Testament was meerly fleshly c. But I answer there 's no such Covenant extent no distinct Covenant with the fleshly seed distinct from the spirituall His misinterpretation of Gen. 17. from ver 7. to 15. for that purpose I have convinced of vanity in clearing my first argument There was a Covenant indeed that had divers priviledges given to Abraham and continued to a visible Church of his seed wherein were parties of different condition Some carnall some spirituall Now to the carnall though spirituall things were represented and offered yet they only partook of carnall and externall priviledges but the elect partook of the spirituall priviledges also And so is it now in the visible Churches of Christians where are wheat and chaffe carnall and spirituall Christians M. H. premiseth 2. That the Covenant made with Abraham and renewed with Christ in the Gospel was never made with any fleshly seed it s wholly spirituall the signe and sanction spirituall c. appertaining only to a spirituall seed c. But this is a manifest untruth in part and in part misapplied for is Baptisme any more a spirituall seal then circumcision Have all that are Baptised put on Christ really or many in profession only Are all Baptised yea in an unquestionable way spirituall ones What was Simon Magus Are there not yet in visible Churches such a distinction of Christians and Baptisme as there was of Jews and circumcision Rom. 2.38 29 Do not Simon Magus and daily experience shew it True it is that those that are not by profession only but really by faith Children of Abraham they are spirituall c. but this is but the invisible Church under the visible now as it was in Judaisme M. H. himself sets Baptisme to men because they professe not because they beleeve as the title of his book shews and how oft is profession without faith M. H. premiseth 3. That the Gospel-Covenant is more glorious c. Then M. H. answers If he mean by priviledges fleshly c. which if is but to make way for an evasion He knows I mean not a fleshly but an externall priviledge to be of the visible kingdom of Christ of which he that is not is without and in an ordinary way without God and without hope in the world Ephes 2.12 Of which to denude our children and to make their condition as hopeles as Turks is a great discomfort and a straitning the grace of the Covenant for tell me when a Jewish childe did die was there no more hope of him then of a Canaanites childe See 1 Sam. 12.23 and whence that hope but from the Covenant with the seed Gen. 17.7 Deut. 30.6 And is that a carnall priviledge that gives hope of salvation So then M. H. by denying Infants to be within Covenant defalkes or curtails the spirituall priviledges of the Covenant and then his answer is demonstrated to be false CHAP. X. Wherein my last Argument for Infant-Baptisme from the judgement of charity is cleared from M. Harrisons exceptions MY sixth argument was thus Where we have evidence for judgement of charity that there is the grace of the Covenant there we may set to the seal of the Covenant That we have for Infants Ergo. The minor I make good by three positions 1. Children are capable of the grace of the Covenant 2. Some are actually partakers of it 3. Because the children of believers are externally under the Covenant of grace Here M. Harrison answers not punctually but in four particulars 1. The judgement of charity must be guided by a rule and he knows none but Mat. 7.20 By their fruits you shall know them It seems he hath forgotten 1 Cor. 13.5 6.7 where he might have read many more rules of charity It believeth all things hopeth all things that is wherein there is any fair ground and that I have shewed for the grace of the Covenant to be in Infants But saith M. Harrison The spirit bloweth where it listeth Joh. 3.8 Where it is not limited to children of believers more then unbelievers Answ The spirit bloweth where it listeth doth it therefore blow no more in the ministery of the Gospel then in Philosophicall lectures No more in the Church then out of it You will not say it for the spirit that is free hath limited it self by promise to blow ordinarily more in one exercise then another in one society then another and so to one seed then another Deut. 30.6 Isa 59.21 M. H. saith Simon Magus did appear a believer but that hinders not my assertion viz. that profession is only a ground for judgement of charity not certainty as appeared in Simon Magus who by his profession in charity was judged to have what he had not For his second demanding proof That the children brought to Christ were of believing parents Why else were they brought to Christ would they offer their children to Christ that did not themselves believe in him That which M. H. saith thirdly Touching Christs omnisciency is besides the point Sith we in admitting to ordinances proceed not upon judgement of certainty but charity M. Harrison addes Fourthly that though children had grace actually which saith he why children of believers should have more then of unbelievers I know not nor I am perswaded doth M. Geree why then there 's no more hope of a Christians childe dying in innocency then of a Turks which I have shewed both false and dismall to parents yet because they cannot act it by action or profession it s no ground of administration of Baptisme wherein 1. He differs from M. Tombes 2. From the truth for what is the reall ground of claim to seals but being within Covenant or having the grace to be sealed Which if it come to my knowledge any way by fruits or testimony of Gods Word Who can forbid water to those that have received the holy Ghost as well as we Act. 10.47 As the Apostle argues from evidence of the grace of the Covenant there And thus I have cleared the sixth argument from M. Harrison who in this last answer doth so needlesly inculcate the hopelesnesse of Christian Infants for grace and glory are connex that if he have no more comfortable divinity I shall not envy but wonder at and pity the multiplicity of his followers M. Tombes takes notice of this sixth argument pag. 101. and 102. And there denies both the major and the minor And denyes Act. 10.47 to be a proof of the major which I have already made good to M. Harrison The Sacrament is a seal of the Covenant and the grace of it Baptisme is not to seal profession of faith but the righteousnes of faith properly and therefore I conceive the true ground why Baptisme was administred on profession of faith because that profession was an evidence of the righteousnesse of faith and being in the Covenant which it is not in judgement of certainty but charity as Simon Magus his case cleareth If then by any other evidence we
admonishing and excommunicating resides our Saviour saith he hath determined to be Disciples as Disciples Why then are women to doe all this sure they cannot doe this without speaking which is not permitted to them in the Church yet M. H. will not deny women to be Disciples For the person to declare it saies he it must be him whom the Chruch shall elect as he saith appears from 1 Cor. 5.4 5. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ when ye are gathered together and my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ To deliver such an one to Satan And now what expresse testimony is here for the person declaring Just none at all yea indeed that one person declare the sentence in the name of the rest is an act of order to which we are led by the light of nature to avoid confusion For the persons to be excommunicated he findes he saith two sorts 1. Persons after admonition persisting in scandalous sin But first he must know that we read of no admonition appointed to be used to the incestuous person whence some gather that some sins are so grosse that they deserve excommunicanon ipso facto Secondly he should remember the difference that is about enumerating scandalous sins and how that is to be determined by way of collection Secondly he addes such as after pains taken with them to convince them persist peremptory in holding and maintaining Haeresies * Tit. 3.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. Qui novas sibi eligit opiniones cum sundamento salutis pugnantes easque mordicùs defendit Pasor Graec. Lexic Now M. Har. can be content to consult with flesh and blood when he thinks it makes for him for he brings a sentence out of Pasor where saies he observe c. As though his observations were out of the text when they are but out of Pasers exposition I thought he would not have grounded his followers faith on mans authority But what are his observations 1. They must be fundamentall errours but as a Zanch. in 4. praecep able men as Pasor distinguish haeresies into such as are fundamentall and such as are not fundamentall 2. They must be obstinately asserted That is after the first and second admonition 3. They must appear to arise from choise not weaknes but this is a weak observation as though what were of weaknesse could not be of choice Whereas many chuse many things out of weaknes and therefore this was but a poor collection to exempt from censure the grossest haereticks Arrians Antiscripturists c. If they hold these damnable Haeresies unlesse forsooth it appear they doe it out of pravity of heart and affection they shall not be obnoxious to excommunication That is they shall not injoy that remedy to cure their infirmities Is this sound Divinity Thus I have cleared my second thing premised from his exceptions But I must now a little look back and take notice of some passages not only false but foul that have slipt from M. H. pag. 3. Where he tells us that the writings of Moses and the Prophets were as their Covenant was at least the administrations of their Covenant faulty imperfect at the best abstracted from the writings and administrations of the new Covenant Were the writings of Moses and the Prophets faulty and imperfect without the writings and administrations of the new Testament Then they were so till the new Testament was written and the administration of it instituted And what is this but to exclude all under the old Testament from compleat means of salvation and so from salvation it self which how false horrid uncharitable and popish is it Popish I say for if this be true the Saints of the old Testament could not enter into blisse till Christ were exh bited and so must be imagined to be in some limbo Nay how apparantly contradictory is his assertion to many dictates of the holy Ghost Psal 19.7 The Law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul Prov. 30.5 Psal 12.6 Every word of God is pure 2 Tim. 3.15 16. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God c 2 Pet. 1.21 Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man but holy men spake as they were moved by the holy Ghost and can these writings be faulty Is not this to charge the holy Ghost foolishly which is no lesse then blasphemy He saith also that it could not be said of Moses thou hast the words of aternall life as of Christ Joh. 6.68 I confesse the Lord hath somewhat peculiar above the servant But were not the Scriptures of the old Testament the words of life yea of eternall life what then became of those that had no other means of salvation or what thinks he of that Spirit of our Saviour Iohn 5.39 But M. H. urgeth Heb. 8. 8 9. where finding fault with them he said behold the daies come saith the Lord when I will make a new Covenant with the house of Iudah not according to the Covenant c. But the Covenant there faulted is the Covenant of works the condition whereof was the Law given on mount Sinai which typified the Covenant of works Gal. 4 24. But had the Jews no other Covenant thinks he but that Had they not promises and tipes holding forth Christ Had not Abraham the Gospel preached to him Gal. 3 8. Did not Moses know and suffer for Christ Heb. 11.26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches M. H. should therefore have considered that not all that was revealed by Moses and the Prophets was faulted but the Covenant of works only They had the Cnvenant of grace also which God promised at the exhibition of Christ to reveal more clearly and dispence the grace of it more plentifully and this M. H. might learn if he were as willing to receive instruction from expositours on such places as this as he was from Pasor on Tit. 3.10 My third thing premised was to take the state of the question as M. Martiall stated it In which M. H. r. saith he shall freely joyn issue Though he saith that it is a strange fallacy of the times to Baptize all infants and to undertake the defence of Baptizing some onely Nay afterwards he saith I Baptize more then I am able to make good But the truth is the stating of the question touching children of believers is neither a fallacy nor flowes it from disability but to distinguish controversies and facilitate the dispute for he knowes well enough that these are distinct disputes whether children of any believers are to be Baptized and what profession of faith doth make a man so to be reputed a believer as to convey this priviledge to his children And the former controversy being ended this later may have its due place and therefore what M. H. dictates here about fallacy or disability is indeed fallacious adfaciendum populum My fourth thing premised that I must have liberty to chuse and order mine own weapons M. Har. countâ—reasonable
and after sets down his purpose and method to answer me only in his own way without reference to M. Tombes whom he hints to have a peculiar way of maintaining his tenent and then that he will set down the substance of each argument with its confirmation and so answer it But I doubt he will be found more fair in promise then in performance but to the tryall CHAP. III. Wherein my first ground for Infant-Baptisme from Gen. 17.7 Deut. 30.6 Act 2.39 is cleared from M. Harrisons exceptions MY first ground for Infant-Baptisme was drawn from Gen. 17.7 Deut. 30.6 Act. 2.39 Whence he proposeth the sum of the argument thus To whom the Gospel Covenant is extended in the Churches of Christians to them the Sacrament of initiation appointed for that administration of the Covenant viz. Bapt sme doth belong Act. 10 47. But to Infants of believing parents the Gospel Covenant is extended in the Churches of Christ Gen. 17.7 Deut. 30.6 Act. 2.39 This saith M. H. is the sum and what is further alledged in reference to M. Tombes his assertions that he saith he will leave to M. Tombes to make good But M. H. should have taken notice of those things brought for confirmation of this argument that concern not M. Tombes in particular but all opponents in generall as what I deliver at large for the sense of that place Gen. 17.7 pag 10 11 13 14. Wherein I explain and confirm our sense of childrens being in Covenant with their patents which he hath unfairly passed by without taking notice of but I will consider his answer which he gives in divers particulars First saith he I know of no Gospel Covenant but that spoken of Jer. 31.31 Quoted by the Apostle Heb. 10.16,17 But first what thinks he of that Gen. 12.3 In thee shall all the families of the earth be blest And the places cited by me doe not they speak of a Gospel Covenant at first Gen. 17.7 I will be they God and the God of thy seed Is not that a Gospel Covenant No saith M. H. pag. 8. There is nothing from the 6. to the 15. ver of Gen. 17. of a Gospel Covenant but only apromise of Canaan to Abraham and his fleshly seed and a duty to be circumcised as a token of that fleshly Covenant to be submitted to on Abrahams part and his fleshly seed But is this confident assertion true Is not I will be thy God a Gospâ—l-Covenant Are they not the same words which the Prophet useth in expressing the Gospel Covenant Jer. 31.33 I will be their God and they shall be my people Again is not the Covenant with Abraham ver 7. the same with that ver 4. of the same Gen. 17. and that a Gospel Covenant by the verdict of the holy Ghost Gal. 3.8 As Ames answers Bellarmine disputing just against all Protestants as M. H. doth against me Legimus Deum c. We read saith a Bellar. de sacr essectu Lib. â— cap. 17. Bellarmine that God when he injoined circumcision to Abraham did promise onely earthly things i.e. propagation of posterity and the land of Palestine And again b Ibid. Ero Deus tuus I will be thy God holds forth saith Bellarmine onely a promise of peculiar protection To whom Ames answers proving from Matth. 22.32 I am the God of Abraham And whence our Saviour gathers the resurrection to blisse that in these words I will be thy God ther 's a Gospel promise or Christ shuld have argue â—â— ut sillily from it Again is circumcision only a token of a fleshly Covenant How doth M. Har. again joyn with Papists against Protestants nay the worst of Papists for many Papists acknowledge circumcision to be a seal of grace but Bellarmine denies it of circumcision Bel. lib. 2. de essecta Saâ—r cap. 13. and all other Sacraments of the Jews with whom M. Har. joins in making circumcision in the institution of it onely a token of a fleshly Covenant Is this to come out of Babylon thus to side with Papists against Protestants in the doctrine of the Sacrament And how crosse is this to the Apostle making circumcision a seal of the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 4.11 Yea how plainly doth the Scriptures hint that the circumcision of the flesh was the Sacrament signe or seal of the circumcision of the heart See Deutronomy 30.6 Rom. 2.28 29. Col. 2.11 Again is nothing in Gen. 17. from ver 6. to 15. spoken of but onely a promise of Canaan to Abraham and his fleshly seed c. What thinks he of ver 12 13. where others then Abrahams fleshly seed were to be circumcised which had nothing to doe with Canaan And what saith he of Ismael to whom its certain the promise of Canaan did not belong It s strange M. Har. will let slip such grosse things in a way that he knowes they will be scanned and that a man who in shew is so against Popery should broach so much of it whether of ignorance or choise he best knowes Sure me thinks this should startle his followers to be misled into so apparant breach of their protestation which is to maintain the Doctrine of the Church of England against all Popery yet here and in other places following they are taught to speak the language of Rome against the Protestant doctrine maintained in the Churches of England But I proceed Neither were they saith M. Har. any otherwaies separated but externally and typically What was there not still an election among the Jews that were separated internally as I shewed pag. 11 Were not the Jews separated to be Gods visible Church and kingdom wherein the invisible Church is contained as wheat and the chaffe and by their externall separation were they not accounted children and partakers of all externall Church priviledges Rom. 9.45 from which aliens were exempt and counted as dogs without What is more apparant in the face of the Scripture then these things And is not thus much held forth Gal. 2.15 For was not a Jew then a name of Religion answering in that state of the Church to the name Christian now as appears plainly from Rom. 2.28 29 And are there not carnall and externall Christians now as there were Jews then as I have shewed pag. 14. and you must confesse unlesse you deny the Christian Church to harbour any hypocrites or carnall Christians contrary to daily experience and divers parables of our Saviour recorded Mat. 13. These things I have proved in my Answer to M. Tombes pag. 10 11 13 14. And therefoâ— to deny them without answer and affirm the contrary without proof is very beggarly disputing Now let us see whether Deut. 30.6 be not a Gospel Covenant Touching which M. Har. first saith he never heard any account that a Gospel Covenant But that may be because perhaps he accounts reading or consulting learned Divines consulting with flesh and blood and so shuns it 2. He saith If I had read over the first and second
verses and observed the condition I would have known it to be a branch of the Covenant made upon mount Sinai But I tell him more truly that if he had considered the matter of the promise he might have seen cleerly that it is a Gospel promise because it imports renovation by Gods spirit which Christ works on Christians under and by vertue of the Gospel Covenant Col. 2.10 11 12. Yea it imports the very same thing with that in Jer. 31.33 which M. H. here confesseth to be a Gospel Covenant Neither will his argument from the condition hinder for he should know that there was a double Covenant proposed to the Jews as is apparant Gal. 4.17 the one of grace begun to Abraham the other at mount Sinai 430 years after and this later is stiled by Divines faedus subserviens as he might have learned from M. Tombes pag. 102. A Covenant subservient to that of grace by discovering sin and misery and so need of Christ to draw or drive us to him So though God in the beginning speak after the phrase of the Law that was but to make way for the promise in the Gospel which he addes in the close above temporary blessings But now let us see what he saith to Acts 2.39 He boldly affirms that the promise to children is onely with reference to calling and so holds forth no more priviledge to a Christians then to the childe of a Turk This is boldly asserted but with little proof and with how little truth may thus appear 1. The promise mentioned must needs relate to some particular promise left upon record in the Word else Peter had spoken out of his own head which the Apostles neither did nor might doe Mat. 28.20 Act. 26.22 2. The articlé 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the promise notes some eminent promise and from the scope of the Sermon that promise is evident to be a branch of the Covenan◠of grace 3. That this promise did in a peculiar manner belong to the Jews and to their children That is they and their children were of those to whom the Covenant did primarily belong and to the Gentiles secondarily when God should call them according to that Gen. 12.3 So then the promise belonged to the Jews and to their children They and their children were children of the Covenant in act and in regard of outward right as it is Act. 3.25 26. To them pertained the Adoption and the Covenants Rom. 9.4 And so shall the Gentiles when called as Zacheus in joy the priviledges of the children of Abraham And thus the Apostle laid before them a good ground of comfort to finde pardon upon repentance because by their present Church-state they and their children were children of the Covenant which God would make good and upon repentance accept them so then here is a priviledge of children quâ children to be children of the Covenant else they are to no purpose nor with good sense here mentioned and that can be no other then to be faederati with their parents which all confesse in some sense to be so under the old Testament according to which dispensation the Apostle there speaks But by the way pag 7. M. Har. drops us a distinction The Gospel Covenant saith he may be extended to persons visibly or invisibly and he denies Infants to be visibly within the Covenant But I answer if he mean by visibly knownly or that which we know to be so by evidence of Scripture then I say Infants are known to be within the Gospel Covenant with their parents which I have proved by those testimonies that yet speak aloud for all his gag which was either too short or too weak but if by visible be means that which is known to the eie only then his positions are false For why should not any demonstrations to reason evidencing a persons being within Covenant be as good a ground for Baptisme as those that are ocular only As for that which he saith that Infants before Baptisme are not of the visible Church by confession of all Whence he would gather a contradiction in my words pag 7. It s but a weak fancy for all but Anabaptists acknowledge Infants of Church-members to be of the visible Church in regard of right and so the seal may be challenged for them as well as for those grown up that are converted to whom the Covenant belongs Baptisme being a seal to confirm that right which we are supposed to have in and by the Covenant And thus I have done with M. Harrisons reply to my first argument CHAP. IIII. Wherein the Argument for Infants Baptisme from their being confederates with their parents is cleared from exceptions taken against it by M. Tombes in his Apology pag 40. 47. and the expression of the directory vindicated BEfore I passe to the second argument I shall think it needfull to examine some things published by M. Tombes in his late Apology to puzzle this argument drawn from those places that shew children to be confederates with their parents pag. 40. to 47. Where M. Tombes affirms that the argument which M. Marshall D. Homes and M. Geree being for Baptizing Infants is either a tautology or equivocation The proof he promiseth he eafter when he shall have liberty to examine their intangled discourses Great words but how just I shall shew in my own particular which will be a clearing of my brethren also Having pag. 10. produced the place Gen. 17.7 I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting Covenant to be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee To finde out the meaning of this place I inquire first what the priviledge is Secondly what the extent of it is For the matter of the priviledge I shew out of Calvin that the Church was setled in Abrahams family and the Israelites Abrahams posterity became the house and sheepfold of God and had the priviledge of adoption belonging to them in common Rom. 9.4 To whom pertained the adoption And so by a birth-priviledge they were severed from others Gal. 2.15 we who are Jews by nature But now among those that had this priviledge of common adoption to be reputed children there were alwaies to be some separated by the secret election of God made partakers of sanctifying and saving graces and so really the children of God In comparison of whom the other I sratlites are sometimes spoken of as no sennes of Abraham Rom. 9.6 7. though externally they were the children of the Kingdom and in reference to the Gentiles are so stiled Cant. 8.11 12. So then the priviledge is that he would be a God to Abraham and all the seed in regard of externall denomination and internall priviledges of a visible Church and to the elect in regard of spirituall Adoption grace and glory After pag. 12. I examining M. Tombes his exammation of M. Marshals second conclusion which M. Tombes desputes against as though it
held forth that all infants of believers are so in Covenant with their parents as to have saving graces intayled on them which I say is not onely against Protestants principles but believed by M. Tombes himself not to be M. Marshals meaning from pag. 142. of his examen And then pag. 13. I plainly and distinctly lay open our meaning when we say children are in Covenant with their parents That as it was with the people of Israel by vertue of the Covenant made with Abraham That the fathers with the children became Gods visible Church and so intitled to and enjoyed the visible priviledges of adoption oracles seals Rom. 9 4 5. And the elect among them enjoyed the visible grace which was to be presumed of all in charity till they discovered the contrary So now we conceive that under the Gospel by vertue of the same Covenant into the participation of which Christians are assumed believers with their freedom â—ake up the visible Kingdom of Christ and enjoy outward Church-priviledges And the elect among them enjoy those things in truth which others only have externally and in profession And this is to be presumed of all Infants of believers till they discover the contrary And thus have they right to the seal of initiation And in this sense are you to take the passage quoted by you out of the Directory That the promise is to believers and to their seed c. Thus were my expressions in my vindiciae Now I referre it to the judgement of the learned whether M. Tombes had any cause to complain for want of distinctnes in expression or whether he doth deal ingenuously in taking part of my words pag. 43. of his Apology to make them found harsh and absurd or had cause from my words to question whether making a Covenant were all one with a charitable presumption with such like groundles expressions for want of solid matter of confutation Neither had be ground to say that none would expound the words of the Directory as I doe but he that would make mens words like a nose of wax if he take my exposition whole as I have laid it down above not lamely as he hath unfairly represented it For I conceive the expressions of the Directory were used with reference to the expressions of Scripture Now the expressions in Scripture Gen. 17.7 Rom. 9.4 to whom pertained the Covenants Act. 3.25 Yea are the children of the Covenant must and usually are expounded as I have expounded them And then it s no violent but a charitable yea a rationall interpretation of the words of the Directory to give them that sense which we give to the places of Scripture whence they are drawn The Covenant that the Jews were under none deny to be a Covenant of grace and of a Covenant of grace speak Rom. 9.4 Act. 3.25 and this Covenant being in these places attributed to visible Churches all were under the Covenant that is truly stiled a Covenant of grace But all are not under it in the same sense nor to enjoy thereby priviledges of the same quality but some onely externally and reputatively and enjoy thereby externall Church-priviledges a name to be sons a name to live Revel 3.1 and others to enjoy inward graces really And therefore Infants of believers may be said to be under the Covenant of grace and yet no necessity to take it in that sense that it is in regard of saving graces But in that sense as it would and must have been taken if it had been uttered touching children of believing Jews when I think none would have stumbled at it that they are so under that Covenant that is the Covenant of grace as to be reputed children and to be accounted of Gods visible Church entitled to his seals and other externall Church-priviledges The Argument that M. Tombes urgeth to prove that the words of the Directory mean that children are so under the Covenant of grace as to have a promise of saving grace pag. 42. of his Apology are as strong against the true and necessary interpretation of the Scriptures cited therefore they be but mistakes For Gen. 17.7 is meant of naturall seed not soirituall onely and then God was in one sense the God of Abraham and in another the God of his seed at least some of them M. Tombes confesseth pag. 76. of his Apology that the same word is used in divers senses Rom. 11.17 Joh. 15.2 so that the taking of one word in divers senses in one and the same sentence need not so much offend him And the instruction for doctrine and the instruction for petition may well be thus accorded That those to whom the Covenant of grace doth externally belong for as they are reputed of the visible Church and to have adoption belonging to them Rom 9.4 and so to have right to the seals may by the goodnes of God in blessing his Ordinance be really partakers of the saving graces promised and so enjoy the highest priviledge of the Covenant of grace internally and really But saith M. Tombes the whole series of the direction in the Directory carries the meaning thus to wit that the Covenant that children are under is the Covenant of saving grace I answer It s true that the Covenant that belongs to children is the Covenant of grace but so is the Covenant mentioned Rom. 9.4 Act. 3.25 But the query is in what sense and in what respect they are said to be under this Covenant of grace that is no otherwise then Jewish children were all to receive a visible Church estate to be of Christs visible Kingdom the elect to partake of grace indeed And therefore I see no cause why this part of the doctrine of the Directory should cause disquiet to the Church of God when the offence may be removed by a fair interpretation whereto good reason may lead us and charity binde us I think with M. Tombes that it is great honour to acknowledge and amend errours that are indeed such But this is an honour that I think few will conceive M. Tombes ambitious of not with banding his good counsell to others that shall read his Apology wherein he shall scarce finde any acknowledgement of errour in the manner of handling his controversy though I may boldly say genera singulorum if not singula generum for he tells of one in this Apology pag. 16 that told him his sharpnes was usefull of such as look into Books judged him not a little faulty in the manner of prosecution of this controversy with M. Marshal and others CHAP. V. Wherein my second Argument for Infant Baptisme from Rom. 11.11 12 13 17 18. is cleared from M. Harrisons exceptions TOuching my second Argument drawn from Rom. 11.11 c. M. Harrison first complains that it is confused not syllogisticall It s rare for a man of his quality to complain for want of syllogismes being usually they have the better scope to evade Then he examines my four principles
as belong to the spirituall seed Indeed there be spirituall priviledges belonging to the elect Christian whether of Jews and Gentiles and so much the verses quoted by M. H. import but that 's not all as I have shewed neither should a Christian Infant only loose shadowes to be expunged out of the visible Church or kingdom of Christ Sith they that are out of that pale are visibly without God and without hope a sad condition to put Infants into and to the Parents grievous Yet one thing more I must needs touch and it is pag. 10. If he mean saith M. Harrison that whereas before they were but externally Gods people and children now the externall shadowes viz. Canaan being done away they were by faith partakers of the substance Christ and so were the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus I grant they kept and bettered their station Here M. Harrison speaks as though the Israelites while Canaan and other shadowes stood were but externally the people of God nor were partakers of Christ the substance which is a most erroneous and hereticall opinion injurious to the Saints of old contrary to the expresse Word of God that tells us that Abraham rejoiced to see the day of Christ John 8.56 And how but by faith and so did all godly Israelites What faith was it but a true living justifying faith whereby those worthies did so great things and obtained a good report And had not many of the Jews yea all that were godly a justifying faith before Christ was preacht to them by the Apostles who thereby had not wrought in them a now grace of faith but the faith they had was new circumstanced directed to look to the person of Christ Jesus as the true Messiah already come whereas before they relyed indefinitely on the Messiah promised to come as is to be seen in Lydia Act. 16.14 So in Simeon and Anna Luk. 2. And therefore I shall desire M. Harrison in such points to speak more truly or more warily or else to forbear writing books till he be better grounded in Divinity And thus I have cleared my second argument CHAP. VI. Wherein the Argument for Infant-Baptisme from Rom. 11.11 12. c. is cleared from M. Tombes his exception in his Apology pag. 69-77 MAster Tombes pag. 69. of his Apology saith I goe upon Rom. 11.11 12. and somewhat more distinctly then M. Marshall yet he complains for my want of syllogizing from it But that methinks is a needles complaint by a Scholar when fair mediums for syllogisme are held out neither doe I think it needfull so supersticiously to tie a mans self to rules of art when by reason of variety of mediums various syllogismes must be made which if needles so much time and paper may be spared yet sith he expects it I will now satisfy his desire The conclusion which I say and he denies not to be proved was that the children of Christians have the same priviledge with children of Jews as they were comprehended so under the Covenant with their parents as to be reputed members of the same visible kingdom and to be sealed with them this he denies this I shewed ground for by four cleer principles and conclusions from that Rom. 11.11 c. from which I now syllogise thus That Church-state and those outward Church-priviledges which the Jews had by vertue of a pure Gospel-promise that the Christian Jews retained but that the Jews and their seed should be Gods visible Church and injoy cutward Church-priviledges was a benefit that they had by a pure Gospel-Covenant Ergo the major is clear from ver 17. of Rom. 11. whence my second conclusion is proved that the Jews that obtained mercy kept their station The minor I prove I will be thy God and the God of thy seed in their generations Gen. 17.7 is a pure Gospel-promise But by vertue of that the Jews had this Church state that they and their seed were the visible Church of God and injoied outward Church-priviledges Ergo. Again thus What Gospel-priviledge the nation of the Jews had before their rejection that they shall recover with advantage at their restauration To have their seed to belong to Gods visible kingdom with them and injoy outward Church-priviledges was a Gospel priviledge belonging to the Jews before their fall Ergo The major is clear from Rom. 11.25 26. Hos 1.10 11. 2.23 By which my fourth principle which is in effect the major here confirmed The minor appears For by being Gods visible kingdom Christ and all his benefits were offâ—red to them all and made good to the elect which ordinarily were among them and none else and therefore this was a Gospel-priviledge being it conduced to salvation Again thus What Church-state and priviledges belonged to the Christian Jews in Pauls time and shall belong to the body of the Jews when restored degrees only excepted That belongs to all Christian Gentiles But to the former belongeth to have the Covenant with them and their seed so that the children belong to the visible kingdom of Christ Ergo. The major is my third principle grounded on Rom. 11.17 And thus I have Answered M. Tombes his desire with syllogismes Now what saith he to all this why 1. If I mean by the Gentiles assumed into the place of the Jews out of the same Church-state and by partaking of priviledges the priviledges belonging to the Church-state it is denyed I Answer I doe mean the same Church-state and Church priviledges that are not typicall and this is plainly-proved by Rom. 11.17 they are in their place in the Olive and so must injoy at least what they had neither hath he nor can he disprove it for though he hold the ingraffing is more then into the visible Church yet he denies not that they had thereby a visible Church-state too pag. 71. Neither saith he is a believing Jew a loser in his seed by the coming of Christ Sith this was a peculiar priviledge in the time of that Church-state which now ceaseth to be a priviledge which he saith he hath further discust Examen part 3.6 11. which I have viewed again and there finde that as here so there he barely dictates without proof which learned men cannot count satisfactory thus to defalk the Covenant of grace in the extent of it in a thing where nothing typicall is shewed or can be For my fourth sectary if it be understood of pristine Church state he denies it but he grants the promise will be extended to them and their seed as the text imports Isa 59.20 Why then say I he grants that now under the Gospel children shall be under the promise which is but a branch of the Covenant and what is this but that which he hath so stiffely denyed and which we assert as the ground of the seal annext to it Neither saith he will there be two distinct estates one of the Jews of holy fathers and children another of Gentiles who have only personall
some strength in this consequence but that we make not all the reason for the scruple was in the Corinthians whether notwithstanding their lawfull marriage they might lawfully live together yes saith the Apostle the unbeliever in the use of marriage for so it must be understood is sanctified to the believer else c. so that marriage is the ground-work which satisfied not their consciences for so were they Ezra 9. 10. Yet was the holy seed polluted but now saith the Apostle the unbeliever is sanctified to the believer c. So then the parties that may lawfully live together on this ground are supposed to be man and wife And his major proposition must be That man and wife may lawfully dwell together whereof one is sanctified to the other and so his fornicators will be excluded not concluded He saith it is not necessary to insert being husband and wife sith the sanctification is not ascribed by him to the relation between them but to the faith of the one But I answer this is no good ground for though the marriage be no cause of this sanctification yet it is a ground supposed to make the Apostles resolution true and on that ground it is made There 's two things required to satisfie spirituall conscience in the use of a thing First that it be lawfull in it self Secondly that it be holy to us The former is common to heathens and Christians in morall things The last is the peculiar of believers if either be wanting conscience is defiled and will be disquieted Now the sanctification here to quiet their consciences is an addition to the law of marriage common with them to heathens and so we ought not to sever the later from the former which the Apostle supposed So this new argument is overthrown without denying bastards to be faederally holy where I should not have M. Tombes an adversary CHAP. VIII Wherein my fourth argument is made good for Infant-Baptisme from Col. 2.11 12. MY fourth argument for Infant-Baptisme was To whom circumcision doth agree Baptisme doth agree circumcision doth agree to Infants Ergo. The major is proved because Baptisme doth succeed circumcision in the same place state and signification in the new administration that circumcision had in the old Col. 2.11 12. Here M. Harrison first denies that circumcision and Baptisme do seal the same Covenant I answer circumcision was a seal of the Covenant made with Abraham and that is the same made with us Christians or else how can we by faith be made children of Abraham And how could the Prophet argue from the Covenant made with Abraham that Christians are justified by faith not the works of the law as he doth Gal. 3.16 17. unlesse we had the same Covenant and of our Covenant Baptisme is the seal 2. He denies circumcision to be the seal of remission of sin But doth not the Apostle say that circumcision was the seal of the righteousnes of faith and that implies remission of sins as he plainly shews in bringing as proofs of justification by faith Psal 32.1 Blessed is the man whose sins are forgiven Rom. 4 6 7 8 9 10 11. M. H. answers it was to Abraham the seal of the righteousnes of faith but that was peculiar to him Wherein again whether of ignorance or of choise ipse viderit he jumps with Bellarmine against Protestant Divines Bel. lib. 1. de sacr in grem cap. 17. But as our Divines answer Bellarmine thus he enervates the Apostles argument from Abrahams example to us which is not argumentative in any thing peculiar to Abraham Secondly I would know of M. Har. if circumcision did not seal righteousnes of faith except to Abraham what it did seal to proselytes Title to Canaan they had none seal a blanke it must not therefore it sealed the righteousnes of faith Again there being in a Sacrament an outward signe and an inward grace and that under the old Testament as well as the new as Protestants maintain against Papists I would know of him whether the circumcision of the heart Deut. 30.6 Rom. 2.29 Col. 2.11 were not the grace answering the signe in circumcision and whether that did not import the putting away the filth of nature by justification and regeneration and so included remission of sins M. H. proceeds If I mean that as circumcision was a Sacrament of the old Testament Baptisme of the new c. I answer I mean as I say Baptisme was the Sacrament of initiation under the New as circumcision under the Old and therefore as the one was set to all seleable within Covenant so the other Yet will it not hence follow that children must therefore have the Lords Supper because that is the Sacrament of growth To the place Col. 2.11 12. M. H. saith it doth no more prove Baptisme to succeed circumcision then Noahs Ark or the red Sea But he might have seen my answer to M. Tombes that there is not the same reason of these for circumcision was an Ordinance in ordinary use of the same nature vertue and state that Baptisme in being the Jews Sacrament of initiation and so is more properly said to be succeeded by Baptisme But M. H. saith that the Apostle speaks of circumcision to shew the Colossians that they were compleat in Christ by regeneration c. I answer that 's true but that 's not all the Apostle shews they needed not the elements of the world whereof circumcision was one and why not only because they had spirituall circumcision but had it sealed by Baptisme So Baptisme is in the same state and supplies the use of circumcision to seal and apply Christ to justification and regeneration and this is a manifest proof of my collection from Col. 2.11 12. and more to the purpose then M. H. hath or can answer For that proof of yours that circumcision and Baptisme were not to be applied to the same subject because John the Baptist would not Baptise those that were circumcised without further qualification I have answered already to M. Tombes in pag. 10. It was because Baptisme is a seal in a new administration and so parties to be Baptised were to be under the new administration as well as in Covenant And therefore neither Iohn the Baptist nor the Apostles did Baptise Jews till by their doctrine they were brought under the new administration Thus it appears what a feeble answerer M. H. is still found CHAP. IX Wherein my fifth Argument for Infant-Baptisme because the grace of the new Testament is not lesse then under the Old MY fifth argument was framed thus If Children of Christian parents be excluded from the Covenant and seal of initiation whereby their separation from the world is manifested then are the priviledges under the new Testament lesse then under the old But this is not to be affirmed Ergo. M. H. returns answer by a long fetch about premising three things 1. That the Covenant made with the fleshly seed as such under the old
have cause to judge in charity that there is grace and that they are within the Covenant this gives title to the seal because it contains the ground why profession of faith gives claim to the seal M. Tombes makes Gods revelation of true sanctification a ground for Baptisme for this he hath neither precept nor example in Scripture for Judas might dee all that they Act. 10.47 are said to doe The ground of his assertion therefore I think must be because true sanctification is that whereof profession is an evidence and that but conjecturall or charitable not certain and such an evidence from other grounds of Scriptures Why should it not be of the same validity For M. Tombes his denyall of my minor he affirms 1. That the judgement of charity is to be taken from a mans own actions because the Apostle saith charity believeth all things 1 Cor. 13.7 But how these words prove his assertion which I deny I know not but have shewed in answer to M. Harrison rule for charity in this point from the following words hopeth all things The ground of this judgement of charity I draw not from any one of my three grounds mentioned in the laying down my argument but from all three together Which M. Tombes saith can onely produce conjecturall hope which often miscarryeth and so much they doe amount to and that is the thing that I assert for the judgement of charity is but a conjecturall hope being opposed to demonstrative certainty Thus I have done with M. Harrison whose book hath given me fit occasion without digressing from the present matter to answer all those passages in M. Tombes his Apology for the manner of his treatise where he takes occasion largely and materially to defend the matter of it For his boasts what he hath done in this controversy without answering our reasons to the contrary I hope none will be moved with them till they have tryed them by comparing writing with writing and reason with reason and then I fear not the issue Now that he doth make shew of more then he performeth I will content my self to shew in one particular which is the first and of no small consequence it is in his Epistle Dedicatory and that to Parliament-men the Authorizers of the Directory To whom he saith that the truth hath gotten so much ground that the doctrine of the Directory is disavowed by two of his most eminent Antagonists for which he hath that I know no other ground then because we interpret the Directory according to the minde of the compilers And not as M. Tombes would have it mistaking the words as I conceive to be understood in that sense which I believe he himself conceives was not in the intention of the compilers Sure I am that many of the Assembly have assured me in private that they intended the expressions questioned by M. Tombes in no other sense then I expound them Now I will not say Crimine ab uno Omnia discite By one crimination judge of all But the carriage in this I hope will make all more wary in giving credence to his other confident assertions O that the Lord would pity us under this saddest exercise of division of judgements and make us of one minde one heart one language or make this sharp affliction as usefull to humble and mortifie as it is in sense bitter to a peaceable spirit Amen Soli Deo gloria Errata PAge 4. line 28. dele and. p. 9. l. 8. for spirit r. speech p. 11. l. 5 for at r. 〈◊〉 l. 24. dele and. p. 12. l. 21. for and r. under p. 15 l. 10. for being r. bring from the Covenant p. 16. l. 2. for Cant. 8.11 12. r. Mat. 8.11 12. l. 24. for freedom r. seed p 18. l. 5. for for r. so p. 20. l. 9. for constrains r. contains p. 26. l. 18. for Question r. Quaesitum