non spectat tum rejectio multorum Judaeorum qui sunt ex semine Abrahami non irritum facit verbum promissionis Out of all which I gather if the naturall posterity of Abraham were not within the Covenant of grace by vertue of that promise Gen. 17.7 then much lesse are our naturall posterity but the former is true Rom. 9.6 7 8 9 10 11 12. therefore the latter is true and the contrary delivered in that which I conceive your â—ssertion false A second reason is this The Apostles Exposition of the promise shews us best what is the meaning of it but the Apostle when he expounds the promise of God to Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy seed as it was a promise of saving grace to wit justification and life expounds it as belonging to Abraham not as a naturall Father but as Father of the faithfull whether of the Jews or the Gentiles and his seed not his naturall but his spiriâ—uall seed Christ and believers Rom. 4.11 12 13 14 15 16 17. Gal. 3.7.16.29 Whence George Downham of Justification lib. 6. cap. 6. § 4. speakes thus The other promises concerning his seed are two The former concerning the multiplication of his seed that he should be a father of a multitude of Nations namely in Christ and that he would be a God to him and his seed he doth not say to seeds as of many but as of one to thy seed which is Christ Gal. 3.16 that is Christ mysticall 1 Cor. 12.12 Containing the multitude of the faithfull in all Nations both Jews and Gentiles This promise therefore implyeth the former that in Christ the promised seed Abraham himselfe and his seed that is the faithfull of all Nations should be blessed And in confirmation of this promise he was called Abraham because he was to be a Father of many Nations that is of the faithfull of all Nations for none but they are accounted Abrahams seed Rom. 9.7.8 Gal. 3.7.29 Thus he opens the Apostles meaning and thus frequently do Protestant Divines in their writings Now if only believers are in that promise as it was a promise of saving grace then it is not made to the naturall posterity as such of any believer much lesse of us Gentiles My third reason is this The Covenant of grace is the Gospel and so you call it pag. 37. when you say This is a part of the Gospel preached unto Abraham Now the Gospel preached to Abraham the Apostle thus expresseth Gal. 3.8 9. And the Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the heathen through faith preached before the Gospel unto Abraham saying in thee shall all Nations be blessed so then they which be of faith are blessed with faithfull Abraham and ver 11. But that no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God it is evident for the just shall live by Faith it is Hab. 2.4 By his faith And generally when Divines distinguish of the Covenant of grace and of workes they say the condition of the Covenant of grace is faith They then that say the Covenant of grace belongs not only to believers but also to their naturall children whether believing or not these adde to the Gospel and the Apostle saith of such Gal. 1.8 9. Let him be accursed Fourthly I thus argue If God have made a Covenant of grace in Christ not only to believers but also to their seed or naturall children then it is either conditionally or absolutely if conditionally the condition is either of works and then grace should be of works conâ—rary to the Apostle Rom. 11.8 or of Faith and then the sense is God hath promised grace to bâ—lievers and to their seed if believers that is to believers and believers which is nugatory If this Covenant of grace to believers seed be absolute then either God keeps it or not if he do not keep it then he breaks his word which is blasphemy if he do keep it then it follows that all the posterity of believers are saved contrary to Rom. 9.13 or if some are not saved though they be in the Covenant of grace there may bee Apostasie of persons in the Covenant of grace by which the Arguments brought by Mr. Prynne in his Perpetuity and others for perseverance in grace are evacuated and Bertius his Hymenaeus desertor justified The truth is generally to be in the Covenant
of grace and to be elect and to persevere in grace are meant of the same persons according to the Apostles doctrine Rom. 9.7 8. c. and the common doctrine of the Contra-Remonstrants And on the contrary Bertius in his book de Apostasia sanctorum pag. 79. among other absurdities which he reckons as consequent on their opinion that deny Apostasie of Saints puts this as the seventh Baptismum non obsignare certo in omnibus liberis fidelium gratiam Dei quum inter illos quidam sint etiam antecedente decreto Dei ab aeterno absolute reprobati ac proinde dubitandum esse fidelibus de veritate foederis divini Ego sum Deus tuus seminis tui post te And when this was urged by the Author of the Synod of Doâ—t and Arles reduced to the practise Part. 3. Sect. 6. in these words For to every person whom they baptize they apply the promises of the Covenant of grace clean contrary to their own doctrine which saith that they nothing belong to the Reprobates of the world Dr. Twisse answers that however in the judgement of charity they take all Infants brought to be baptized to be elect yet the promises of the Covenant of grace do indeed belong only to the Elâ—ct which he proves at large by shewing that there are promises of the Covenant of grace as of regeneration circumcising the heart writing the Law in their hearts Jer. 31.33 which must needs be absolute For no condition can be assigned of performing these promises but that it will follow That grace is given to wit the grace of faith according to mens workes which is plaine Pelagianisme Whence he concludes Now then who are they on whom God should bestow faith and regeneration but Gods Elect And accordingly Baptisme as it is a Seale and assurance of performing this promise of Justification and salvation unto them that believe so it is a seale and assurance of the promise of circumcising the heart and regeneration only to Gods Elect. And after pag. 192. VVe are ready to maintaine that all who are under the covenant of grace are such as over whom sin shall not have the dominion Rom. 6.14 Besides he that shall heare you preach that the children of believers are in the Covenant of grace and that they that are in the Covenant of grace cannot fall away may be apt to conceive himselfe within the Covenant of grace without repentance and faith and that he shall be saved without obedience and so lay a ground-work for Antinomianisme and consequently Libertinisme And may not on the other side believing Parents when they see their children vicious and ungodly doubt whether they themselves be true believers because they see not their châ—ldren in the Covenant of grace and so while you think to comfort parents about their children you may create great discomfort concerning themselves Lastly if this were true that the Covenant of grace is a birth-right priviledge then the children of believers are children of grace by nature for that which is a birth-right priviledge is a priviledge by nature and if as Mr. Blakâ— saith pag. 6. of his book Christianity is hereditary that as the childe of a Noble man is Noble the childe of a freeman is free the childe of a Turke is a Turke of a Jew a Iew the childe of a Christian is a Christian then Christians are born Christians not made Christians and how are they then children of wrath by nature which whether they may not advantage Pelagians and denyers of Originall sin it concernes those that use such speeches to consider But the Author of the writing entituled Infants baptizing proved lawfull by Scripture mentions other promises besides that Gen. 17.7 to wit Deu. 28.4 Deut. 30.2.6 Isa. 44.3 Isa. 59.21 Exod. 20.6 Psal. 112.2 and such like To all which the answer is plaine if men would conceive it 1. That according to the Apostles own determination Ro. 9 7 8. these promises as they contain such things as accompany salvation must be restrained to the Elect whose children soever they be by naturall generation and this is agreeable to our Saviours applying the promise Isa. 54.13 to them that are given of his Father Iohn 6.45 And thus are we to understand Deut. 30.6 Isa. 44.3 2. That the text Isa. 59.21 is plainly applied to the time of the calling of the Jews Rom. 11.27 and therefore cannot be applied rightly to the posterity of any believers at any time indefinitely 3. Thâ—t the promises Deut. 28.4 Psal. 112.2 are expresly meant of outward blessings and therefore cannot prove a covenant of grace in Christ. 4. That Exod. 20.6 doth plainly include a condition of obedience and it is expresly mentioned Psal. 103.17 18. as included in other promises of like kind which condition God doth not undertake for any children of a believer but the elect nor is Christ surety for any but the elect and therefore till it can be proved that the Election of grace belongs to the children of believers it cannot be proved that the Covenant of grace belongs to them by vertue of these promises I Now return to your Sermon You tell us thus As it is in other kingdomes corporations and families the children of all subjects born in a kingdom are born that Princes subjects where the father is a free-man the childe is not born a slave where any are bought to be servants their children born in their masters house are born his servants Thus it is by the Lawes of almost all nations and thus hath the Lord ordained it shall be in his kingdome and family the children follow the Covenant-condition of their parents if he take a father into his covenant he takes the children in with him if he reject the parents out of the covenant the children are east out with them This passage I might have passed over as containing nothing but dictates Yet I think it necessary to observe 1. That you do very carnally imagine the Church of God to be like Civill corporations as if persons were admitted to it by birth whereas in this all is done by free election of grace and according to Gods appointment nor is God tied or doth tie himself in the erecting and propagating his Church to any such carnall respects as descent from men Christianity is no mans birth-right The Apostle knew not that God had so by promise or other ingagement bound himself but he was free as he said to Moses after the promise made to Abraham to have mercy on whom he would Rom. 9.15 Yea to conceive that it is in Gods Church as in other Kingdomes and after the laws of Nations is a seminary of dangerous superstitions and errors Dr. Rainolds in his Conference with Hart hath shewed that hence arose the frame of government by Pâ—triarchs Metropolitans c. And is not this the very reason of Invocation of Saints that I mention not more of the like kind 2. When you say if he take a
father into his covenant he takes the children in with him If he reject the parents out of covenant the children are cast out with them If you mean this taking in and casting out in respect of election and reprobation it is not true neither if you mean it of the Covenant of grace for that is congruous to election and reprobation Nor is it true in respect of outward Ordinances the father may be baptized heare the Word and not the child and on the contrary the father may be deprived and the child may enjoy them Nor is it true in respect of Ecclesiasticall censures the father may be excommunicated and the sonne in the Church and on the contrary And about that which you say there is no certainty in the Paedobaptists determination Rutherford The due right of Presbyterie p. 259. saith The children of Papists and excommunicate Protestants which are borne within our visible Church are baptized if their forefathers have been sound in the faith But others will deny it But it is true as well of Paedobaptists as of Anabaptists that like waves of the Sea they beat one agninst another You tell us That it was without question in the time of the Iews Gen. 17.9 And when any of any other Nation though a Canaanite or Hittite acknowledged Abrahams God to be their God they and their children came into covenant together That when Parents were circumcised the Children were to be circumcised is without questioâ— Gods command is manifest Whether this make any thing for baptizing Infants is to be considered in its place But that which you say It was in the time of the Iews if God did reject the parents out of the covenant the children were cast out with them is not true Parents might be Idolaters Apostates from Judaisme draw up the fore-skin again and yet the children were to be circumcised But in all this there is no Argument THe first Text you dwell upon is that Act. 2.38 39. and thus you speak And so it continues still though the Anabaptists boldly deny it Acts 2.38.39 When Peter exhorted his hearers who were pricked in their hearts to repent and to be baptized for the remission of sins he useth an argument to perswade them taken from the benefit which should come to their posterity For the promise saith he is to you and to your children and to all that are afar off even as many as the Lord our God shall call if once they obey the call of God as Abraham did the promise was made to them and their children VVhether they who obey this call were the present Jews to whom he spake or were afar off whether by afar off you will mean the Gentiles who as yet worshipped afar off or the Jews or any who were yet unborn and so were afar off in time or whether they dwelt in the remotest parts of the world and so were afar off in place The argument holds good to the end of the world Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost for the promise is made to you and your children they shall be made free of Gods city according to Abrahams copy I will be thy God and the God of thy seed It is a very irksome thing to Readers and especially to Answerers when they that handle a controversie give a text for their assertion and make a paraphrase of it but shew not how they conclude from it by which meanes the enemy is more hardly found then vanquished I wish if ever you write any more in this kind you would distinctly expound and then frame your arguments out of the text you produce for the present I shall devorare taedium swallow downe the tediousnes of this defect as well as I can You do not distinctly tell us what that promise was onely I gather it is that which you after expresse calling it Abrahams copy I will be thy God and the God of thy seed But then you do not distinctly tell us under which part you comprehend the promise to them whether under the first part I will be thy God or under the second I will be the God of thy seed It may seem you thus parallel'd them I will be thy God with the promise is unto you and the God of thy seed with that the promise is to your children But I must see better proofe then yet I have seen afore I assent to this construction I wil be thy God that is of every believer though the Author or infants bâ—pâ—izing proved lawfull by scriptures page 4. sâ—ith It is plaine and manifest by the Gramaticall construction of this promise I professe that I neither know rule in Grammar Logicke or Divinity for that interpretation and yet I thinke all the strength of your proofe lies in this imagined parallelisme Nor doe you tell us of what thing this promise was which you parallel with Abrahams copy I will be thy God and the God of thy seed whether it was a promise of saving graces or outward priviledges Onely that which you bring in of Zaccheus to interpret it let him professe the faith of Christ and the covenant of salvation comes to his house seemes to import that you conceive the meaning thus if you once obey the call of God as Abraham did the promise of salvation is to you and your children and sith you answer the second objection which you call a shift by rejecting the limiting of to you and your children with those words as many as the Lord shall call the sense must be this The promise of salvation is to you and your children whether the Lord our God call them or not But this proposition I know you will not stand to though as you handle the matter this is made the Apostles assertion But it may be you mean otherwise thus If you once obey the call of God as Abraham did the promise of outward church-priviledges that is to be members of the visible Church partakers of Baptism c. is to you and your children Now what an uncouth reason is by this made in the Apostles speech that if they did repent and were baptized the promise should be made good to them and to their children I use your own words expressing what you conceive the strength of the argument lies in that you they shal be members of the visible church partakers of baptism c. So that the Apostle is made to say thus If you will repent and be baptized the promise is to you and your children that you they shal be baptized What I conceive is the meaning I will shew afterwards in the mean time because though on the by you alleage that Text which Mr. Tho. Goodwin also at Bow in Cheapside urged and insisted on for this purpose I shall by the way examine what you say You say Let Zaccheus the Publican once receive Christ himself be he a Gentile as some think he was be he
would have him viz. you and your children hâ—ve hitherto been an holy seed but now if you beleeve in Châ—ist your selves your children shall be in no better condition then the rest of the Pagan world strangers from the Covenant of God but if afterward any of them or any of the heathen shall for their parts beleeve and be baptized their particular persons shall be taken into covenant but their children still left out had this thinke you been a comfortable argument to perswade them to come in in relation to the good of their children after them You suppose here that the Apostle used this argument onely in relation to the good of their children whereas the maine matter was concerning themselves to erect them who being told that they had crucified Iesus who was both Lord and Christ verse 36. and had said Matth. 27.25 His blood be upon us and our children were pricked in their hearts and said to Peter and the rest of the Apostles Men and brethren what shall we doe and was it not a comfortable argument for men in that case to be told that notwithstanding all this the promise of Christ and remission of sinnes by him was yet to them and their children on whom they had wished Christs blood to be and to all the Jewes that dwelt afarre off in the diâ—persion as many as the Lord should call and a great incitement to repent and be baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus for the remission of sinnes However you conceive now sure if your soule had been in their soules stead you would have conceived it a very comfortable speech in this sensâ— that I now give As for that witlesse descant you put on your adversaries I know not whether it be their meaning or not sure I am no such thing follows on the applying the restriction in the end of the verse to them their children and all that are afarre off And that which you would burden your adversaries tenent with as if they put beleivers infants out of the covenant into the condition of Pagans children it is a coccysme answered before and therefore I may well let it passe in this place You adde The plaine strength of the argument is God hath now remembred his Covenant to Abraham in sending that blessed seed in whom he promised to be the God of him and his seed doe not you by your unbeliefe deprive your selves and your posteritie of so excellent a gift In this passage I thinke you hit the marke it is the very interpretation I gave in the reasons of my doubts before mentioned in answering the arguâ—ent from this text onely the alleâ—dging the promise Gen. 17.7 〈◊〉 that expression do not you by your unbeliefe deprive your posteritie of so excellent a gift have a little relish of your interpretation of the promise concerning the naturall seed of beleevers But letting that passe in the maine you expound it rightly The promise is to you and your children that is God hath now remembred his Covenant to Abâ—aham in sending that blessed seed in whom hee promâ—sed to be the God of Abraham and his seed and the sense is plaine Tâ—e promise which is made to Abraham is now fulfilled in sending Christ to you and your children and to all that are afarre off as many as the Lord our God shall call that they might bee turned from their iniquity â—nd baptized in his name for the remission of their sinnes And this agrees with the Apostles exhortation to the same purpose Acts 3.25.26 Ye are the children of the Prophets and of the covenant which God made with our fathers saying unto Abraham and in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed unto you first God having raised up his Sonne Jesus sent him to blesse you in turning away every one of you from his iniquities And Acts 13.32 33. And we declare unto you glad tidings how that the promise which was made unto the fathers God hath fulfilled the same unto us their châ—ldren in thâ—t he hath raised up Jesus againe You adde And except in relation to the covenant there was no occasion to name thâ—ir children it had been sufficient to have said a promise is made to as many as the Lord shall call Though I deny not their children are mentioned in relation to the covenant in the sense I have given or rather in allusion to the forme of expressions in the covenant and predictions of the Prophets yet there was other occasion to wit their imprecation Matth. 27.25 and especially because Christ was as it is Acts 3.26 first sent to the Jews and their children and to be offered first to them as it is Acts 13.46 But it was not to intimate that which you would gather that the promise is such to them if they did beleeve that their children even their infants upon their fathers faith whether the children were called or not were taken into the covenant either of saving graces or visible church-membership which you should have proved but never will prove out of this Scripture But taking your Hypothesis that these to whom Peter speakes were within the covenant made to Abraham and cirumcised rightly and yet the Apostle requires these to repent afore they are to be baptized the Antipaedobaptists have hence a good argument against baptizing infants because Peter required of such as were in the covenant repentance afore Baptism I passe on to the next proof you bring for your Conclusion YOu say as plain it is out of the 11. Rom. 16 c. where the apostles scope is to shew that we Gentiles have now the same graffing into the true olive which the Jews formerly had and our present graffing in is answerable to their present casting out their taking in in the latter end of the world shall be the same graffing in though more gloriously as ours is now Now all know that wheÌ„ they were taken in they and their children were taken in when they were broken off they and their children were broken off when they shall be taken in in the latter end of the world they and their children shall be taken in and that because the root is holy that is Gods covenant with Abraham Isaac and Jacob extends yet unto them when their unbelief shall be taken away The root being like Nebuchadnezars tree the tree hewen down and the root bound with a hand of iron until seven times were passed over it and then the bands should be broken the root should spring and the tree should grow again So their present nation like this tree is cut down and this holy root the covenant made with their forefathers is suspended bound with an iron bar of unbelief blindnesse being come upon them untill the fulnes of the Gentiles were come in and then all Israel shall be saved And mark that in all this discourse the holines of the branches there spoken of is not meant of a personall inherent holines
but a derivative holines a holines derived to them froÌ„ their ancestors the first fruit is holy the lump holy the root holy the branches holy that is the fathers holy accepted in covenant with God the children beloved for their fathers sake and when the vail of unbelief shall be taken away the children and their posterity shal be taken in again because beloved for their fathers sakes Now then if our graffing in be answerable to theirs in all or any of these three particulars we and our children are graffed in together Your argument needs a swimmer of Delos to bring it out of the deep I will dive as deep as I can to fetch it up the thing it seems you would prove is that we and our children are grâ—ffed in together but the words are Metaphoricall and therefore obscure they may be true in a sense and yet not for your purpose The insition you speak of may be either into the visible or invsible church the graffing in may be either by faith or by profession of faith or by some outward ordinance Children may be either grown men or infants the graffing in may be either certain or probable certain either by reason of election covenant of grace made by them or naturall birth being children of believers probable as being likely either because frâ—quently or for the the most part it happens so though not necessary so not certain The thing that is to be proved is that all the infants of every believer are in the covenant of free grace in Christ by vertue thereof to be baptized into the communion of the vâ—sible church now it may be granted that infants of believers are frequently or for the most part under the election covenant of gracâ— whâ—ch whether it be so or not no meere man can tâ—l and so in the visible chuâ—ch yet it not follow that every infant of a believer in asmuch as he is tâ—e child of a beliâ—ver is under the covenant of grace therefore by baptisme is to be admitted into the visible church now let it be never so probâ—ble that God continues his election in the posterity of bâ—lievers accordingly hath promised to be thâ—ir God in his covenant of grace yet if this be the rule of baptizing children of beleivers no other infants are to bâ— baptized but such as are thus the practise must agree with the rulâ— so not all infants of believers are to be baptized but the elect in the covenant of grace If it be said but we are to judge all to be elected in the covenant of grace till the contrary appeares I answer that we are not to judge all to be â—lâ—cted or in the covenant of grace because we have Gods declaration of his mind to the contrary Rom. 9.6 7 8. and all experience proves the contrary to be truâ— nor is the administration of an outward ordinaÌ„ce instituted by God according to such a rule as is not possible to be known but according to that which is manifest to the ministers of it therefore sith God conceals his purpose of election and the covenant of grâ—ce which is congruous to it in respect of the persons elected it is certain God would not have this the rule according to which outward ordinances are to be administred because such persons are in the election and covenant of grace not others You say our graffing in is answerable to the Jews and their infants were graffed in by circuÌ„cision therefore ours are to be graffed in by baptism But in good sadnesse doe you thinke the Apostle here meanes by graffing in baptizing or circumcision or insition by an outward ordinance if that were the meâ—ning then breaking off must be meant of uncircumcising or unbâ—ptizing The whole context spâ—aks of election of some and rejection of others of the breaking off by uâ—beliefe and the standing by faith and your selfe seeme to understand the phrase so when you say pag. 43. to cut miserable man off from the wilde olive and graffe him into the true olive Tâ—e ingraffing to me is meant of the invisible church by election and faith which invisible church was first amongst the Jews and therefore called the olive out of Abraham the root who is therefore said to beare them And because Abraham had a double capacitie one of a naturall father and another of the father of the faithfull in respect of the former câ—pacitie 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 broken off the meaning is not that some of the branches in the invisible church may be broken off but as when our Saviour Christ saith using the same similitude Joh. 15.2 Every branch in me not bearing fruit he taketh away The meaning is not that any branch truely in him câ—uld be fruitlesse or taken away but he calleth that a branch in him which was only so in appearance So the Apostle speaking of branches broken off meanes it not of such as were truely so but in appearance For similitudes doe not runne with four feet but vary in some things Now if this be the meaning of your words that the insition of the Gentiles is the same with the Jewes and the insition is meant of ingraffing by faith into the invâ—sible church it onely proves this that now beleâ—vâ—rs of Gentiles are by faith in the church of the elect as the Jewes but neither the beleeving Jewes Infants were in the covenant of grace becâ—use their children nor are our children But let us consider the three particulars you speake of that we may examine whether there be any shew of an argument for your purpose in this text You say as plaine it is out of the eleventh of Rom. 16 c. where the Apostles scope is to shew that we Gentiles have now the same graffing into the true olive which the Jews formerly had and our present graffing in is answerable to their present casting out and their taking in in the latter end of the world shal be the same graffing in though more gloriously as ours is now The Apostles scope in the whole chapter is plaine to answer that question v. 1. Hath God cast away his people which he doth 1. by shewing for the present in himselfe and others perhaps unknowne That God had then a remnant according to the election of grace 2. For the future from ver 11. to the end that he intends a calling of all Israel when the fulnesse of the Gentiles shall come in and ver 16. is one argument to prove it It is not the scope of the Apostle as you say To shew that the Gentiles have now the same graffing into the true Olive which the Jews formerly had but to prove that the Jews notwithstanding their presâ—nt defraction shall be graffed into their owne Olive But for the thing it selfe You say That the Gentiles havâ— now
the same graffing into the true Olive which the Jews formerly had But you must remember your own distinction pag. 10. of the substance of the Covenant and the administration of it It is certain that in respect of the substance of the Covenant we have the same graffing into the Olive the Church of the faithfull of which Abraham is the root that the Jews had We by faith are partakers of the root and fatnesse of the Olive tree ver 17. or in plainer termes as the Apostle â—lâ—gantly Ephes. 3.6 that the Gentiles should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fellow-heirs and of the same body and partakers of his promise in Christ through the Gospel In respect of which all believing Gentiles are Abrahams seed the Israel of God one in Christ Jesus But if you mean it of the outward administration of this ingraffing by Circumcision Baptisme c. nothing is more false For indeed the outward administration is utteâ—ly taken away as separating the Jews from the Gentiles of very purpose that the enmity betwixt Jews and Gentiles may be removed and they made one in Christ by his death Eph. 2.14 15 16. and if you mean this when you say we have the same graffing in with the Jews which your whole arguing tends to and your expression in those words for these outward â—ispensations import you mean it you evacuate the blood of Châ—ist in this particular You say Our present graffing in is answerable to their present casting out It is true our present graffing in is anâ—wâ—rable to their or rather for their casting out that is God would supply in his Olive tree the Church the casting away of the Jews by the calling of the Gentiles so much the Apostle saith v. 17. Thou being a wilde Olive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in ramorum defrâ—ctorum locum into the place of the branches broken off as rightly Beza if you mean it in this sense I grant it You adde And their taking in though more gloriously as ours is now It is true their taking in will be by faith as ours is now concerning other particulars as I doubt not but it will be more gloriously as you say so for the manner I must confesse I am at a stand I look upon it as a mystery as the Apostle cals it Rom. 11.25 You go on Now all know that when they were taken in they and their children were taken in when they were broken off they and their children were broken off when they shall be takâ—n in in the latter end of the world they and their children shall be taken in I grant it they were taken in and broken off togethâ—r in respect of Gods election and reprobation and when they shall be taken in in the latter end of the world they and their children shall be taken in Yea I thinke that as at the calling of the Gentiles there was a fuller taking in of the children of the Gentiles then ever was of the children of the Jewes afore Châ—ists comming according to thâ—t Heb. 8.11 So at the calling of the Jâ—ws there shall be a more full taking in of the children of the Jâ—ws then is now of the Gentiles according to that Rom. 11.26 and so all Israel shall be saved But all this proves not that God would have either all Infants of believers counted his as elect persons or in the Covenant of grace in Christ or in the face of the visible Church admitted to baptisme which was to be proved by you You go on And that because the root is holy that is Gods Covenant with Abraham Isaac and Jacob extends yet unto them when their unbeliefe shall be taken away and then after an illustration from Nebuchadnezzars dreame Dan. 4.14 15. you say of the Jews their present Nation like this tree is cut down and this holy root the Covenant made with their forefathers is suspended bound with an Iron barre of unbeliefe blindnesse being come upon them till the fulnesse of the Gentiles be come in and then all Israel shall be saved In this passage you somewhat alter the Apostles resemblance who doth not make the Jewish Nation to answer the tree but the branches nor doth he say the tree is cut down but the branches broken off and here you make the Covenant the root but a little after your words import when you say a holinesse derived from their ancestors c. that by the root you mean their Ancestors And you say The Covenant made with their forefathers is suspended which in some sense may be true that is thus the effects of Gods love to Israel are for the present suspended from those generations and so in our apprehension the Covenant is suspended but in exact speech it cannot be true sith Gods Covenant according to his intention and meaning cannot be suspended or stayed but doth alwayes take effect irresistibly In that wherein you alter the resemblance of the Apostle by putting in the cutting down of the tree instead of breaking off thâ— branches you much pervert the Apostles meaning who makes the tree that is the Church of believers still standing and some branches broken off and others graffed in And for that of the root it is true it is variously conceived by Interpreters some understanding with you the Covenant some Christ some Abraham Isaac and Jacob and some Abraham only which last I conceive to be genuine for the expressions of some branches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to nature and others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides nature Some naturall some ingraffed our not bearing the root but the root bearing us are plain evidences to me that by the root Abraham is meant Nor know I how to make the resemblance right but by this Exposition Now to say the root that is Abraham is bound with an Iron band of unbeliefe cannot have any handsome construction But you tell us And marke that in all this discourse the holinesse of the branches there spoken of is not meant of a personall inherent holinesse Then Master Thomas Goodwin is answered who in urging 1 Cor. 7.14 for Paedobaptisme saith in the New Testament there is no other holinesse spoken of but personall or reall by regeneration about the which he challenged all the world to shew the contrary whereas here is according to you a holinesse which is not personall or as Mr. Blake speakes qualitative and inherent But to go on You say But a derivative holinesse a holinesse derived to them from their Ancestors the first fruit is holy the lump holy the root holy the branches holy that is the Fathers holy accepted in Covenant with God the children beloved for their Fathers sake and when the vail of unbeliefe shall be taken away the children their posterity shall be taken in again bâ—cause beloved for their fathers sake Now then if our graffing in be answerable to theirs in any or all of these three particulars we and our children are graffed in together Object
But here is no mention of our Infants graffing in Answ. We must not teach the Lord to speake but with reverence search out his meaning there is no mention made of the casting out of the Jewish Infants neither here nor elsewhere when he speakes of taking away the Kingdome of God from them and giving it to the Gentiles who would bring forth fruit no mention of the Infants of the one or of the other but the one and the other for these outward dispensations are comprehended in their parents as the branches in the root the infants of the godly in their parents according to the tenor of his mercy the infants of the wicked in their parents according to the tenor of his justice There are sundry things in this passage you would have to be marked that deserve indeed to be marked but with an Obeliske not with an Asteriske as 1. That you oppose personall inherent holinesse to derivative as inconsistent The truth is the holinesse the Apostle speaks of is first in respect of Gods Election holinesse personall and inherent in Gods intention He hath chosen us that we should be holy Ephes. 1.4 Secondly it is also holinesse derivative or descending not from any Ancestors but from Abraham not barely as a naturall father but as a spirituall father or Father of the faithfull and so derived from the Covenant of grace which passed in his name to him and his seed And lastly it shall be inherent actually being communicated by the Spirit of God when they shall be actually called But this is such a kinde of holinesse as is more then you mean to wit not only an adherent or relative holinesse which they have by enjoying outward Ordinances but also inherent by faith whereby they aâ—e holy as the root that is Abraham the father of the faithfull 2. Whereas you make it the case of any believers to be a holy root to their posterity especially in the following words when you say The infants both of the Jews and Gentiles for these outward dispensations are comprehended in their parents as the branch in the root the infants of the godly in their parents according to the tenor of his mercy the infants of the wicked in their parents according to the tenor of his justice Master Blake pag. 8. more plainly The branches of Ancestors are roots of posterity being made a holy branch in reference to their issue they now become a holy root This is not true for in the Apostles resemblance Abraham only is a holy root or at most Abraham Isaac and Iacob in whose names the Covenant runs No other man though a believer is the father of the faithfull but Abraham And the body of believers is compared to the Olive and each believer to a branch that partakes of the root and fatness of the Olive tree not in outward dispensations only as you speak but also in saving graces which is mainly here intended I remember Master Thomas Goodwin who hath handled this matter of Paeâ—obaptisme by spinning out similitudes and conjectures fit indeed for the common people that are more taken with resemblances then Syllogismes rather then with close arguments indeavoured to infer a kinde of promise of deriving holinesse from believers to their posterity out of the similitude of an Olive and its branches compared with Psal. 128.3 c. but it is dangerous to strain similitudes beyond that likenesse the Holy Ghost makes It is a tedious thing to Auditors that look for arguments to be deluded with similitudes and conjectures 3. Whereas you alluding to the words of the Apostle v. 28. that the Jews were beloved for their fathers sake carry it as if this were true of any believing parents the Apostle meanes it of those fathers only in whose names the Covenant was made especially Abraham called the friend of God Jam. 2.23 and the father of the faithfull Rom. 4.11 and in reference to the promises made to them they are beloved and therefore it is added ver 29. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance Lastly you say That the infants of the wicked for these outward dispensations are comprehended in their parents according to the tenor of Gods justice I intreat you to consider whether this speech do not symbolize with the tenet of Arminius in his Antiperkins on the fourth Crimination and in the end of his Treatise where he maketh the cause why the posterity of some people have not the Gospel to be their forefathers fault in refusing it Against which you may see what Doctor Twisse opposeth in both places and Moulin in his Anatomy of Arminianisme cap. 9. And thus it may appeare that you have very much darkened this illustrious Scripture by applying that holinesse and insition to outward dispensations only in the visible Church which is meant of saving graces into the invisible by faith and made every believer a like root to his posterity with Abraham to his seed I Am now come to your principall hold you say And yet plainer if plainer may be is the speech of the Apostle in 1. Cor. 7.14 The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband else were your children uncleane but now they are holy By the way Because you acknowledge in the Margin page 24. that signifies to as well as in and you conceive it may be here read in or to as well as by and though our translators following the vulgar read by yet Beza dislikes that reading it might have done well in the citing of this text by you to have given some hint of that varietie But to follow you You say the plain scope and meaning thereof is this The believing Corinthians amongst other cases of Conscience which they had sent to the Apostle for his resolution of had written this for one whether it were lawfull for them who were converted still to retaine their Infidell wives or husbands You doe rightly here expresse the scope of the Apostle but you make another scope page 25. when you say We must attend the Apostles scope which is to shew that the children would be unholy if the faith or believership of one of the parents could not remove the barre which lies in the other being an unbeliever against the producing a holy seed which I shall shew in its place not to be the scope of the place but only this which you first give You then say their doubt seemes to arise from the Law of God which was in force to the Nation of the Jews God had not only forbidden such marriages to his people but in Ezra's time they put away not onely their wives but all the children that were borne of them as not belonging to the Common-wealth of Israel and it was done according to the Law and that Law was not a particular Edict which they did agree upon but according to the standing Law of Moses which that word there used signifieth and in
Nehemiahs time the children who were born of such marriages were accounted a mungrell kinde whom Nehemiah cursed Now hereupon these Corinthians doubted whether their children as well as their wives were not to be accounted unclean and so to be put away according to thâ—se examples You declared rightly the scope before but the doubt is not rightly put by you The Corinthians had no doubt whether their children were unclean and to be put away for the Apostle argues from the uncleanesâ—e of their children as a thing that appeared absurd to them they tooke it as a common received principle that their childrâ—n werâ— holy as rightly Master Thomas Goodwin at Bow-church And for the occasion of the doubt though I deny not but the Corinthians might know that fact of Ezra 9. and 10. yet that the reading of it was the cause of their doubt I see no evidence oâ— likelihood though Master Blake pag. 12. takes it as granted joyning with the relations Ezra 9. and 10. that resolution Hag. 2.12.13 as the occasion of the doubt and Mr. Thomas Goodwin seemed confident of it that it could be no other upon a supposed agreement of matter and phrase But for matter I see very little agreement the cases being fâ—r different of two persons not under the Law maâ—rying in unbeliefe and of two persons under the Law the one a Iew by profâ—ssion the other a stranger And for phrases excâ—pt the word holy I observe no other phrase used in Ezra which is used by the Apostâ—e not the phrase of unbelieving husband or wife or sanctified to in or by the wife or husband nor the phrase of unclean children and for the tearm holy the Apostle doth not use the phrase holy seed as Ezra doth In my apprersion it is farre more likely that â—â—e â—oubt arose from the Epistle he wrote before to them mentioned 1 Cor. 5.9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â— 10 Not to keep company with Fornicators or Idolaters which might occasion the question whether they were then to continue with their unbelieving Yoke fellows But let us examine the Apostles resolution you say To which the Apostle answers no they were not to be put away upon what speciall reason soever that law was in force to thâ— Jews believing Châ—â—stians were not in that condition The unbelieving wife was sanctified in the believing husband quoad hoc so far as to bring forth a holy seed Were it with them as when both of them were unbelievers so that nâ—ither of thâ—m had a prerogative to intitle their children to the covenant of grace thier children would be an unclean progeny Or were the children to bâ— reckoned in the condition of the worser parent so that the unbeliever could contribute more to Paganisme than the believer to Christianity it were so likewise But the case is otherwise the believing husband hath by Gods ordinance a sanctified use of his unbeliâ—ving wife so as by Gods speciall promise made to believers and their seed they were invested in and to the most spirituall end of marriage the continuance of a holy seed wherein the Church is to be propagated to the worlds end And the case is heâ—e in relation to posterity for spirituall priviledges as in other marriages for civill priviledges as suppose a Prince or Noble man marry with a woman of base and mean birth though in generall it be true that the children of those that be base are born base as well as the children of Nobles are borâ— noble yet here the issue hath hâ—nour from the father and it is not accounted base by the basenes of the mother This I take to be the plain meaning of the Apostles answer And must your Readers thinke you take it on your word without shewing that the tearms are so used else where or connexion of the words or the analysis of the text lead you to it But it is necessary that I discusse this matter more fully then by returning a bare denyall to a bare affirmation Concerning the answer verse 13. there is no difference all the diffâ—rence is concerning the reason of the resolution delivered ver 14. and the meaning of it There are these terms doubtfull 1. What is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the wife and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the husband 2. What is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sanctified 3. What is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unclean 4. What by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy It is agreed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be read in to or by It is agreed that to be sanctified hath many senses and tâ—at the sense wherein sanctification is taken for renovation of mind is not here meant for so an unbeliever is not sanctified and the speech is in sensu composito in a compound sense to be understood An unbeliever though an unbeliever is sanctified Nor is it true of any kind of Ceremoniall sanctification or sanctification for enjoying religious ordinances for such could not agree to an unbeliever Therefore there remain only two senses the one of an instrumentall sanctification as Mr. Goodwin cals it for the begetting a holy seed The other of matrimoniall sanctification whereby the one is enjoyed as a chaste yoke-fellow by another without fornication The former of these your words intimate you imbrace when you say the unbelieving wife was sanctified in the believing husband quoad hoc so far as to bring forth a holy seed But against this are these reasons 1. This could not have resolved the doubt in the case of those who by age could not be sanctified to this end or by reason of accidentall inability for generation they might depart each from other notwithstanding this reason whereas the Apostles resolution is of all husbands and wives The unbelieving husband is sanctified that is every unbelieving husband is sanctified If meant of Instrumentall sanctification it were true only of those that are apt for generation yea that do actuâ—lly generate whereas the Apostles determination is concerning any husband or wife that were of different religion 2. If the Apostle by being sanctified meant instrumentally sanctified to beget a holy seed then the reason had been thus You may live together for you may beget a holy seed And so their consciences should have been resolved of their present lawfull living together from a future event which was uncertain It had been taken from a thing contingent that might be or not be whereas the resolution is by a reason taken from a thing certain a thing present or past and therefore he useth the preterperfect tense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath been sanctified yea in probability he speaks of a sanctification even when both were unbelievers for he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twice in the preterperfect tense and he mentions the unbelieving distinctly but the believer without the expression of his or her faith under the title of husband or wife and saith your children indiscriminatim without difference as well
those you had before one of you was a believer as since However it is manifest the Apostles reason is taken from a thing not contingent but certain not future but present or past and therefore not from instrumentall sanctification for the begetting of a holy seed which was a future thing and that contingent This was so manifest to Chamier that tom 4. Panstrat Cathol lib. 5. c. 10. § 46. he proves that sanctification here cannot be understood of sanctification by convâ—rsion of the unbeliever through the diligence of the wife from this reason Primum quia incerta ratio est etsi enim nonnunquam ita factum tamen plerumque etiam aliter which I may apply to your instrumentall sanctification in the same words And after In praeteritum dixit sanctificatus est non autem sanctificabitur rem jam constitutam peractam non autem in futurum rem incertam aut optandam aut expectandam 3. When any person is said to be instrumentally sanctified for a purpose this sanctification is ascribed to God as Jer. 1.5 Isa. 13.3 as selecting some from others to such an use but here the sanctification is common to all unbelieving husbands in respâ—ct of their wives and comes from that common relation not speciall dâ—signation 4. According to this Expâ—siâ—ion the words following could not be true Else were your children uncleane but now are they holy For in this form of reasoning this Proposition is included Their children could not be holy without that sanctification but that had been false understanding it of instrumentall sanctification and of foederall or of reall inherent personall holinesse For their children might be in Covenant and be regenerated though their parents by reason of their unbeliefe had been neither of them sanctâ—fied to the other for the begetting of a holy seed The children of Infidel-parents may be in the Covenant of grace and be sanctified It remaines then that the sanctification which I call matrimoniall is here meant which I expresse in Beza's words thus Fidelis uxor potest cum infideli marito bona conscientia consuescere cur enim aliena conscientia eam pollueret idcirco dicitur infidelis ille non in sese sed in uxore id est uxoris respectu sanctus esse idem quoque de altero membro judicandum est That this may be the sense I gather from the like use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 4.5 where the creature of God is said to be sanctified that is lawfully used in opposition to that which is to be refused so here the unbelieving husband is sanctified that is lawfully enjoyed as a husband by or to or in respect of his wife whether believer or unbeliever in this case there is no difference And this your own words import pag. 24. When you thus speake He saith indeed the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the believing husband or to the believing husband that is to â—is use as all other creatures are as the bad he lies on the meat he eats the cloaths he wears and the beast he rides on are sanctified to his use And this sense is the more confirmed in that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanctification is the same with chastity 1 Thess 4.7 So that the sense is the unbelieving husband is sanctified to his wife that is lawfully or chastly used as a husband without fornication in respect of his own wife whether believer or unbeliever and therefore not to be refused And this sense only serves for the purpose of the Apostle The words are a reason why they might lawfully live together the reason must be taken from that which was not contingent but certain as Chamier saith truly tom 4. Paustrat Cathol l. 5. c. 10. § 66. Haec est meus Apostoli ut doceat fideli non discedendum a conjuge infideli consentiente in habitationem cui rei conficiendae ineptum â—st aeque ac paulâ— ante argumentum ab eventu incerto ac per accidens hinc refutatur illo sententia quae imaginatur tandem cum etiam infidelis conversus erit generatum iri filios sanctos Nam quid si nunquam fiat Take it then in your sense it had been no satisfactory reason You may live together though one party be an unbeliever because you may beget a holy seed but this waâ— meerly contingent uncertain and by accident not arising from their present estate but from something future which might not be possibly they might have no children at all how shall persons then be satisfied from this reason But in the other acception of matrimoniall sanctification the reason is plain and satisfactory Let them if they will live together though one be a believer the other an unâ—eliever for though there be difference in Religion yet marriage continues still they are husband and wife and are so sanctified to each others use in respect of their chaste enjoyment of each other and it is no sin for them to accompany together notwithstanding the uâ—belief of the one party for marriage is honorable among all even unbelievers and the bed undefiled Heb. 13.4 And Holinâ—sse and Honour are terms of like sense in this matter 1 Thes. 4.7 And the like resolution the Apostle gives vers 17.20 concerning circumcised or uncircumcised persons and servants they might continue circumcised and uncircumcised persons and servants to their masters notwithstanding their Christian calling it did not dissolve those relations so that to me it is very cleare that the sanctification here spoken of is matrimonial sanctification As for instrumentall sanctification for the begetting a holy seed I know not of any before Mr. Thomas Goodwin that hath so expounded it But Beza and many others expound it of matrimoniall sanctification Which is further confirmed in that the Apostle when he speakes of the believing party saith not the believing wife or husband but the husband or wife which is to me a plaine evidence that the Apostle placeth the reason of their sanctâ—fication not in the faith of either party but in the relation of husband and wife But of this more in the answering of your second argument Now let this be granted as of necessity it must then the uncleannesse must be understood of bastardy and the holines of legitimation for no other holines follows necessarily to the children in that their parents marriage is lawfull and they borne of such parents but legitimation nor any other uncleannes follows upon the denying of it but bastardy And therefore who ever they be that interpret it of legitimation they doe it rightly call them how you will And that I may cleare it let the Apostles reason be resolved To conceive it we are to consider 1. That the words els were c. are not a resolution of another doubt but an argument to prove that which was said last as the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shews for the tearmes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 els were are argumentative as much as quoniam tum
because then used so 1 Cor. 15.14.29 Rom. 11.6 to prove that which went before 2. That here the argument is ab absurdo from an absurditie which would follow if the thing to be proved were not granted and the speech must needs be Elliptick and somwhat is to be repeated to make the speech full as when it is said Rom. 11.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If by grace it is no more of workes else grace were no more grace To make the sense full you must adde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because if of works So here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For if the unbelieving husband hath not been sanctifiâ—d to the wife your children c. So that this is the argument of the Apostle entire If the unbelieving husband were not sanctified by the wife then were your children unclean but they are not unclean but holy Ergo the unbelieving husband is sanctified to the wife Now the Major of this Syllogism is a conditional and the sâ—quâ—l of it were not true if this proposition were not true All the children of those Parents whereof the one is not sanctâ—fied to the other are unclean Now if the sanctification be here meant of Matrimonial sanctificatioÌ„ as I have proved it must and the uncleannesse be meant of federall uncleannesse so as to exclude them out of the covenant whether of saving-Saving-graces or Church-priviledges the proposition were most false sith that children of parents whereof one was not Matrimonially sanctified to the other but came together unchastly as Pharez and Zarah of Iudah and Tamar Iepthe of Gilead and many others were within the Covenant of Saving graces and Church priviledges and therefore to make the Proposition true without which the Apostle speakes that which is false it must be understood of uncleannesse by bâ—stardy for it is true of no other uncleannesse that all children of those parents whereof the one is not sanctified to the other are uncleane And that this is the force of the Apostles reasoning Chamier saw Panstr Cathol tom 4. lib. 5. c. 10. § 67. when arguing against the conceit ascribed to Augustine concerning Ceremoniall holinesse he saith thus De ceremoniali illa sanctitate quid dicam venit in mentem Augustino sed Deus bone quam aliena profecto quaedam sunt tam absurda ut refutari non mereantur Euge. Dixit Apostolus si non sanctificetur maritus infidelis in vxore fideli futurum ut filij inde nati sint impuri ergo omnes sic nati sunt impuri aut falsum dixit Apostolus Quid ergo Omnesne nati ex ijs parentibus quorum alter non santificatur in altero geniti sunt in menstruis Nunquamne Infideles utuntur uxoribus nisi menstruatis ita oportet sane aut hanc ridiculam esse interpretationem I may apply the same words to Chamier his interpretation of foederall sanctity De faederali illa sanctitate quid dicam venit in mentem Chamiero Calvino c. Sed Deus bone quam aliena profecto quaedam sunt tam absurda ut refutari non mereantur Euge. Dixit Apostolus si non sanctificetur maritus infidelis in uxore futurum ut filij inde nati sint impuri ergo omnes sic nati sunt impuri aut falsum dixit Apâ—stolus quid ergo Omnesno nati ex ijs parentibus quoruÌ„ alter non sanctificatur in altero sunt extra foedus gratiae NunquaÌ„ne parentes infideles aut fornicantes gignunt liberos intra foedus gratiae futuros ita oportet sane aut ridiculam hanâ— esse interpretationem As for the other words but now are they holy the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but now is not an adverbe of time here as Beza rightly but as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 else were so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 buâ— now is a particle of reasoning used in the assumption of arguments which shews it is the assumption of the Apostles argument and therefore it must be understood of holinesse opposiâ—e to the uncleannesse mentioned but that being no other then bastardy the holinesse can be meant of no other then legitimation Nor is this any whit an unlikely sense sith bastards were reckoned among uncleane persons Deut. 23.2 and the Apostles expression may be allusive to the Iewish speaking or estimation And why it should be thought strange that holy should signifie legitimate I know not when as Mal. 2.15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a seed of God rendred by your selfe page 19. a holy seed is all one with a legitimate seed as Calvin rightly expounds it and the words must be understood for they speak of the first institution of marriage which was not to seek a seed of God distinct from the wicked for it is spoken of the generall end of all marriages but a lawfull seed whereto I may adde that marriage hath had the reputation of a holy estate as the Liturgie calls it and as that excellent booke intituled The union of Christ and the Church in a shadow by R. C. provâ—s As for Mr. Blakes quaere pag. 11. whether we will give the like interpretation of Gal. 2.15 which is saith he every way parallel and answers in either of the branches Doth the Apostle here meane we that are by birth legitimate and not bastards of the Gentiles I may apply to him the words of him in the Poet. Cernimus an qui amant ipsi sibi somnia fingunt Doe we see or doe they that love faine dreames to themselves for I cannot tell how to interpret this passage that 1 Cor 7 14. and Gal. 2.15 are very way parallel and the one to be interpreted by the other any otherwise then as a conceit in a dream like as when the fancy from gold and a mountaine compounds a golden mountain And for his argument which he drawes from the text on which his discourse is builded in that the Apostle contra distinguisheth Jews by nature and sinners of the Gentiles which the phrase shews the Apostle useth after the vulgar manner for otherwise Jewes are by nature sinners as well as the Gentiles to prove that the Infants of believers are in the Covenant of grace and have a birth-priviledge for baptisme it is a riddle to mee The meaning of the words is plainly this we are born Jews and not Gentâ—les who are reputed sinnerâ— yet we know that a man is not justified by the works of the law to observe which by birth we were tied and therfore Peter did ill to compel the Gentiles to Judaize to keep the law of Moses thereby dissembling the lâ—bertie they had in Châ—â—st and bringing them into bondage so that it is plaine he mentions Jewes by nature to shew their obligation to the law by their birth and he calls the Gentiles sinners according to the common expression of them as not observing the law of the Jews and therâ—fore when Mr. Blake saith That he contendâ— to have the seed of believing Parents under the Gospel to
be under the first member of the division in the text It is a strange speech that he shâ—uld contend to prove this The seed of believing Gentiles are Jews by nature born to be circumcised and to keepe Moses law But let it be granted that they are called sinners in the sense he would have it thaâ— is out of the Covenant as it is said Ephes. 2.12 the question is in what sense the Gentiles were without the Covenant and the Jewes in It is certaine the Jews had by Gods appointment the priviledge of circumcision and the Covenant made with Abraham did beloâ—g to them in speciall manner and the Oracles were with them Rom. 9.4 5. and the Covenant of saving-Saving-grace was among them till they were by unbeliefe broken off and that the Gentiles were dogs uncleane persons aliens from the commonwealth of Israel without God without Christ c. And so it may be granted that the Jews had a birth privledge though it is certaine that their birth did not intitle them to the Covenant of grace and that the common priviledge of circumcision belonging to the Jews did not arise from the Covenant of grace accotding to the substance of it but according to the admiâ—istâ—ation that then was nor was a fruit of the faith of the parents but of Gods appointment according to the dispensation of his will in that time of the churches minoritie but he that will prove that therâ—fore our children have such a birth priviledge because the Jews had must make our case as the Jews and so bring us under the Ceremoniall law But of this wee shall have occâ—sion hereafter to â—peake more fully onely by the way I thought it necessary to say so much because Master Vines referres us to Master Blakes Sermon as a learned treatise and I heard it in like manner magnified by Master Calamy and therefore have thought it necessary some where or other to â—xamine what hath any seeming strength in it And for the same reason I take notice of that speech of Master Blake page 11. Singular opinions put men upon singular interpretations which may as truely be verified of himselfe as of his adversaries in that which occasioned him so to speake Another booke lately published being the treatise of one Mr. William Cook and commended by Master Francis Woodcocke one of your Assembly as I conceive in the 62. page of it saith Whoever before but Bâ—llarmine or such Iesuiticall interpreters of Scripture tooke it so putting uncleane for bastards or holy for legitimate And in the Margin Note Reader that this is Bellarmines interpretation and after whether A. R. borrowed this answer of Bellarmine or invented it of himselfe as it is the happinesse of the good wits and holy affections of Iesuiticall and Anabaptisticall heads and hearts to jump in the same thing let others judge Mr. Woodcock had done well to have left out this passage For first although I have not now Bellarmines book by me to examine whether it be his interpretation or no yet I perceive by Chamier Panstr Cathol tom 4. lib. 5. cap. 10. § 55. who saith thus Hoc observato Bellarminum e tribus quas enumerat non iudicare quam cui praeferat quasi nihil interessâ—t This being observed that Bellarmine of the three senses which he reckons doth not shew which he preferres as if it were of no behoofe That that Author did not well heed Bellarmine when he makes it his opinion because he numbers it amongst other opinions Secondly that Authour not only erroneously but also otherwise in an unfitting way makes it a Jesuiticall interpretation only whereas he might have perceived that Bellarmine cites others then Jesuites for that interpretation and if he be not to be believed yet Chamier might be believed who saith in the same place § 50. Sic Ambrosium Thomam Anselmum exposuisse hunc Suarez appellat literalem sensum That Ambrose Thomas Anselme so expounded it and this Suarez cals the literall sense And before Bellarmine Musculus in his Commentarie on 1 Cor. 7.14 alleageth Ambrose and Hierome so expounding it and confesseth that though he had abused formerly that place against the Anabaptists yet he found that of matrimoniall sanctification and sanctity to be the right sense And Melancthon and Camerarius doe expound it of legitimation Gagnaeus Parisiensis in loc also so expounds it and Osiander Enchir. controv cum Anabap. c. 2. q. 3. Mariana schol in loc And as for that of Foederal holinesse I have rather reason to conceive it to be a new exposition the Ancients expounding it otherwise None that ever I met with expounding it of federall holinesse till the controversie of the Anabaptists in Germanie arose You say But this cannot be the meaning I clearly prove by these foure arguments First uncleannesse and holinesse when opposed one to the other are never taken for civilly lawfull Nor do I like the calling of it civill holinesse for it is not from the lawes of men but the institution of God and therefore I rather call it matrimoniall holinesse You say Vncleanesse indeed when opposed to cleanesse may be taken in severall senses An unclean vessel an unclean cloth an unclean garment when opposed to clean may signifie nothing but dirty or spotted but when uncleanâ—sse is opposed to holinesse it is alwayes taken in a sacred sense referring to a tabernacle use to a right of admission into or use in the tabernacle or temple which were types to us of the visible church and holinesse is alwayes taken for a separation of persons or things from common to sacred uses It is hard for you to make good nor is it materiall for me to disprove that which you say That when uncleanesse is opposed to holinesse it is alwayes taken in a sacred sense referring to a tabernacle use to a right of admissiâ—n into or use in the tabernacle or temple which were types to us of the visible church For if it were true yet the sense I give might stand good sith uncleanesse for bastardy might be taken allusively to the tabernacle if the exclusion of bastards from the congregation of the Lord were an exclusion from the tabernacle and so the sense might be good that uncleanesse is bastardy though that which you say were true that uncleanesse as opposed to holinesse refers to a tabernacle use Howsoever it is enough that I have proved that the word uncleanesse must be taken here for bastardy if the Apostles reason stand good Yet let me intreat you to look a little on that text 1 Thes. 4.7 and tell me whether uncleanesse there be not opposed to holinesse and whether it be taken in a â—acred sense referâ—ing to a tabernacle use to a right of admission into or use in the tabernacle or temple which were types to us of the visible church Me thinks by uncleanesse is meant fornication and by holinesse chastity and that comes very near the adjectives for bastards and legitimate which are
conclude that this holinesse being the fruit of one of the Parents being a believer must be meant of some kinde of holinesse which is not common to the seed of them whose parents are both believers and that is enough for our purpose What others object I know not the Text Deut. 23.2 was produced by mee in my papers in Latin above-mentioned in these words Et quidni simili allusione ponatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro spuriis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro legitimis nam spurius inter impuros Deut. 23.2 And why may not bâ— a like allusion uncleane be put for bastards and holy for legitimate for the bastard is put among the uncleane Deut. 23.2 By which you may perceive that I produced it not to prove that bastaâ—ds did not belong to the Covenant among the Jeweâ— or were to be denied circumcision or to be put away and therefore in what respect they are to be excluded from the Congregation of the Lord is not to my purpose materiall but onely to shew that bastards were reckoned among uncleane persons by the Law which I thinke you will not deny sith you confesse they were excluded from bearing office in the Church or some such like thing and therefore the Apostle might fiâ—ly by allusion put uncleane for bastards Against this there being nothing in your answer nor any thing else which hath not been replyed to before I passe to the two objections you bring in against your interpretation You say Yet there remain two Objections to be answered which are made against this our interpretation First the unbelieving wâ—â—e is here said to be sanctified as well as the child is said to be holy and the originall word is the same for both one the Verb the other the Noune if then the childe is holy with a federall holinesse then is also the unbelieving wife sanctified with a fâ—derall sanctification and so the wife although remaining a Heathâ—n may be counted to belong to the Covenant of Grace I answer indeed there would be weight in this Objection if the Apostle had said The unbelieving wife is sanctified and no more as he simply saith the children are holy but that he doth not say He saith indeed the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the believing husband or to the believing husband that is to his use as all other creatures are as the bed he lies on the meat he eats the clothes he wears the beast he rides on are sanctified to him and so this sanctifiednesse of the wife is not a sanctification of state but only of use and of this use to be sanctified to the believing husband whereas the holinesse and sanctification that is spoken of the children is a holinesse of state and not only a sanctification to the parents use These words in your Margin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Greek Preposition signifying to as well as in as Gal. 1.16 2 Pet. 1.5 Acts 4.12 1 Cor. 7.15 being the Texts I produce in my Latin paper that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be translated to as well as by give me some occcasion to think that this Objection is produced in reference to these words in my Latin paper where arguing against the rendring of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by as if the faith of the wife were the cause of the sanctifying the unbelieving husband I say thus Nemo enim dixerit fidem uxoris sanctificare virum infidelem foederaliter ita ut baptismi capax sit infidelis maritus propter fidem uxoris quod tamen pace tantorum virorum dictum sit tam benè sequitur ex hoc loco quam filium sanctum esse foederaliter baptismi capacem propter fidem parentisâ— for no man will say the faith of the wife sanctifies the unbelieving husband federally so that the unbelieving husband should be capable of Baptisme for the faith of the wife which yet with the leave of so great persons be it said doth as well follow out of this place as that the sonne is federally holy and capable of baptisme for the faith of the parent In which words when I say it follows out of this place my meaning is so translated and expounded as before that the unbelieving husband is sanctified by that is by the faith of the wife as the child is holy it would follow that the unbelieving husband should be in the Covenant as well as the child and so be baptized for the faith of the wife is said to sanctifie according to this reading and exposition the one as well as the other And so much I conceive you acknowledge in saying in this Objection there would be weight if the Apostle had said the unbelieving wife is sanctified and no more But this only I put in by a parenthesis as not building the main of the interpretation I gave on it knowing that Beza renders it in uxore in the wife and then the Objection hath no place And seeing you do render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in or to and expound the sanctification to the believers use as all other creatures are I confesse against you that Objection is not in force and therefore your answer may be acknoweldged right in this particular I passe to the second Objection That holinesse of the children is here meant which could not be unlesse one of the parents were sanctified to the other which is the force of the Apostles arguing the unbeliever is sanctified to the believer else were not the children holy but unclean but federall holinesse of children may be where parents are not sanctified one in or to the other as in bastardy Davids childe by Bathsheba Pharez and Zarah Judah's children by Thamar the Israelites children by the Concubines Abrahams son Ishmael by Hagar c. in which case the children were federally holy and accordingly were circumcised and yet the Harlot not sanctified in or to the Adulterer or Fornicator though a Believer This Objection I own having first proved that the santification of the unbeliever is meant of lawfull conjugall copulation only where you say the unbeliever is sanctified to the believer I would say as the Apostle doth to the wife or husband Now to this Objection you say I answer but I pray you tell me where you answer it I finde no answer to it here except it be an answer to an Argument to deny the conclusion In the Argument you neither shew faultinesse in the form nor matter which was the way of answering I learned in the Schools where I was bred You say we must attend the Apostles scope true but when we are to answer we must attend to the Objection and shew the weaknesse of it You say which is to shew that the children would be unholy if the faith or believership of one of the parents could not remove the barre which lies in the other being an unbeliever against the producing of an holy seed because one of them was a Pagan or unbeliever therefore the childe could
Application have all their vigour in ambiguity of speech as the strength of the Coney is in its burrow which that I may uncover I must distinctly declare what is to be held in this matter and then examine what you say Priviledge is a Law term the Etymologie is Privilegium quasi priva lex quia veteres priva dixerunt quae nos singula dicimus Priviledge as it were a private law because the ancients called those things private which we call singular Gel. noct Attic. lib. 10. cap. 20. Joh. Calvinus Wett in his Lexicon Juridicum voce privilegium Privilegium alii sic definiunt jus singulare in certae personae gratiam favoremve others so define a priviledge a singular right in favour of a certain person so that a priviledge is a particular law whereby some persons have benefit different from common right Calvin ibid. Item beneficium dicitur privilegium quia benè facit iis quibus conceditur contra legem communem likewise a priviledge is called a benefit because it benefits those to whom it is granted against the common law If it do not benefit it is not a priviledge Priviledges therefore may be priviledges at one time which are not at another time and in comparison of some which are not priviledges in comparison of others To have Christ personally present with the Disciples was a priviledge for the time but it was a priviledge that he was absent when he went to heaven and sent his Spirit to them The Lawes delivered to the Jews were priviledges in comparison of the Heathen but not in comparison of Christians Priviledges of the covenant of Grace may be conceived either in respect of the substance of the covenant of Grace or the administration Now when you speak of priviledges of the covenant of Grace some passages sâ—em to mean it in respect of the promises of grace in Christ as when you say Our covenant is established upon better promises we as well as they are called a holy nation c. not only in the clearnesse of the administration but also c. And those especially which you have when you say pag. 31. We are inquiring for priviledges which are branches of the Covenant of Grace which every man that is in covenant with God may expect from God by vertue of the Covenant which cannot be understood but of the promises Now the promises of the covenant of Grace are of the substance of the covenant not of the administration But other passages refer to the administration That yoak that hard and costly way of administration which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear is taken off from our shoulders the glory of theirs had no glory in respect of ours they were under the bondage of Infants under age in comparison of our freedome which things belong to the administration pag. 10.12 Now if you mean your conclusion of priviledges of the substance of the covenant of Grace it is to be denied For so the priviledges of believers are not now inlarged many wayes or made more honourable or comfortable Your self pag. 9.10.12 say they are the same to both Jews and Gentiles but in respect of the administration it is granted they are many wayes inlarged made more honourable and in this sense I grant it that many Scriptures speak of the inlargement of our priviledges and particularly those that speak of the removing the hard yoak Acts 15.10 and bringing us into liberty to full age Gal. 4.1 and greater glory 2 Cor. 3.10 And it is true that those things were priviledges to the Israelites but it is a benefit to us that we are freed from them and so no priviledge for us either to have them or any other thing in lieu of them but Christ already come who is in stead of all Now the thing that you drive at is this that whereas you conceive that you have proved before that the Infants of those that are in the covenant of Grace are covenanters with their parents that Baptisme succeeds in the roome and use of their circumcision that by Gods expresse order Infants were to be circumcised You lastly conclude that our priviledges for our selves and children are at least as honourable large and comfortable as theirs and therefore our Infants are to be baptized The answer to it is this It is true our priviledge is the same with theirs in respect of the substance of the covenant but neither was that made to the Jews naturall posterity as such nor is it made to ours As for Circumcision it was indeed a priviledge but belonging to the manner of administration not to the substance of the covenant which is in variable a priviledge to the Jews in comparison of the Heathens but a burthen in comparison of us and it is so far from being a priviledge to our children that they should have either it or any other thing in the place and use of it but Christ manifested in the flesh that the truth is it is a great priviledge to us and our children that they have neither it nor any other thing in the stead of it but Christ manifested in the flesh And so parents loose nothing by denying Baptism to Infants in the place use of circumcision but it is indeed if rightly considered a benefit to them to want it God not appointing it nor making a promise of grace to be confirmed by it to the Infants of Believers Having premised this I shall examine the proofs of your conclusion and see whether they make any thing against that which I have delivered The thing you 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 That which you alledge is this Many Scriptures speak of the inlargement of their priviledges not one for the diminishing or depressing or extenuating of them that yoak that hard and costly way of administration which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear is taken off from our shoulders True and by this you yeeld that it may be an inlargement of priviledge to have somewhat removed that was a priviledge formerly The Scripture to which you allude is that Acts 15.10 Now I pray you what was this yoak but circumcision as your self declare pag. 39. and all the legall ceremonies which were great priviledges to the Jews but yet to us it is a priviledge that we are freed from them and if it be a priviledge to be freâ— from circumcision it is a priviledge to be freed from any ordinance in the roome place and use of it Lastly in that Circumcision is taken off from our necks it appears that it belongs not to the covenant of Grace which is invariable and belongs to Gentiles as well as to Jewes according to your conclusion The next Scripture you
bring is Heb. 8.6 where our covenant is said to be established upon better promises If this Scripture serve to your purpose then the covenant of Grace now hath better promises then the covenant of Grace the Jews had but this I know you will deny who hold that the covenant of Grace is the same both to Jews and Gentiles But that you may see how confusedly you thrust things together in this place I pray you consider what covenant it is of which the Author to the Hebrewes speaks there that it had not so good promises Is it not expresly said to be that which God made when he took the Israelites by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt which covenant they brake vers 9. Now although Dr. Crisp vol. 2. Serm. 2. calls the covenant of Aarons Priestood a covenant of Grace though of lesse grace yet you say thus pag. 10. and four hundred and thirty yeers after the Law was added with great terror upon Mount Sinai not as a part of this covenant and after plainly in that giving of the Law there was something of the covenant of works made with Adam in Paradise c. So that you do grant there was a rehearsall of the covenant of works though you do make it also to have something of the administration of the covenant of Grace The truth is the Scripture plainly makes it the covenant of works Rom. 10.5 Gal. 3.10.12 Gal. 4.24 Heb. 12.18 though I deny not that which you say that it was intended as a preparative and means to fit them for Christ and therefore may not unfitly be called foedus subserviens a subservient covenant as Cameron in his Theses de triplici foedâ—re But this being so to what purpose do you tell us that our covenant is established upon better promises as if the Jewes covenant were no better then that on Mount Sinai or as if the comparison concerning priviledges were between the covenant of Grace now and the covenant of Works then whereas the question is as you say page 31. which are branches of the covenant of Grace and a little after but were no part of the covenant of Grace which God made to Abraham and his seed Now the covenant of Grace is that made with Abraham Gal. 3.15 c. as your self alledge pag. 10. and you say there that covenant was for substance alwayes the same and the substance as you recite it is the promises and the condition so that out of your own words it is clear that we have no better promises in the covenant of Grace now then they had then only the administration of the covenant of grace is now better then it was to them then it was mixt with other particular promises which because they are not coÌ„mon to al believers in the covenant of grace therfore belong not to the covenant of Grace in Christ purely taken such as the promise of deliverance from Egypt setling in Canaan c. For though it is true that godlinesse hath the promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come yet the promise of the life that now is is not a particular promise of possession of such or such a land to us or our seed or the coming of Christ out of our posteritie as it was then but only a generall promise of Gods providing for his children with persecution Mark 10.30 Then it was with expectation of Christ to come now with assurance of Christ already come in the flesh and accomplishing what was foretold of him then Christ was shadowed in darke types now wee see him unveiled in a plaine history So that though it be true that the priviledges of believers are now many wayes inlarged in some respects yet simply the Covenant of Grace is not inlarged in respect of the substance of it the promises of Grace and the condition they are still belonging to the Elect and believers and to no other The next Scripture you thus express The glory of theirs had no glory in respect of ours for this you quote 2 Cor. 3.10 But this passage is plainly meant of the Covenant at Mount Sinai which is called the letter ver 6. The ministration of death written and ingraven in stones so glorious that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance which glory was to be done away ver 7. The ministration of condemnation ver 9. Which I suppose you doe not understand of the Covenant of Grace and therefore it is impertinently alledged Your next is they were under the bondage of Infants under age in comparison of our freedome For this you alledge Gal. 4.1 c. But this is said of the administration in types and shadows and ceremonies called the rudiments of the world ver 3. Concerning which it is confessed our priviledges are enlarged but they are not branches of the Covenant of Grace which every man who is in Covenant with God may expect from God by vertue of the Covenant You goe on We as well as they are called a holy Nation a peculiar people a chosen Generation separated to him from all other people It is granted we believers are such a holy Nation c. doth it therefore follow that the priviledges of beleevers under this last and best administration of the Covenant of Grace are many wayes enlarged You allude to that place 1 Pet. 2.9 and Mr Blake pag. 8. urgeth this text to prove a birthright priviledge of Christians equall to the Nations of the Jewes But it is answered this passage is meant of the invisible Church the living lively members of Christ. To which he saith The contrary to this in the Text is cleare First by looking back to the words that there precede It is meant of all those who do not professedly with the unbelieving Jewes reject Christ. I have looked backe and finde no such thing there It is true there is mention of some who did reject Christ ver 7 8. But that when Peter sayes yee are a chosen Generation a royall Priesthood c. it should be meant of any other then true believers who alone can offer spirituall sacrifice acceptable to God through Jesus Christ is an interpretation which I disclaime much more that it should be meant of all those who do not professedly with the unbelieving Jewes reject Jesus Christ. For then it may be said not onely of Simon Magus and other hypocrites but also of all the salvages in the world that never heard of Christ that they are a chosen Generation a royall Priesâ—hood an holy Nation a peculiar people that they should shew forth the praise of him who hath called them out of darkness into his marvailous light Mr Blake addes Which will yet more fully appeare by comparing the words of S t Paul Rom. 9.32 33. I desire Mr Blake to revise his Treatise and to examine whether this and many other passages answer to Mr Vines
and others commendation of it To me the Text he cites Rom. 9.32 33. compared with 1 Pet. 2.9 doe as well agree to prove that 1 Pet. 2.9 is meant of all those who doe not professedly with the unbelieving Jewes reject Christ as a harp and a harrow doe consort to make musique But perhaps wee may see more by looking forward Secondly saith Mr Blake by looking forward to that which followes in the character which the Apostle before he ends his description addes which in times past were not a people but now are the people of God A speech taken from the Prophet to set forth the case of the Gentiles as it is also by S t Paul interpreted Rom. 9.26 but the Gentiles thus called and of no people made a people have all a Covenant-holiness and not alwayes inherent holiness Sure the word nation and people did so run in Mr Blakes mind that he could thinke of nothing but a nationall Church like the Jewes whereas if he had weighed the words ver 10. of having obtained mercy and considered that both Rom. 9.25 26. are meant of the same of whom he said ver 23. that they were the vessels of mercy which he had afore prepared unto glory he would have plainly perceived the people and nation to be meant of the invisible Church of the Elect and so nothing in that Text for the holiness of a believing Nation as some speake communicating a priviledge of the seales to the infants of that Nation which how absurd a conceit it is may be shewed perhaps more fully in that which followes You adde to whom as well as to them belongs the adoption the Covenant the promises You allude doubtless to Rom. 9.4 but had you alledged the whole Text ver 3 4 5. you would then have seen that it speakes of peculiar priviledges of the Jewes to whom the adoption Covenants that is as Beza thinkes the tables of the Covenant the promises of their multiplying having the Messiah from them c. were peculiar in the sense the Apostle there speakes And so Mr Rutherfurd due right of Presbyteries Chap. 4. sect 5. pag. 192. That they had prerogatives above us is cleare Rom. 3.1 2 3. Rom. 9.4 and that in other respects far more excellent we have prerogatives above them it is as cleare 2 Cor. 3.7 8 9. Mat. 13.16 17. So that even in respect of the Covenant made with Abraham it is plaine the Jewes had some priviledges above us and therefore this place proves the contrary to your conclusion and that the want of some priviledges they had may be recompensed by some other priviledges we have And therefore you may see how feeble a reason this is from the Jewish priviledge of infant-males circumcision to prove infant-Baptisme But to follow you in your way You say we as well as they injoy him to be our Father and with his dearest Sonne our Lord are made co-heires of the Kingdome of Glory All this is granted but to what purpose it is produced I see not You adde we 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 This is true also we have the substance of the Covenant of Grace that is justification c. with advantage not only in the clearness of administration but in some sense in greater extent to persons with us For now not only the small Nation of the Jewes but also of all Nations believers are brought into the Covenant of Grace But this proves not your conclusion or any of those things that may serve for your purpose You adde And there is neither male nor female Why you adde this I know not except you mean to insinuate that in the Jewish Church there was male and female because Circumcision was onely of Males But neither doth the Apostle Gal. 3.28 intimate that wee are better than the Jewes as if their females were not within the Covenant of Grace nor will you say it Now that which you were speaking of was the substance of the Covenant of Grace that wee are made co-heires of the Kingdome of Glory c. not of the administration of it and so there was no more distinction of male and female with the Jewes then with us nor more priviledges of ours then of the Jewes in this particular Thus have I examined all the proofes you bring for your fifth Conclusion and thereby you may perceive how you have heaped together many places of Scripture without any usefull order or distinction or pertinency to the thing in hand You bring in next an objection thus Some indeed goe about to shew that in some things the Jewes had greater priviledges then we have as that Abraham had the priviledge to be called the Father of the Faithfull that Christ should be borne of his flesh Mary had the priviledge to be the Mother of Christ and the whole Nation this priviledge that God will call in their seed againe after they had been cast off for unbeliefe many hundred yeares which priviledges say they none of the Gentiles have or can have It is true that in answer to the argument from Circumcision as it is popularly framed which yet I perceive many that either are or should be scholars to examine things more scholastically do or pretend to satisfie their consciences with thus If the children of believers be not to be baptized then we have less priviledge then the Jewes then the Grace of God under the new Testament is straitned more then in the old To this argument as being an argument of no weight but onely among vulgar and non-syllogizing capacities among other things I said thus in my Latin paper above mentioned Nec absurdum est dicere respectu aliquorum privilegiorum gratiam Dei contractiorem in novo Testamento quà m in veteri v. gr Nulla familia habet privilegium quod Abrahami familiae concessum est ut ex ea nasceretur Christus nullus vir praeter Abrahamum pater fidelium nulla faemina praeter unicam mater Christi c. Yet it is not absurd to say that in respect of some priviledges the grace of God is more contracted in the new Testament then in the old For instance no family hath now the priviledge that was granted to Abrahams family that out of it Christ should be borne no man besides Abraham is called the Father of the faithfull no woman besides one the mother of Christ. By which I would shew that it is no absurditie to grant that the Jewes may have more priviledges secundum quid in some things then wee and yet our case and condition to speak simply better then theirs by reason of other priviledges we have above them which recompence the defect of those priviledges whether real or supposed which is the very same which as Robinson did alledge so Rutherford grants in the place above-named and cites two Scriptures
to prove it Rom. 3.1 2 3. Rom. 9.4 And the truth is priviledges are so arbitrary and various that God gives them as he thinkes good oft times without assigning any special reason so that no argument can be drawne thus God gave such a priviledge to the Jewes Ergo we must have such a priviledge too except we can prove it is Gods will it should be so And therefore this Argument is of no force but rather an argument of arrogant presumption without an institution to attempt to prove that because the Jewes had a priviledge to circumcise infants therefore we must have a priviledge to baptize infants nor doe any of the many Scriptures you have alledged prove that Baptisme of infants is a priviledge granted by God in lieu of Circumcision But you take upon you to answer this objection You say but these things have no weight we are inquiring for priviledges which are branches of the Covenant of Grace which every man who is in Covenant with God may expect from God by vertue of the Covenant were he a Jew or a proselyte not for any particular or peculiar favour to a particular man or woman or family or tribe All these forementioned things and many other of the like kind as the ministery of the Tabernacle Temple to belong to one Tribe the Kingly office to one family such and such men never to lacke a man of their house to stand and before God proceeded indeed from free grace but were no parts of the Covenant of Grace which God made to Abraham and all his seed For could every man in Covenant challenge these things at Gods hand and that by vertue of the Covenant Could every one of them promise that Christ should be borne of his flesh or every one of their women that shee should be the mother of Christ Could every one whom God owned to be in Covenant with him promise by vertue of the Covenant that their Children if cast off by unbeliefe should after many hundred yeares be againe called in We speak onely of such priviledges as were universall and common to all who were in Covenant for which by vertue of the Covenant they might relie upon God Though you say the things objected have no weight yet it may seeme they are so heavy presse your conclusion so hard as that you cannot well ease it of them The things objected you deny not but you answer that they are impertinent you tell us why because you enquire for priviledges which are branches of the Covenant of Grace common to all in Covenant which they may challenge at Gods hand by vertue of the Covenant and such are not these It is not materiall what you inquire after men may sectari Aquilam in nubibus follow after an Eagle in the Clouds But sure I am the Scriptures you bring prove not that believers now have more priviledges belonging to the Covenant of grace which all may challenge at Gods hands then the Jewes had Yea your second conclusion contradicts your fifth understood in this sense Beside Circumcision was not a priviledge common to all in the Covenant of Grace For besides all the faithfull before Abraham and those of his time Melchisedeck and Lot and their households and Job after his time there was a sort of proselytes called strangers or of the gate who were not circumcised yet the Scripture reckons them among the worshippers of God Such is Cornelius conceived to be by Mede in his discourse on Acts 17.4 by Selden lib. 2. de jure nat Gent. c. 4. who is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a godly or devout man and one that feared God with all his house which gave much almes to the people and prayed to God alwayes Act. 10.2 and therefore within the Covenant of Grace Besides the priviledges alledged in the objection doe some of them at least belong to the Covenant of Grace as well as Circumcision as to be Father of the faithfull to be the Mother of Christ and the last belongs much more to the Covenant of Grace then circumcision And those Rom. 9.4 are priviledges which you alledge as belonging to the Covenant of Grace to which I may joyne that Rom. 3.2 that to them were committed the Oracles of God which yet were prerogatives of the Jewes as Mr Rutherford rightly and according to truth Lastly the phrases Rom. 11.21 of the naturall branches ver 24. of the wild Olive by nature thou wast graffed in besides nature these according to nature doe seeme to me to import not that the Jewes were in the Covenant of Grace by nature but that they had this priviledge to be reckoned in the outward administration as branches of the olive by their birth by vertue of Gods appointment which the Gentiles have not But you goe on Let any mâ—n shew out of the Scripture where our priviledges under the Gospel are cut short in any of these things and be saith somewhat and in particular for the case in hand concerning our infants right to the Covenant of Grace and the seale of it Once we are sure the infant children of all Covenanters were within the Covenant and the seale also belonged to them and by vertue of the Covenant which is still the same we plead their interest in it Let any man shew when and where this was taken away when the infant children of believers were expunged out of the Covenant of grace It is unreasonable to require men to shew what they doe not avouch it were equall to exact this taske at the hands of those who doe expunge the infant children of believers out of the Covenant of Grace we neither write in nor expunge out but leave that to God onely from whom we learne Esau have I hated Jacob have I loved Though you thinke your selfe sure that all the infants of Covenanters were within the Covenant of Grace yet I see no cause to believe you for as much as I thinke God never shewed you the booke of life that you may see who are written in who expunged out of the Covenant of Grace and St Paul who was as well read in that booke as you saith Rom. 9.8 They which are the children of the flesh are not the children of God but the children of the promise are counted for the seed which how to spell I have shewed above But you adde Certainly who ever will goe about to deprive them of it to cut off such a great part of the comfort of believing parents must produce cleare testimonies before they can perswade believers to part with either of them either right to the Covenant or to the seale of the Covenant And you adde two reasons of it You are now on your 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 But wee must not sacrifice truth to either of these You insinuate that Antipaedobaptists goe about to deprive infant-children
of believers of the Covenant of Grace They may tell you it were a madness for them to goe about such an impossibilitie as the putting out or putting into the Covenant of grace and that they hope so well of you that you come not so neere the Papists or Augustines opinion as to thinke infants dying unbaptized are out of the Covenant of Grace And as for cutting off a great part of the comfort of believing parents I pray you tell us what comfort is cut off by it you cannot say that either an infant is certainly regenerated or saved by Baptisme nor can you say he is lost for want of it What comfort then doe you give them indeed which the Antipaedobapâ—ists doe not give as well as you Or what discomfort in truth do they give them which you do not All the comfort you can indeed give them is that according to your Hypotheses they do their duty But if it be proved that they prophane the Ordinance of Baptisme by bringing Infants to baptisme which there is great cause to think they do it may rather bring discomfort to their conscience in fine then comfort But to Believers indeed Gods glory will be more deare then their own comfort and therefore they will be content to part with that which dishonoured God though it seemed cause of comfort to themselves they will imitate Abraham who quieted himself in the will of God concerning Ishmael though deare unto him and Isaac who perceiving Gods rejecting of Esau yet submitted to his will And for your two reasons because they are only a piece of pathetick oratory I passe them over For though there be some strains that Logically examined will not endure the test yet having learned the rule about reading the Fathers not to account all their Rhetoricall expressions their Dogmaticall resolutions I am willing to conceive the same of you And as for your recapitulation of your conclusions and your inference thereupon how short they are of your conceit of them I leave it to your self to consider and proceed to that which you say is the main and only Objection remaining which hath any colour of weight in it YOu say the Objection is this There is no commâ—nd no expresse institution or cleâ—r exâ—mple in all the new Testament of baptizing of Infants and in the administratinn of Sâ—craments we are not to be led by our own reason or grounds of seeming pâ—obabilitie but by the expresse order of Christ and no otherwise This you justly count the main objection which if you could answer clearly all the rest of your Discourse might be saved and without answering it all that you have said else is to little purpose For though it were proved that the children of Believers were in the covenant of Grace Baptisme succeeds to Circumcision our priviledges greater then the Jewes yet all this cannot acquit the practice of baptizing Infants from will-worship without an institution by Precept or Apostolicall example And therefore as it concerns Smectymnuus so almost all the Divines of the Assembly and Preachers of the City that have so often delivered in their Sermons at Westminster now in print and in the City that in Gods Worship we must not meddâ—e a jot further then God hath commâ—nded to shew some institution of Christ or example of his Apostles for it otherwise the Prelatists will tell you that they can shew virtuall command from Analogie of the Ceremoniall Law of the Jews and tradition Ecclesiasticall as ancient as yours for Paedobaptisme for their Prelacy Holydayes Surplice c. against which there have been so many and those just Declamations If then you do not stand to it here you may yeeld up your weapons Let us then try it out on this ground You begin thus If by institution command and example they mean an expresse syllabicall command c. I grant that in so many words it is not found in the new Testament that they should be baptized No expresse example where children were baptized Sure this is a shrewd signe that you are not likely to make good your ground when you have yeelded so much But I grant that if you make it good by good consequence you may recover all Let us then consider what you say of that But I also adde that I deny the consequence that if in so many words it be not commanded in the new Testament it ought not to be dâ—ne this is not true Divinity that Christians are not tyed to observe that which is not expresly in so many words set down in the new Testament True but whose consequence is this Infants are not to be baptized because that which is not in so many words commanded in the new Testament ought not to be done The consequence rightly framed is this In meer positive worship that ought not to be done which hath not Precept or Apostolicall example equivalent to a Precept gathered by plain words or good inference out of the new Testament For if it have none of these it is wil-worship And Baptisme of Infants is such therefore it ought not to be done The ground of it is this because all the ceremoniall or meere positive worship of the Jewes is now abrogated and therefore a Precept of God to them is not a warrant to us now if it were it must be in one thing as well as another and so we must bring on our necks the yoak of bondage of the Mosaical Law Now let us see how you encounter this Argument you answer by telling us there is no expresse reviving of the Lawes concerning the forbidden degrees of marriage in the new Testament except of not having a mâ—ns fathers wife 1 Cor. 5.8 No expresse Law against polygamie no expresse command for the celebration of a weekely Sabbath are therefore Christians free in all these câ—ses I answer no but withall I say that the first instance is about a morall command and yet there is for one branch of incest an expresse censure in the new Testament proving the unlâ—wfulnesse of it whereas the businesse is now about a point of meer positive ceremoniall worship and so there 's not the like reason Secondly the same may be said of Polygamie that it is a sin against a morall Precept and yet there is good proof against it in the new Testament from Mat. 19.5.9 And for the third enough hath been said above Part. 1. Sect. 8. to shew how little advantage you have in this instance But you adde yea in the point of Sâ—craments there is no expresse command no example in all the new Testament where women received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper there is no expresse command that the children of Believers when they are grown should be instructed and baptized by their parents expresse command there is that they should teach the Heathen and the Jews and mâ—ke them Disciples and then baptize them but no command that the children of those that are Believers should be baptized when
you thus expresse ANother you shall finde Mat. 28. where our Saviour bids them goe and teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost Where you have two things first what they were to doe Secondly to whom they were to doe it they were to preach and teach all things which he had Commanded them that is they were to Preach the whole Gospel Mark 16.15 The whole Covenant of grace containing all the promises whereof this is one viz. That God will be the God of Believers and of their seed that the seed of Believers are taken into Covenant with their Parents this is a part of the Gospel preached to Abraham The Gospel which was preached to Abraham is delivered Galat. 3.8 9. And the Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the heathen through faith preached before the Gospel to Abraham saying In thee shall all Nations be blessed so then they which be of faith are blessed with faithfull Abraham And Rom. 1.16 17. I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ for it is the power of God to salvation to every one that beleeveth to the Jew first and also to the Greeke For therein is the righteousnesse of God revealed from faith to faith as it is written the just shall live by faith The like may be proved out of Rom. 10. and elsewhere but it is no wrong to say it that it is a new Gospel to affirme that this is one of the Promises of the Covenant of grace that God will be the God of Believers and of their seed that the seed of Believers are taken into Covenant with their Parents I cannot derive it's pedegree higher then Zuinglius But you goe on And they were to baptize them that is to administer Baptisme as a seale of the Covenant to all who received the Covenant this is a dark Paraphrase you expresse it clearer pag. 35. Expresse Command is there that they should teach the heathen and the Jewes and make them Disciples and then baptize them If your meaning be the same in both places I am content you should Comment on your own words you goe on Secondly Wee have the persons to whom they were to do this all Nations whereas before the Church was tyed to one Nation one Nation onely were Disciples now their Commission was extended to make all Nations Disciples every Nation which should receive the faith should be to him now as the peculiar Nation of the Jewes had been in time past In a word Nations here are opposed to the one Nation before I grant that Nations are opposed to one Nation and that thâ— Commission was extended to all Nations which you expresse well pag. 44. Whereas before they were to goe to the lost sheepe of the house of Isâ—ael now they were to goe unto all the world But what sense those woâ—ds may carry Every Nation which should receive the faith should be to him now as the peculiar Nation of the Jewes had been in time past is doubtfull For either it may have this sense Every Nation that receives the faith that is Believers of every Nation shall be to mee a peculiar people as the Jewes were in the sense that Peter speaks 1 Pet. 2.9 and so the sense is good or thus When a Nation shall receive the faith that is a great or eminent part the Governours and chief Cities representative body shall receive the faith that Nation shall in like manner have all their little ones capable of Baptisme and counted visible members of the Church as the posteritie of the Jewes were in the time of that Church administration This I guesse is the businesse that is now upon the anvill by observing â—undry passages in latter Writers with whom your Sermon agrees as if it came out of the same forge Mr Blake pag. 20. hath these words In the same sense and latitude as Nation was taken in respect of the Covenant of God when the Covenant and Covenant-initiating-Sacrament was restrained to that one onely Nation where their Commission was first limited in the same sense it is to be taken unlesse the Text expresse the contrary now this Commission is enlarged This cannot be denied of any that will have the Apostles able to know Christs meaning by his words in this enlarged Commission But Nation then as is confessed did comprehend all in the Nation in respect of the Covenant and nothing is expressed in the Text to the contrary therefore it is to be taken in that latitude to comprehend Infants Mr Rutherfurd in his peaceable and temperate plea Ch. 12. Concl. 1. Arg. 7. hath these words Seeing God hath chosen the race and nation of the Gentiles and is become a God to us and to our seede the seede must be holy with holinesse of the chosen Nation and holinesse externall of the Covenant notwithstâ—â—â—ing the father and mother were as wicked as the Jewes who slew the Lord of glory And indeed those Paedobaptists are forced to say so who justifie the practise of baptizing foundlings infants of Papists excommunicate persons Apostates if they be borne within their Parish thereby directly crossing their own tenent That this is the priviledge of a believer from the Covenant of grace I will be the God of a believer and his seed And the Apostles words 1 Cor. 7.14 according to their own exposition which is that the children whereof one of the parents is not sanctified by the faith of the other are federally uncleane nor considering that this practise of baptizing all in the Parish arose not from any conceit of the federall holinesse of a Nation but from the conceit of Cyprian with his 66 Bishops that the grace of God is to be denied to none that are borne of men upon which ground and the necessitie of baptisme to save a childe from perishing as of old so still among the common people and officiating Priests children are baptized without any relation to Covenant-holinesse particular or nationall But I leave this to the Independents to agitate who have in this point the advantage and returne to the Text Mat. 28.19 Concerning which the question is what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or them refers to in our Saviours words whether all Nations must be the substantive to it without any other circumscription or the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men and women as the Author of infants baptizing proved lawfull by Scriptures or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disciples included in the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may be translated make Disciples That Author denies not but that the verbe may signifie to make Disciples yet by the subject matter which it is here taken and used to expresse it must be taken for to teach and not to make Disciples because to mâ—ke Disciples was not in the power of the Apostles upon whom the command lay it being the peculiar of God to frame the heart to submit unto and embrace the Apostles teaching and to
of David proceeds upon this mistake that by the root and first fruit are meant any Ancestor whereas it is meant of Abraham the Father of the faithfull as Deodate in his Annot. on Rom. 11.16 or at most Abraham Isaac and Jacob in whose names all the elect are comprehended when God calls himself The God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob as our Saviour intimates Luke 20.37 38. Mat. 22.32 Mar. 12.26 27. And for that which he saith that the Jews in Pauls time were holy by covenant howbeit for the present the sons were branches broken off for unbeliefe if it be meant of the Jews broken off through unbelief in respect of their present state they were not holy by covenant Only thus fâ—r the Jewish nation in Pauls time is said to be holy either in respect of the remnant according to the election of Grace mentioned vers 5. of which he was one or in respect of the posterity that should afterwards be called according to the promise of God to Abraham in which sense they were federally holy yet this did neither give right for the baptizing of children of unbelieving Jewes in Pauls time nor now And for that which he saith that God hath chosen the race and nation of the Gentiles it is not right For God hath not chosen simply the race and nation of the Gentiles but a people to himself out of the race and nation of the Gentiles as it is said Rev. 5.7 Thou hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred and tongue and nation As for Mr. Blakes Argument because it falls in with your reason I shall answer them together in that which followes You say Now we know that when that one nation of the Jews were made Disciples and circumcised their Infants were made disciples made to belong to Gods School and circumcised with them when that nation was made disciples in Abrahams loynes and circumcised their seed also was the same when that nation was taken out of Egypt and actually made Disciples their children were also with them This is your first Argument to prove a command by cleare consequence from Mat. 28.19 for baptizing Infants Now the strength of it lies in these suppositions First that Christ did bid them baptize all nations after the manner that the Jews did circumcise one nation And Mr. Blake doth conceit this so strongly that he saith this cannot be denyed of anâ— that will have the Apostles to be able to know Christs meaning by his words in this enlarged Commission Secondly that the nation of the Jews were discipled when they were circumcised I do not impute it to Mr. Blake through defect of ability to understand but through the strong hold which these points have in his minde that Baptisme succeeds Circumcision in the place roome and use of it and the covenant of the Gospel is all one with the covenant made to Abraham that he imagines there should be such an allusion to circumcision as that the Disciples must understand Christs meaning whom to baptize from the Precept of circumcision Gen. 17. but in mine apprehension there is no colour for such a conceit 'T is true he enlargeth their commission and bids them Go and make Disciples of all nations or as it is in Mark Preach the Gospel to every creature and then to baptize the Disciples of all nations but this enlargement of commission was not in opposition to the restriction about circumcision Gen. 17. but in opposition to the restriction Mat. 10.5 6. as your self rightly expresse it pag. 44. And for that expression that the nation of the Jews were discipled that their Infants were discipled that the nation was made Disciples in Abrahams loines it is such a construction of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make Disciples as I believe no Lexicon nor I think any Expositor to this day made of the word which plainly signifies so to teach as that the persons taught do learn and accordingly professe the things taught and our Lord Christ in Mark expresseth it by preaching the Gospel and accordingly the Apostles by preaching did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disciple Acts 14.21 which how it can be said of Infants that can neither understand nor speak the doctrine of the Gospel preached to them without a miracle I know not I make no question but Abraham did teach his children and make them Disciples and that the Israelites did teach and make Disciples of their children as soon as they could understand the things of God but that they should be disciples in Abrahams loynes is such a piece of language as I never read in the Bible nor in any Author but such as torture words to make them speak what they would have them And sure if the Apostles had understood our Saviours command thus Disciple all nations baptizing them that is Admit the infants of all nations to baptisme as the Jews did the male Infants of that one nation to circumcision they might have saved themselves a great deal of labour of preaching afore baptisme and of baptizing females and would have left us some precedent of such a practice But you adde further And we know that in every nation the children make a great part of the nation and are alwayes included under every administration to the nation whether promises or threatnings priviledges or burthens miracles or judgements unlesse they be excepted So are they in families in cities it being the way of the Scripture when speaking indefinitely of a people nation city or family to be either saved or damned to receive mercies or punishments expresly to except Infants when they are to be excepted as we see in the judgement that befell Israel in the Wildernesse when all that rebellious company that came out of Egypt was to perish by Gods righteous doome their little ones were expresly excepted Numb 14.31 and in the covenant actually entred into by the body of the nation Nehem. 10. it is expresly limited to them who had knowledge and understanding And the Disciples who received this commission knew well that in all Gods former administrations when any parents were made disciples their children were taken in with them to appertain to the same school and therefore it behooved the Lord to give them a caution for the leaving out of Infants in this new administration that they might know his minde had be intended to have them left out which that ever he did in word or deed cannot be found in Scripture The Lord hath plainly given a caution in Scripture for the leaving out Infants in this administration accoâ—ding to ordinary rule For in that he directs them to baptize disciples upon preaching he doth exclude Infants who are not such disciples nor according to ordinary providence can be And this the Apostles could easily understand as knowing that under the term Disciple in common speech and in the whole new Testament those only are meant who being taught professed the doctrine taught by such a one
such as beleeve and are baptized are taken into Covenant and therefore by good consequence they are to receive the seale of the Covenant the Text not onely shewing that they are within the Covenant but also that a right to Baptisme is a consequence of being within the Covenant This text hath been examined before and it hath been proved that the promise there is the sending of Christ who was raised up to blesse them and their children first then those that were afarre off being called and that the promise doth not belong to their children as the children of beleevers but as called and that the promise is not alledged as of it selfe giving right for them or their children to be baptized without any other consideration but as a motive and incouragement for them to repent and so to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus for the remission of sinnes notwithstanding they had crucified the Lord of glory and wished his bloud to be upon them and their children which being thus rightly understood is so farre from proving a command to baptize infants that on the contrary it proves they are not to be baptized You say further Thus for Commands for examples though there should be none there is no great argument in it when the rule is so plaine yet we have examples enough by good consequence It is true if the rule were plaine there would be no need of an example and on the other side if wee had regulating examples we should thereby know how to interpret the rule But whereas you say wee have examples enough by good consequence it may be well suspected these examples will prove like the commands by consequence meere conjectures and conceits of men that would have it so But let us heare what you say For you shall finde that the Gospel tooke place just as the old administration by bringing in whole families together when Abraham was taken in his whole familie was taken in with him when any of the Gentiles turned proselytes ordinarily their whole families came in with them so in this new administration usually if the master of the house turned Christian his whole familie came in and were baptized with him the whole household of Cornelius the first converted Gentile Act. 11.14 the houshold of Stephanus the houshold of Aristobulus the houshold of Narcissus the houshold of Lydia the houshold of the Gaoler These are examples not to be contemned True nor any part of holy Scripture which is written for our learning but in all these there is no example of an infants baptizing in the Scripture You say the Gospel tooke place just as the old administration by bringing in whole families together By the old administration you meane circumcision But wee doe not finde the Gospel or Baptisme tooke place just in the manner or circumcision for in circumcision it was but in one familie singled out of the males onely whether in the covenant of grace or not children or servants elder or younger at eight dayes old in the house by the Master of the familie or others in his stead But in Baptisme it is cleane otherwise so that you might more truly have said the new administration of Baptisme is just opposite to that of circumcision yea in respect of that one thing wherein you make them agree so well the bringing in of whole families together it was but contingently so not alwayes so nor constantly so according to any promise or prophecy and when it did so happen we finde not any infant baptized nor any intimation of baptizing housholds in conformitie to the administration of circumcision And this may appeare by going through the examples of baptizing in the new Testament Concerning John the Baptist it is said Mat. 3.5 Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region round about Jordan and were baptized of him in Jordan confessing their sinnes Luk. 3.29 And all the people that heard him and the Publicans justified God being baptized with the baptisme of John but the Pharisees and Lawyers rejected the counsell of God against themselves being not baptized of him Concerning Christ and his disciples it is said Joh. 4.1 2. When the Lord knew how the Pharisees heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples then Iohn though Iesus himselfe baptized not but his disciples In these examples the practise of baptizing is not by taking in a familie but by admitting all that would become disciples over all the Countries After the ascension of Christ the first example of Baptisme is that Acts 2.44 and there it is said They that gladly received the Word were baptized and these were they to whom he had said ver the 39. the promise is to you and to your children and there were added unto them about three thousand soules and yet never an infant baptized unlesse we shall take Mr Thomas Goodwins conceit for an Oracle possibly the more willingly taken up that it might seeme the more credible that the Church of Jerusalem was but one single formed Congregation in a Church way that therefore it is said There were added three thousand soules to intimate that there were men women and children added he might have observed how ridiculous such a conceit is by that which follows ver 42. And they continued stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayer and feare came upon every soule c. Which if he can apply to infants Erit mihi magnus Apollo I shall take his words for Oracles Now sure these three thousand soules were not one family The next example is of the Samaritanes of whom it is said Acts 8.12 That when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdome of God and the name of Jesus Christ they were baptized men and women Where it is plaine that in a manner the whole Citie were baptized for ver 6. it is said The multitude with one accord gaâ—e heed to that which Philip spake ver 13. Simon himselfe that did before lead them now believed and ver 14. Samaria received the word of God and yet not an infant mentioned to be baptized but those that believed and received the word of God nor was this administration by taking in of a familie but rather of a Citie The next are of the Eunuch Acts 8.38 and Paul Acts 9.18 which were single believing persons not a whole familie The next is of Cornelius of whom you gather from Acts 11.14 That his whole houshold were baptized But it is true withall that his house was not an ordinary familie but a garrison of Souldiers 2. That he called together his kinsmen and neare friends Acts 10.24 3. That ver 2. This whole house feared God 4. That no other are nominated to have been baptized but those who had heard the word ver 44. which spake with tongues and magnified God ver 46. which received the holy Ghost ver 47. who were saved by Peters words Acts 11.14
men therefore they may and ought to receive the outward signe of Baptisme The major proposition that they who are made partakers of the inward grace may not be debarred of the outward signe is undeniable it is Peters argument Acts 10. Can any forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the holy Ghost as well as wee And againe for as much as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us what was I that I could withstand God And this is so cleare that the most learned of the Anabaptists doe readily grant that if they knew any infant to have received the inward grace they durst not deny them the outward signe and that the particular infants whom Christ took up in his armes and blessed might have been baptized The Question between us is whether the infants of believers universally or indifferently are to be admitted to the Sacrament of Baptisme according to ordinary rule Now I suppose you doe not hold that the infants of believers indifferently have actually the thing signified by Baptisme that is the Holy Ghost union with Christ adoption forgivenesse of sinnes regeneration and everlasting life for then they are all sanctified and are all believers and if this could be proved there would be no question about Paedobaptisme the texts Act. 8.37 Act. 10.47 Act. 11.17 would undeniably prove it and therefore there is no Antipaedobaptist I thinke but will grant your Major That regenerate persons united to Christ whose sins are forgiven adopted persons that have received the Holy Ghost are to be baptized But I conceive though in the laying down the Major you use these phrases who have the thing signified who have the heavenly part and in your Minor are made partakers yet you do not mean in this Assumption actuall having and being made partakers of the inward grace of Baptism concerning which the Antipaedobaptists do so readily grant the Major but a potentiall having or as you after speak being capable of the inward grace and so you use the fallacy of equivocation in the Major having being understood of actuall having and in the Minor of potentiall which makes four terms and so the Syllogisme is naught Or if you do mean in both actuall having you mean it only of some Infants of Believers not of all of whom the Question is and so your conclusion is but particular that some Infants of Believers who are sanctified actually are to be baptized But this will not reach home to your tenet or practice concerning the baptizing of all Infants of Believers in as much as they are the children of Believers without the consideration of actuall faith or sanctification It is true the Lutheranes do teach that Infants have actuall faith and are regenerate in Baptisme and therefore in Colloquio Mompelgarâ—ensi upon the fourth Artic. de Baptismo they put these among the Positions they reject as contrary to the Scripture Non omnes infantes qui baptizantur gratiae Christi participes esse regenerari infantes carere fide nihilominus baptizari that all the Infants which are baptized are not partakers of the grace of Christ and regenerate that Infants want faith and neverthelesse are baptized And I remember when I lived in Oxford there was a book published in English of Baptismal initiall regeneration of elect Infants the Position whereof was opposed as favouring the doctrine of conferring grace by Baptisme ex opere operato by the work wrought and intercision of regeneration sith according to that doctrine a person might have the Spirit initially in infancy and though it could not fall away finally as being an elect person yet might run out in a continued course of sinning grosse and scandalous sins with full consent untill his dying day which doth enervate the urging of that Text 1 John 3.9 against Apostasie of regenerate persons when out of it is proved that raigning sin is not in the regenerate and the like texts which in that Controversie are urged against Arminans With that book Dr. Featley in his late feeble and passionate Tract against Anabaptists and Antiprelatists concurs pag. 67. in these words Nay so farre are they from excluding faith from Infants that are baptized that they believe that all the children of the faithfull who are comprised in the covenant with their fathers and are ordained to eternall life at the very time of their baptisme receive some hidden grace of the Spirit and the seed of faith and holinesse which afterwards bears fruit in some sooner in some later And since I came to London I met with a Book intituled A Christian plea for Infants Baptisme by S.C. who holds positions somewhat like to the Lutherans that though children of believing parents be not all holy and righteous they may degenerate apostatize yet the Infants of believing parents are righteous by imputation are believers and confessors imputatively c. pag. 10. and elsewhere And he hath this passage pag. 3. It is a sure truth that the sins of the parents being forgiven the Lord will not impute the same unto their Infants Originall sin I say taketh no more hold on the Infants then on their parents and touching actuall sin they are as clear as their parents Many more like passages there are in that Book these I mention that you may see what stuffe Paedobaptists do feed the people with But I suppose you do not hold that all Infants of Believers either actually or initially or imputatively are sanctified regenerated adopted justified as knowing how contrary this is to Rom. 9.6 c. to daily experience to the doctrine of Beza and his Collegues at Monâ—pelgart to the reformed Churches of Geneva c. and what advantage it gives to Papists Lutherans Arminians and those that follow the way of Tomson in his Diatribe of which I suppose you are not ignorant and therefore conceiving you orthodox in this point the answer to your Syllogisme is either by shewing it doth not conclude the question if your Minor and conclusion be understood of actuall having the inward grace and they be particular only If you understand them of actuall having and they be universall then I deny your Minor If your Major be understood of potentiall having I deny it if of actuall and the Minor be of potentiall there be four terms and so the Syllogisme is naught Take away the ambiguity of your terms and the answer is easie But for the proof of your Minor you say thus And for the Assumption or Minor That the Infants of Believers even while they are Infants do receive the inward grace as well as grown men is as plain not only by that speech of the Apostle who saith they are holy but our Saviour saith expresly Mark 10. That to such belongs the Kingdome of God as well as to grown men And whereas some would evade it by saying that the Text saith not To them belongs the kingdome of God but of such is the Kingdome of heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
baptize into the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit that is with invocation of the name of the Lord as Acts 22.16 Paul is bid arise and be baptized and wash away his sinnes calling on the name of the Lord. Which infants cannot doe with devoting themselves to the service and adherence of the Father Son and holy Spirit which may be gathered from this that Paul said 1 Cor. 13.15 he had baptized none into his name that is he had not caused them in their baptisme to devote or addict themselves to him as their Master but infants cannot so devote themselves to Christ therefore they are not to be baptized according to this institution 4. Christ bids the Apostles presently after baptisme teach them to observe what â—ver he commanded them but infants cannot doe this therefore they are not to be baptized Likewise baptizing infants doth not agree with the primitive practise of John Baptist and the Apostles who required expressions of repentance and faith afore Baptisme Mat. 3.6 Mark 1.5 Luk. 3.10 Acts 2.38 8.12 13.37 9.18 10.47 11.17 18. 16.15.31 32 33. 18.8 19.5.8.22.16 in which places profession of repentance and faith is still made the antecedent to Baptisme but this doth not agree to infants therefore they are not to be baptized Of these arguments you answer onely to the two first from institution and to the last from example to the first from institution you answered before and there I examined your answer part 3. sect 12 13. To the second from institution and to the last from example you make some answer here not denying that the order appointed by Christ is first to teach and then to baptize for that is so manifest that your selfe page 35. doe so paraphrase the words when you say expresse command there is that they should teach the heathen and the Jewes and make them disciples and then baptize them nor by denying that John Baptist and the Apostles required expressions of faith and repentance afore Baptisme nor by denying that the institution of Christ and the Apostles example are our rule in the administring the Sacraments so as that we cannot vary from them without will-worship and prophaning the worship of God by our inventions for that is so confessed a truth that there hath been a great while scarce a Sermon before the Parliament but hath asserted that rule and pressed it on the Parliament and our solemne Covenant supposeth it the Churches of Scotland New-England c. The Sermons in the Citie continually a vow it and urge it and upon this ground former and later reformations are urged But you have two miserable evasions You say I answer First that of Mat. 28. is not the institution of baptisme it was instituted long before to be the seale of the Covenant it 's only an inlargement of their commission whereas before they were onely to goe to the lost sheepe of the house of Israel now they are to goe unto all the world Whereunto I reply 1. If this be not the first institution of baptisme yet it is an institution and the institution of baptisme to us Gentiles and therefore the rule by which Ministers are to baptize there being no other institution that I know of to regulate our practise by but such as is gathered from John Baptist the Apostles practise and sayings 2. If institution or appointment of God must warrant our practise in Gods worship which you once held in the Sermon cited before part 2. sect 9. then you must shew another institution else you cannot acquit paedobaptisme from will-worship and your selfe from breaking the hedge God hath set about the second Commandement But you adde further And beside it is no where said that none were baptized but such as were first taught and what reason wee have to believe the contrary you have before seene Your selfe say presently in the next words It is said indeed that they taught and baptized and no expresse mention of any other then of the baptisme of persons taught and you assigne a reason of it And page 35. your selfe paraphrase the institution Mat. 28.19 Expresse command there is that they should teach the heathen and the Jewes and make them disciples and then baptize them and consequently there is no expresse command for any other and for the reason you have to beleeve that others are to be baptized which are not taught it hath been examined in the weighing your virtuall consequence which is grounded upon such a principle as in time you may see to be a dangerous precipice how ever for the present the great consent of Doctors in the reformed Churches dazzles your eyes for my part I cannot yet discerne but that your grounds for paedobaptisme are worse then the Papists and Ancients who build it on Joh. 3.5 Rom. 5.12 But you yet adde Secondly it is said indeed that they taught and baptized and no expresse mention made of any other but the reason is plaine there was a new Church to be constituted all the Jewes who should receive Christ were to come under another administration You say right therefore none other were to be baptized but taught persons because though the invisible Church of the Gentiles were joyned to the invisible of the Jewes Rom. 11.17 Ephes. 2.14 15 16. by faith of the Gospel as Ephes. 3.6 it is expounded yet the outward estate of the Church is new and as you say even the Jewes who should receive Christ were to come under a new administration even those who were Jewes by nature and not proselytes were to be baptized as uncleane persons contrary to their former administration in which they were onely circumcised and this is a plaine evidence that the administration of Circumcision is not the administration under which wee are now but that it did belong to that administration which is now abolished which is enough to overthrow all your virtuall consequence from circumcision to baptisme and consequently all the former dispute of your first argument in which circumcision of infants is indeed the alone prop of baptizing infants As for that which you adde And their infants were to come in onely in their right This overthrows your second argument for that is grounded upon this that infants of believers and particularly infants of believing Jewes such as those are supposed to be Mark 10.14 were partakers of the inward grace of baptisme and if so they came in by their own right But that one mans right to baptisme should give another right to baptisme is a position that the Scripture doth not deliver and inwraps sundry errors which I now omit because it comes in onely upon the by But you goe on And the heathen nations who were to be 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 John and Christs disciples and Apostles did teach before they baptized
you and Mr. Blake aim at But your words concerning the knowledge of the will of Christ as the rule of baptizing rather advantage the Antipaedobaptists who know no other rule to baptize by but the condition you truly propound of profession of faith and therefore conceive your words a good plea for them But you further say And in this the rule to direct our knowledge is as plain for Infants as for grown men the rule having been alwayes this that grown men who were strangers from the covenant of God unbelievers Pagans Heathens should upon their being instructed and upon profession of their faith and promise to walk according to the rule of the covenant be received and added to the Church and made partakers of the seal of their entrance and their Infants to come in with them both sorts upon their admission to be charitably hoped of untill they give signes to the contrary charity being bound from thinking of evill of them not bound to conclude certainly of any of them because they ought to know that in all ages all are not Israel who are of Israel and that many are called but few chosen That the rule for baptizing Infants should be so plain as the rule to direct our knowledge about baptizing grown men professors of faith I wonder you should say it much more that you should preach and print it sith your selfe confesse pag. 34. no expresse command in the new Testament that they should be baptized no expresse example where children were baptized but on the other side pag. 35. you say expresse command there is that they should teach the Heathen and the Jews and make them disciples and then baptize them And I hope you do not imagine that a rule gathered by virtuall consequence is so plain as that which is expresse it may be as true but it is not possible it should be so plain But the truth of that additionall rule of Infants coming in with their parents hath been examined and as yet it hath been found to me neither plain nor true YOu go on to the fourth Objection But all who enter into covenant and receive the seal of the covenant must stipulate for their parts as well as God doth for his they must indent with God to perform the Believers part of the covenant as well as God doth to perform his part as even this Text 1 Pet. 3. requires that Baptisme which saves us must have the answer of a good conscience to God Now although it be granted that Infants are capable of receiving the first grace if God be pleased to work it in them yet what answer of a good conscience can there be from Infants unto God they having not the use of reason and not knowing what the covenant means For my part I own not this objection taken from the generall nature of the covenant as if it did exclude Infants or that particular text 1 Pet. 3.21 For the word used for a Covenant may be as well translated a Testament and the Holy Ghost Gal. 3. and Heb. 9. doth use it in that notion and it may be that covenants of another may be by interpretation of Law as their covenant as in the covenant of the Israelites with the Gibeonites And for that text however Beza translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by stipulation and in his Annotation on that place sayes The Apostle had respect to the interrogations of Catechists in which the catechised even then did witnesse their inward baptisme to be confirmed by the outward as Acts 8.37 whereto sayes he belongeth the Apostles Creed and that translated from the baptisme of grown persons to the baptisme of Infants by a greater error if you consider the Infants themselves Dost thou believe I do believe Dost thou renounce I do renounce Whence that of Tertullian which is as it were in the stead of a Commentary on this place in his book of the resurrection of the flesh The soul is established not by washing but by answering I say though Beza do upon second thoughts and neerer consideration conceive this to be the meaning yet I build not on it as being doubtfull and in mine apprehension it rather notes an effect of Baptisme and the resurrection of Christ then a prerequisite condition and there are other plain places before alledged which do prove the thing that the baptized were to professe and promise or to use your phrase seal which I deny not to be the phrase of John Baptist Joh. 3.33 as Acts 8.37 c. So that the objection is the same with the second Now let us see what you answer you say thus The Infants of the Jews were as much tied as the Infants of Believers under the Gospel every one who was circumcised was bound to keep the whole Law Gal. 5. And these men professe that Israelitish Infants were within the old covenant when yet they knew not what it meant nor could have the same use of it with their parents and others of discretion look what answer they will make for the Jews Infants if true will abundantly satisfie for the Infants of Believers under the Gospel It is true this answer serves turn against those that argue from the generall nature of a covenant but it is no answer against those that only urge Instituton and Apostolicall practice as our rule As for that which you here and all along in your Book suppose that there is the same reason of the mixt covenant made with Abraham as with the pure Covenant of the Gospel and of every Believer as of Abraham and of Baptisme as of Circumcision it is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chief error which misleads you throughout your Sermon and makes you speak and write in a dialect which in the Scripture is unknown And for that which you say that the Infants of the Jews were as much tied as the Infants of Believers under the Gospel if you mean it of common duties of Euangelicall obedience it is true if you mean it thus which alone serves for your purpose that persons to be baptized now are no more tied to make profession of faith before Baptisme then Infants of the Jews were tied to make profession of faith afore Circumcision it is false For there is now plain Text for the requiring of it before Baptisme but not before Circumcision But you say every one that was circumcised was bound to keep the whole Law Gal. 5. True and therefore circumcision was in the use of it diametrally opposite to the use of Baptisme You say and these men professe that the Israelitish Infants were within the old Covenant when yet they knew not what it meant and then say look what answer they will make for the Jews Infants if true will abundantly satisfie for the Infants of Believers under the Gospel If you mean this concerning the reason why the Christians Infants should not be baptized though the Jews Infants were circumcised this is a true and satisfactory answer
the reformation of these Churches according to Gods Word unto which wee have both bound our selves by solemne Covenant I have endeavoured not to let passe any thing of weight either in your Sermon or Master Thomas Goodwins which I could well remember or Master Blakes or any other that have published any thing about this matter of late It is an endlesse businesse to make a severall answer to every one I chose to answer yours because you are stiled the antesignanus Ensigne-bearer in print and for other reasons given in the Prologue My motion is that there may be an agreement among those that have appeared in publique in this cause to joyne either in a reply to this examen of your Sermon or in some other worke in which I may see together the whole strength embattailed and not be put to weary out my selfe in reading every Pamphlet of which there are too many indigested ones now adayes printed even with License and for the buying of which as now my estate is I doubt whether my purse will furnish me If I may have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 daily bread for mee and mine in a narrow compasse it will be as much as I may looke for The small stipend I had is likely to be even now subtracted If there be any willingnesse in you to have any conference with mee to consult about a way of brotherly and peaceable ventilating this point I shall be ready upon notice to give you the meeting and I hope it shall appeare that I shall not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 stiffe in opinion in case truth shining before me present my errour to my view and I hope the like of you I shall waite a moneth after your receiving this writing to know whether any of these motions take place with you hoping you will not disdaine to let me have advertisement of your minde by some letter or message I would faine have truth and peace and love goe hand in hand if it may be though of these three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is meet to preferre truth as Aristotle said long since It will be no griefe of heart to you at the day of resignation of your spirit that you have done nothing against the truth but for the truth You have now my writing as I have yours one day Jesus Christ shall judge us both Consider what I say and the Lord give you understanding in all things Thus prayeth From the house belonging to the Rectory of Gabriel Fanchurch in London December 7. 1644. Delivered to him Dec. 9. 1644. Your brother and fellow-servant in the worke of Christ JOHN TOMBES Inscribed thus To the reverend and worthy Mr Stephen Marshall B. D. these present As it is now printed it is enlarged in sundry places occasioned by sundry Books published since the first writing of it Colossians 2.11 12. Proves not Infant-Baptisme An Appendix to these Treatises in an Answer to a Paper framing an Argument for Infant-Baptisme from Coloss. 2.11 12. SIR YOUR Paper exhibites an Argument for Infant-Baptisme in this form That may be said to be written without which that which is written cannot be true This I grant But that which is said Colos. 2.11 12. of the compleatnesse with respect to Ordinances in the new Testament could not be true unlesse Baptisme were to Believers children as Circumcision was of old because it cannot be understood of the compleatnesse that Believers have in Christ for salvation for that the Jews had in Christ in the old Testament but yet they had a token of the Covenant to their children Ergo so they must now or else that cannot be true Answ. This Argument supposeth sundry things whereof somewhat is true somewhat false 1. It is true That the believing Jews were compleat in Christ for salvation For so was David Abraham c. who were justified by faith Rom. 4. Gal. 3. Heb. 11. 2. It supposeth that the Apostle Colos. 2.11 12. mentions Baptisme to shew that we are as compleat as the Jews in respect of outward Ordinances whereas the Apostle speaks not vers 10. of compleatnesse by reason of outward ordinances but sayes we are compleat in Christ without outward ordinances and that is his very Argument to disswade them from embracing the Jewish ordinances vers 8. yea it is plain that the Apostle makes the Jews incompleat by reason of their outward ordinances and that it is our compleatnesse that we have all in Christ without outward ordinances vers 17. Nor doth the Apostle mention Baptisme to shew that we are equall to the Jews in outward ordinances for the Apostles assertion is that we are compleat in Christ exhibited without outward ordinances and so the better for want of them but to shew how we put on Christ and so are compleat in him and therefore he mentions Faith as well as Baptisme as in like manner he doth Gal. 3.26 27. Rom. 6.3 c. Besides if that by being baptized we are compleat in outward ordinances then we need no other ordinance and consequently the Lords Supper should be needlesse 3. It is supposed that Circumcision was a token of the Covenant to their children But this is ambiguous in some sense it is true in some sense it is not true It was a token of the Covenant made to Abraham to wit First that God made such a Covenant with Abraham Secondly that God required them to keep the conditions of it But it is not true in these senses First that every person circumcised or to be circumcised of right had a title to the promises of the Covenant Secondly that this title to the promises of the Covenant was the reason why they were circumcised 4. It is supposed that if our children have not a token of the Covenant now as the Jews had that it cannot be true that we are compleat as the Jews But there is not a shadow of proof for it in the Text. And it is grounded on these false assertions First that the Jews children were in the Covenant of Grace because they were Abrahams naturall seed Secondly that a Believers children now are in the Covenant of Grace because they are a Believers children which things are expresly contrary to Rom. 9.6 7 8. 5. It is supposed that the Jews having salvation by Christ had also a compleatnesse by outward ordinances It is true that compared with the Gentiles that served dumb Idols they were compleat by reason of outward ordinancâ—s For their outward ordinances did shadow Christ to come and so did not the Rites of the Gentiles But compared with Christians since Christ manifested in the flesh so they were incompleat in respect of outward ordinances and so the Apostle determines Gal. 4.1 2 3. 6. It is supposed that without a succession of some ordinance in stead of Circumcision we are not compleat in Christ or at least not so compleat as the Jews But this I account to be false and very dangerous 1. False because it is contrary
to that which the Apostle asserts that we are compleat in Christ alone because in him is the fulnesse of all that was shadowed in the ordinances of the Jews 2. It is very dangerous because the same reason that will conclude that we are not compleat without a succession of some ordinance in stead of Circumcision will conclude we are not compleat without a succession of something in stead of sacrifices Temple Priest Altar c. and so after the Popish manner all Jewish Rites may be reduced under new names which would overthrow Christianitie As for our compleatnesse in Christ without outward ordinances like to the Jewes I distinguish of a twofold compleatnesse First in all the will of God Colos. 4.12 And thus we are compleat without such ordinances we may do all the will of God believing in Christ without observing any of those ordinances Secondly of means in ordine ad finem in order to the end that is to the knowledge of God and obtaining salvation And so we are more compleat then the Jews without those outward ordinances or any answerable to them First because they had Christ only promised and assured we have â—hrist exhibited and fulfilling all things And surely they that have a promise accomplished are compleater then they that have it only assured let it be assured never so firmly Secondly because they had Christ under shadows we the body Colos. 2.17 he is the true Shecinah or Divine Majesty in whom the fulnesse of the glory of God dwelt Col. 2.9 he was circumcision sacrifices all And the woman is more compleat that enjoyes her husband in person then in a picture messenger c. that represent him The Jews were compleat in Christ as we quoad rem in respect of the thing but not quoad modum mensuram rei in respect of the manner and measure thereof So that in the Argument these Propositions are to be denied 1. That Colos. 2.11 12. speaks of compleatnesse with respect to Ordinances in the new Testament 2. That it could not be true unlesse Baptisme were to Believers children as Circumcision was of old 3. That Colos. 2.11 12. cannot be understood of the compleatnesse that Believers have in Christ for salvation 4. In some sense it is to be denied that the Jews had a token of the Covenant to their children 5. In what sense it is to be granted that the Jews had a token of the Covenant to their children in that sense the consequence is to be denied that we must have a token of the Covenant of Grace for our children now FINIS Latin passages Enâ—lished in the second Treatise PArt 1. pag. 2. Achilles the champion of the Greeks proverbially put for the strongest argument Pag. 5. Christ came to save by himself all all I say who by him are born again unto God infants and little ones and boyes Pag. 6. That Baptisme is undeâ—stood under the name of new-birth in our Lords and the Apostles phrase openly confirming the Apostolique tradition of the baptisme of little infants against Anabaptisticall impiety Onely I would have the younger who shall light on the works of Irenaeusâ—dmonished â—dmonished that they beware of those editions which that most impudent Monke Feuardentius a man of large boldnesse and of no faith hath foully corrupted in many things and bespattered with impious and lying annotations Are born again Therefore being a master he had also the age of a master not rejecting nor going beyond a man nor loosing the law of humane kind in himself but sanctifying every age by that likenesse which was to him For he came to save all men by himself all men I say who by him are new born unto Gâ—d infants and little ones and boyes and young men and elder men Therefore he went through every age and was made an infant sanctifying infants among little ones a little one sanctifying them that have this age being also made an example to them of piety and justice and subjection Among young men being made an example to young men and sanctifying them to the Lord so also an elder to the elder that he might be a perfect mâ—ster not onely according to the exposition of the truth but also according to age sanctifying also the elder being made also an example to them And then he went even unto death that he might be the first-bâ—rn from the dead holding the primacy in all things the Prince of life before all and preceding all Pag. 7. But we shall the lesse trouble our selves concerning Origen because the things we cited are not extant in Greek In the margin If therefore any man before Pelagius was born or before Arius arose be shaâ—p and vehement against the errours of Pelagians and vexing them professedly although the name of the heretiques be suppressed it is not probable that such a writing is the Authors whose name it 〈…〉 Pag. 8. For this also the Church hath received a tradition from the Apâ—stles and according to the observance of the Church The seal to them that enter into a course of life In the margin Notwithstanding the custome of our mother the Church in baptizing little ones is not to be despised nor by any means to be accounted superfluous nor at all to be beleeved unlesse it had been an Apostolicall tradition Pag. 11. That infants are presently to be baptized that they perish not because mercy is not to be denyed them Pag. 13. Lest little ones should perish if they should die without the remedie of the grace of regeneration they determined that they were to be baptized for the remission of sins Which also St. Augustine shews in his book of the baptisme of little ones and the African Councels witnesse and many documents of other Fathers But the father or mother ought not to stand for their own childe at the Font that there may be a difference between spirituall begetting and carnall But if it happen by chance they shall have after that no fellâ—wship of carnall copulation who have undertaken the spirituall bond of co-fatherhood in a common son What say you to these things Lo I have not brought out of Augustine but out of the Gospel which sith ye say ye chiefly beleeve either yeeld ye at length that by the faith of others others may be saved or deny if ye can those things which I have laid down to be of the Gospel Pag. 14. in the margin And I was signed with the signe of his crosse and I was seasoned with his salt from the wombe of my mother who much hoped in thee Pag. 15. in the margin Augustine adjudgeth to eternall flames the Infants that die without baptisme Likewise whosoever shall say that even the little ones shall be made alive in Christ who go out of this life without the participation of his Sacrament he truly goeth both against the Apostles preaching and condemns the whole Churcb The most strong and founded faith in which the Church of Christ beleeves that no not
little ones most lately born can be freed from damnation unlesse by the grace of the name of Christ which he hath commended in his Sacraments Pag. 16. Neither let that move thee that some do not bring little ones to receive baptisme with that faith that they may be regenerated by spirituall grace unto life eternall but because they think that by this remedy they keep or receive temporall health For not therefore are they not regenerate because they are not offered by them with this intention For necessarie ministeries are celebrated by them It is answered he doth beleeve by reason of the Sacrament of faith Pag. 18. in the margin Lastly who seeth not that this was the manner of that time when scarce the thousandth person was baptized afore he was of grown age and diligently exercised among the catechized Part. 2. Pag. 21. These to the rest of the errours which they borrowed from the Manichees and Priscillianists added this over and above that they said that the baptisme of little ones was unprofitable inasmuch as it could profit none who could not both himself beleeve and by himself ask the Sacrament of baptisme of which kind we read not that the Manichees and Priscillianists taught any thing They mock us because we baptize infants because we pray for the dead because we ask the suffrages of the Saints They beleeve not that Purgatory fire remains after death but that the soul loosed from the body doth presently passe either to rest or to damnation But now they who acknowledge not the Church it is no marvell if they detract from the orders of the Church if they receive not their appointments if they despise Sacraments if they obey not commands Because he took away Festivals Sacraments Temples Priests because the life of Christ is shut up from the little ones of Christians while the grace of baptisme is denied nor are they suffered to draw neer to salvation Pag. 23. We perceive in the man dexterity and a study of mediocrity But in that man I desire to be deceived I have seemed to my self to have found nothing but immoderate thirst of wealth and glory A fanatique man and grosse Anabaptist Pag. 24. They would seem studious of truth Pag. 25. The word of the Lord. From the staffe to the corner A proverbiall speech in Schools when one thing is inferred from another which have no connexion They who all along these places of Belgick and lower Germany are found bordering on this Anabaptisticall heresie are almost all followers of this Mennon whom I have named to whom now this Theodorick hath succeeded In whom for a great part you may perceive tokens of a certain godly mind who being incited by a certain unskilfull zeal out of errour rather then malice of mind have departed from the true sense of Divine Scriptures and the agreeing consent of the whole Church which may be perceived by this that they alwayes resisted the rage of Munster and Batenburgick that followed after stirred up by John Batenburg after the taking of Munster who plotted a certain new restitution of the kingdom of Christ which should be placed in the destruction of the wicked by outward force And they tauâ—ht thâ—t the instauration and propagation of the kingdom of Christ consists in the crosse alone whereby it happens that they which are such mâ—y seem rather worthy of pity and amendment then persecution and perdition Pag. 28. What part of time Pag. 48. Hâ—w it may be that Israel may be rejected but that together the Covenant of God established with Abraham and his seed should seem to be made void In the margin The credit of that promise Gen. 17.7 8. doth presently appear to be brought into danger by the rejecting of the Jews and the exclusion of them out of the Covenant of God sith they are born of Abraham according to the flâ—sh so saith he it appeares to them that look upon the first fâ—ce of things The Apostle shews thâ—t theâ—efâ—re the word of the Covenant and divine promises made to Israel failed not or was made void aâ—though a great part of the Jews were unbelieving because those promises of the Câ—venant are of God not to them properly who were to come from the seed of Abraham according to the flesh but to those who were to be ingraffed into the family of Abraham by vertue of divine promise Pag. 49. The argument of the Apostle to prove the Covenant of God entred into with Abraham doth not comprehend all the posterity of Abraham in its skirt we think should be thus simply framed Esau and Jacob were of the pâ—sterity of Abraham but God did not comprehend both of these in his Covenant with Abraham Therefore not all the posterity of Abraham It is proved that God did not comprehend both in the Covenant of grace because he did not comprehend Esau the elder but Jacob the younger Pag. 50. There are many of the seed of Abraham to whom the word of promise doth not belong as Ismael and Ismaelites But if so there be many of the seed of Abraham to whom the word of promise doth not belong then the rejâ—ction of many Jews who are of the seed of Abraham doth not make void the word of promise In the margin Calvin gathers hence in that any is the seed of Abraham the promise made to Abraham belongs to him but the answer is manifest that promise understood of spirituall blessing pertaines not to the carnall seed of Abraham but to the spirituall as the Apostle himselfe hath interpreted it Rom. 4. 9. For if you understand the carnall seed now that promise will belong to none of the Gentiles but to those alone who are begotten of Abraham and Isaac according to the flesh He teacheth also that the promises of God are not tied to the carnall birth but to belong onely to the believing and spirituall posterity For they are not the sons of Abraham who are of Abraham according to the flesh but who are according to the spirit Pag. 51. In the Margin The inculcation also of the seed sheweth that onely the elect and effectually called are noted the Apostle so interpreting this place Rom. 9.8 Gal. 3.16 4.28 Pag. 52. That baptisme doth not certainly seale in all the children of believers the grace of God sith among them some are absolutely reprobated even by an antecedent decree of God from eternity and therefore believers are to doubt of the truth of Gods Covenant I am thy God and the God of thy seed after thee Pag. 58. To be a son of Abraham doth declare nothing else but to be freely elected Rom. 9.8 and to tread in the steps of the faith of Abraham Rom. 4.12 and to doe the workes of Abraham Joh. 8.39 From which is rightly gathered certain expectation of salvation to come Rom. 8.29 Pag. 69. In the Margin Infants in their parents grandfathers great grandfathers grandfathers grandfathers have refused the grace of the Gospel by which act
they have deserved that they should be forsaken of God For I would to me c. For it is the perpetuall reason of the Covenant of God that sons arâ— comprehended and reckoned in parents To which D r Twisse thus opposeth in his answer Nor any where in sacred Scripture is it signified that God hath made such a Covenant with man fallen that if he would believe he should obtaine grace to him and his posteritie on the contrary if he should not believe he should lose grace for him and his posteritie which kinde of Covenant all Divines acknowledge to have been entered into with Adam under the Condition of obedience Pag. 71. In the Margin It is manifest that the believers marrying with Gentiles are guilty of uncleannesse and to be kept from all communication of the fraternitie from the Letters of the Apostle saying that with such meat is not to be eaten Pag. 73. First because the reason is uncertaine for though it sometimes be so done yet for the most part it is otherwise He spake in the preterperfect tense hath been sanctified not shall be sanctified signifying a thing already determined and finished and not a thing for the time to come uncertain either to be wished or expected The believing wife may with a good conscience keep company with the unbelieving husband for why should anothers conscience defile her Therfore it is said the unbelieving not in himself but in his wife that is in respect of his wife is holy The same we are to judge of the other member Pag. 74. This is the minde of the Apostle that he may teach that the believer is not to depart from the unbelieving yokefellow consenting to dwell together For proving of which an argument from an uncertain event and by accident is equally unfit as a little before Hence that opinion is refuted that then when the unbeliever shall be converted holy children will be begotten For what if that never be Pag. 76. Of that ceremoniall holinesse what shall I say It came into Augustines minde but good God! how strange verily some things are so absurd that they deserve not to be refuted Well The Apostle hath said that if the unbelieving husband be not sanctified in the believing wife it will be that the children borne from thence are uncleane Therefore all so borne are uncleane or else the Apostle spake false What then Are all borne of those parents whereof one is not sanctified in the other begotten in the monethly courses Doe unbelieving husbands never use their wives but in their monethly courses So it must be verily or this interpretation is ridiculous Of that Covenant-holinesse what shall I say It came into Chamiers Calvins c. minds but good God! how strange verily some things are so absurd that they deserve not to be refuted Well! The Apostle hath said that if the unbelieving husband be not sanctified in the believing wife it will be that the children borne from thence will be uncleane Therefore all that are so borne are uncleane or the Apostle hath said that which is false What then Are all borne of those parents whereof one is not sanctified in the other without the Covenant of grace Doe fornicating or unbelieving parents never beget children that shall be within the Covâ—nant of grace or federally holy So it must be verily or this interpretation is ridiculous Pag. 77. In the Margin But there is no straiter friendship then of husband and wife which requires communion of affections body off-spring lastly of the whole life which all Nations have with great consent believed to be a thing truly holy that is not found out by man but by God Pag. 75 By this argument that sanctity is excluded which so ne have brought from education For by that the argument of the Apostle is altogether weakened For this is uncertaine For all know and experience teacheth that neither all husbands are wonne which also the Apostlâ— implies nor that all children obey holy education Besides if any obey yet this effect is accidentall and not from the nature of marriage it sâ—lfe Pag. 89. But sith strangers washed and not circumcised were held with those Lawes onely which God gave to all mankinde it is easie to be understood that this washing was among old institutions arising as I think after the great deluge in memory of the world purged Whence that famous speech among the Greekes The sea washed away all the evils of men Certainly we reade even in the Epistle of Peter that Baptisme is answerable to the flood Pag. 91. It was to be added that not onely to himselfe and in himselfe but also for our use Christ be determined to be such and so great that nothing be wanting in him and that in him alone we may get all things requisite to the true and saving knowledge of God Therefore having gotten fulnesse in Christ wherefore is there need either of humane wisdome or the vaine inventions or ceremonies of men lastly any other thing added besides Christ Pag. 146. In the margin It was knowne to the Jews that God hath been wont to give this honour to Prophets that he would bestow his gifts on others at the Prophets prayers of which imposition of hands was a signe It is manifest also from Gen. 48.14 15. that in that rite prayers were wont to be conceived for children Thence it hath been alwayes observed by the Hebrews that they would bring children to those who were believed to excell others in holinesse to be commended in their prayers to God by laying on of hands which custome as yet continues with them Now this custome Christ approving shewes that the faith and prayers of others profit also that age Pag. 152. As for that which Erasmus subjoynes that John first baptized then preached baptisme it is such that indeed it seems not to need refutation For what When John did say Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand did he not teach those whom he was about to baptize yea verily unlesse he had first taught to what end he did baptize who at last would havâ— come to his baptisme Certainly sith Sacraments are seales it is necessary that the doctrine goe before which they signe Pag. 153. In the margin All these rites of profession of faith c. had their originall from the very institution of baptisme nor ought they to be omitted onely to be dispensed with respect to age FINIS §. 1. The prologue Of the occasion and enâ— of this writing §. 2. Of the stating the question partition of the Treatise sum of the Answer to the Testimonies of Antiquity for Infant-baptisme §. 3. Of the pretended Testimony of Justine Martyr §. 4. Of Irenaeuâ— his Testimony §. 5. Of the supposed testimony of Origen Si igitur aliquis ante â—atuâ— Pelagium vel ante exortum Aâ—ium in Pelagiâ—â—orum Ariaâ—orum erroâ—es acer et vehemens eâ—sque ex professo quamvis Hereticorum nomine suppresso divexaâ—s prâ—bâ—bile non
est tale Scriptuâ— esse â—jus Authoris 〈◊〉 nomen prefâ—rt Rivet tractâ—t de Patrum Authâ—rit cap 14. Consuetudo tamen Man is Ecâ—lesia in baptizandis parvulis nequaquam sperâ—enda est neque ullo modo superflua deputanda nec omnino credenda nisi Apostolica esset traditio Augustin lib. 10. cap. 23. de Genesi § 6. Of the Testimonies of Gregory Nazianzen and the Greeke Church Lib. 2. heresi 47 vel 67. §. 7. Of the testimony of Cyprian §. 8. Of the testimony of Augustine August tâ—m 1. Confess lib. 1. c. 11 Sigâ—abar signo Cruâ—is ejus conâ—iâ—bâ—r ejus saâ—e jam inde ab uteâ—o matris mâ—ae quae multum speravit in te And then followes how being young and falling sick he desired and his mother thought to have him baptized but upon his recovery it was differred Rivet tract de Patrum authoritate c. 9. Augustinus aeternis flammis adjudicat Infantes fine baptismo morientes· §. 9. Of the testimonies of Hierom and Ambrose §. 10. Oâ— the valiâ—ity of proof by these testimonies and of the evidences that Infant-baptism is an innovation Chamier panstr Cathol to 4. l. 5. c. 15. §. 19. Denique hunc morem quis non videt ejus temporis â—sse cum vix milâ—esimus quisque baptâ—zabatur non adultus in Catechumenis diligenter exercitus H. Hamond A practicall Catech l. 1. §. 3. pag. 23. And those other fundamentals of faith which all men were instructed in anciently before they were permitted to be baptized §. 1. Of the fitnes of placing the Narration of miscarriages of opposers of Paedobaptisâ—e §. 2. Of the opposers of Infant-baptisme afore Baltazar § 3. Of Baltazar Pacimontanâ—◠§. 4. Of rebaptizing § 5. Of the Anabaptists in Germanie and the Antiprelatists in England §. 6. Of Anabaptists opposing Magistracy §. 7. Of the hindering of refoâ—mation by Anabaptisme §. 8. The Antipaedobaptists principle overthrows not the Lords day the Paedobaptists principle reduceth Judaisme and Popish Ceremonies and addes to the Gospell Vid. Rainold Confer with Hart c. 8. §. 4. §. 9. Of the evill of separating from the Ministry and Communion of Christians by reason of this opinion §. 10. Of the condition into which the opinion of Anti-paedobaptisme puts the infants of believers of originall sin salvation out of the Church and Covenant of grace §. 1. Of the connexion between the covenant and the seale §. 2. Of the first conclusion concerning the identity of the Covenant of grace fâ—r substâ—nce to Jews and Gâ—ntiles §. 3. Of the meaning of the second Conclusion The answer of the Assembly of Divines to the reasons of the 7 dissenting brâ—thren p. 48 praecog 1. The whole Churâ—h of Christ is but one made up of the collection and aggregation of all who are called out of the world by the preaching of the Word to professe the faith of Christ §. 4. That the Covenant of grace is not made to believers and their seed Twisse vind Grat. cont Armin. lib. 1. pa. 1. digr 7. Hujus autem promissionis Gen. 17.7 8. fides confestim apparet in discrimen adâ—uci ex rejectione Judaeorum exclusione eorundem ex foedâ—re Dei cum fint ex Abrahamo sâ—cundum carnem prosminati sic inquit apparet primas rerum facies intuentibus Walae cont Corvin cap. 15. pag. 377. Apostolus ostendit ideo verbum foederis divinarum promissionum Israelitis factarum non excidere aut irritum fieri licet magna Judaeorum pars esset incredula quia promissiones illae foedâ—ris factae sunt a Deo non iis proprie qui ex semine Abrahami secundum carnem erant orituri sed iis qui secundum electionâ—m gratuitam Abrahami familiae ex vi diâ—ina promissionis erant inserendi The new Annotations on the Bible Annot. on Rom. 9.8 The children of the flesh c Not all they who are carnally born of Abraham by the course of nature are the children of God to whom the promise of grace was made but the childâ—en of promise that is those who were born by vertue of the promise those who by Gods speciall grace were adopted as Isaac by a speciall and singular promise was begot by Abraham they only are accounted for thaâ— seed mentioned in the Covenant I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Estius annot ad Gen. 17.7 Colligit hinc Calvinus â—o ipso quo quis est semen Abrahae ad cum pertinere prâ—missionem Abrahae factam sed responsio manifesta prâ—missionem illam de benedictione spirituali intellectam non ad carnale semen Abrahaemi pertinere sed ad spirituale quemadmodum eam ipse Apostolus interpretatâ—â— est Rom. 4 9. Si enim carnale semen intelligas jam ad neminem ex gentibus illa promissio pertinebit sed ad solos ex Abraham Isaac secundum carnem genitos Paraeus Comment in Mat. 3.9 Docet quoque promissiones Dei non alligatas esse carnali origini sed pertinere tantum ad posteros fideles spirituales Non enim sunt filii Abrahae qui secundum carnem sunt ex Abraham sed qui secundum spiritum Ainsworth ann on Gâ—n 12.7 Thy seed That is to all the children of promise the elect who only are couâ—ted Abrahams seed Rom. 9.7 8. and in Christ are heirs by promise as well the Gentiles as the Jews Gal. 3.26.28.29 Ames Coron art 5. cap. 2. Seminis etiam inculcatio solos electos efficaciter vocatos notari docet Apostolo sic hunc titulum interprâ—tante Rom. 9.8 Gal. 3.16 4.28 §. 5. It is not in Gods church like other kingdomes Cotton Way of the Churches of Christ in N.E. c. 4. §. 6. Infants cannot claim right unto baptisme but in the right of one of their parents or both Where neither of the parents can claim right to the â—ords supper there thâ—ir Infants cannâ—t claim right to Baptisme Aâ— therefore we do not receive an heâ—â—hen to the fellowship of the supper nor their seed to Baptism so neither dare we receive an excommunicate person who is to us an heathen to the Lords supper or his children to Baptisme But after â— 7 §. 2. Or where either of the parents have made such profession Or it may be consiâ—ered alâ—o whether the children may not be baptized where either the grand-father or grand-mother have made suâ—h profâ—ssion and are still living to undertake for the Christian education of the child For it may be coâ—ceived where there is a stipulation of the Covenant on Gods part anâ— a restipulation on maâ—s part there may be an obligation of the Covenant on both parts Gen. 17.7 Or if these saile what hindereth but that if the parâ—nts will deâ—â—gne their infant to be educated in the house of any goâ—ly member of the Church the child may be lawfully baptized in the right of its household governour according to the proportion of the Law Gen 17.12 13. §. 6. Of the Texts which are Act.
2. 38 39. Luk 19.9 Annot. on the Bible edit 1645. on Acts 2.36 The promise is unto you Christ is promised both to Iewes and Gentiles but the Iewes had the first place §. 7. Of the text Rom. 11.16 So also the new Annot. on Rom. 11.16 Arminius l. 1. Antiperk p 3. Sect. 6. Infantes in parentibuâ— avis abavis atavis tritavis Evangelii gratiam repudiarunt quo actu meruerunt ut a Deo desererentur velim enim mihi c. Perpetua enim est foederis Dei ratio quod filii in parentibâ—â— comprehendantur censeantur Cui opponit Tuissus ibidem Nec us piam in sacris literis significatur Deum ejusmodi foedus cum homine lapso pepigisse ut si crederet adipisceretur gratiam sibi posteris contra si non crederet sibi posteris suis gratiam amitteret cujusmodifoedus sub conditione obedientiae cum Adamo initum fuisse omnes Theologi agnoscunt §. 8. Of the Text 1 Cor. 7.14 Tertul. lib. 2. ad uxorem cap. 3. Fideles Gentilium matrimonia subcuntes stupri reos esse constat arcendos ab omni communicatione fraternitatis ex literis Apostoli dicentis cum ejusmodi nâ—c cibum sumendum Grot. annot in Mat. 19 5. nulla autem arctior amiâ—itia quaÌ„ mariti uxoris quae communionem requirit affectuum corporis prolis vitae denique totius quam rem esse vere sacram id est non humaniâ—us sed divinitus repertam magno consensu gâ—ntes â—â—ed derunt Grâ—t annot in Maâ— 5.8 So ent pro eodem usurpari 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 §. 9. Of the succession of Baptisme into the place room and use of Circumcision §. 10 Of the notion under which the reasons for which persons were circumcised shewing that all persons that were circumcised were not in the covenant of Grace §. 11. Of the priviledges of Believers under the Gospel and whether the want of Infant-Baptisme be want of a priviledge of the covenant of Grace which the Jews had §. 12. That the command to circumcise male Infants is not virtually a command to baptize Infants §. 13. That Mat. 28. is not a Command to baptize Infants but contrary to it Master Balâ—y A diswasion from the error of the times ch 8. p. 175. argues from this very text in like manner to prove that only Ministers have power to preach the Word ordinarily §. 14. Of examples in Scripture of Infants Baptisme particularly of baptizing of housholds §. 15. Of an infants capacity of inward grace the Text Mat. 19.14 and of the inconsequence of Paedobaptisme thereon Grot. annot ad Mat. 9.18 notum erat Judaeis solere Deum Prophetis hunc exhibere honorem ut in alios dona sua conferret ad prophetarum preces quarum symbolum erat manuum impositio Ad Mat. 19.13 pro pueris etiam eo ritu preces concipi solitas manifestum est ex Gen. 48.14 15. Exinde Hebraeis semper observatum ut ad eos qui sanctimonia praestare caeteris crederentur pucros deserrent ipsorum precibus Deo commendandos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qui mos bodie apud ipsos manet Hunc autem morem Christus probans ostendit isti etiam aetati prâ—desse aliorum fidem ac preces §. 1. Of the first objectioÌ„ from institution Mat. 28.19 and the practise of John Baptist and the Apostles Cotton in his way of the Churches of Christ in New-England Chap 4. sect 6. And indeed the Commission which Christ gave his Apostles holdeth it forth that they were by preaching to make disciples before they baptized them and their children Mat. 28.19 Now a disciple is a Scholler in Christs schoole and therefore when the Apostles were directed to make disciples before they did baptize them they were not onely to coÌ„vert them to the faith but also to gather them as disciples or schollers into a schoole of Christ. Cotton The way of the Churches of Christ in New-England Chap. 1. sect 1. prop. 4. In the times of John the Baptist such as were received into baptisme they did first make confession of their sins and therewith of their repentance and of their faith also in him who was to come after him Mat. 3.13 Act. 19.4 5. And in the times of the Apostles Philip received â—he Eunuch unto baptisme not untill he had made professioÌ„ of his faith in Christ Jesus Act 8.37 Cham. Panstr Cath. tom 4. l. 5. c. 15. §. 19. Hiritus omnes professionis fidei c. ab ipsae baptismi institutione habuerunt originem nec debeÌ„t omitti tantum proaetatis ratione dispensari §. 2. Of the second objection and therein of the condition prerequisite to Baptisme Videatur Chamierus Panstr Cath. tom 4. li. 5. c. 15. Grot. annot on Mat. 28.19 §. 3. Of the third so called objection and therein of the knowledge requisite concerning the person to be baptized §. 4. Of the fourth Objection therein of the stipulation of Baptisme Cotton The way of the Churches of Christ in New-England ch 4. Sect. 5. The Word of God receiveth none to the fellowship of the seals of the covenant but such as professe their takâ—ng hold of the covenant §. 5. Of the fifth Objection and therein of the benefit that comes by Infant-Baptismâ— Dr. Twisse The doctrine of the Synod of Dort Arles c Part 2. § 3. p. 121. I willingly confesse that the Sacrament of Baptisme is the seale of the righteousnesse of faith unto us Christians as Circumcision was unâ—o the Jews Rom. 4. which is as much aâ— to say that it assures us of the remission of our sins as many as believe and I conceive it to be a visible signe of invisible grace and that not of justification only unto them that believe but of the grace of regeneration also but how not at that instant collatae but suo tempore conferendâ— to wit when God shall effectually call a man and it is very strange unto me that regeneration should go before vocation Sâ—e more to the same purpose in the same Author part 3. §. 6. §. 6. Of the sixth objection and therein of Infant-coÌ„munion by vertue of their being in the Covenant the Lords Supper succâ—eding the Passeover Cotton The way of the Churches of Christ in New-England Chap. 1. sect 2. To the Passeover all Jewes were admitted young and old unlesse defiled with some pollution §. 7. Of the first use and the Anabaptists supposed bloudy sentence §. 8. The Epilogue containing some expressions and motions of the Author Mr Stalhams Epistle before a Conference at Terling in Essex