Covenanters is pleased to be their surety this I illustrated from things done amongst men thus when severall parties stand obliged in the same bond they may seale at severall times and yet be in force afterward together or even a child sealing in infancy may agnize and recognize that sealing when they come to yeares of discretion if then they will renounce it as done when they understood not they may free themselves if they please if they finde the former act a burden to them so said I is it here God is pleased to seale to infants while they are such and accepts of such as seale on their parts as they are able to give in their infant-age expecting a further ratification on their part when they are come to riper yeares in the meanâ— time affording them the priviledge of being reckoned unto his kingdome and family rather then the devils if when they are growne men they refuse to stand to this Covenant there is no hurt done on Gods part let them serve another God and take their lot for the time to come To this you answer First this is onely the spinning out the simile of a seale which whether it bee to the purpose or no I as willingly as your selfe leave it to the Reader to judge Secondly you say it is very inconsiderate boldnesse in meâ— to make every baptized person a Covenanter for whom Jesus Christ is a surety when as the Scripture makes Christ the surety onely for his redeemed ones I answer it is very true that Jesus Christ is the surety onely of the elect so farre as to performe all the conditions of the Covenant in them but he is also the surety of all visible Professors aliquo modo upon their condition of performing the Covenant looke in what respect your selfe will acknowledge Christ undertakes for visible Professors as they are visible Professors the same will serve my turne and I shall ask no more The fifth Objection was that no benefit comes by such a sealing as this is My answer was The same which came to the infants of the Jews who received the seale in their infancy You answer First you allow not that expression That God seales to every one that is baptized he seales onely to beleevers to whom be undertakes to make good his promise of writing his law in their heart c. And here againe you charge me with symbolizing with the Arminians who make the Covenant of grace common to elect and reprobates and left to every â—ans liberty to free themselves if they please and so nullifie all I passe by your scoffes of my frivolous supposing of Chimeraes and other such good language you have pretty well enured me also to receive the reproach of Arminianisme As to the thing it selfe I answer was not Circumcision Gods signe and seale which by his owne appointment was applyed to all the Jews and Proselytes and their children did it ingage God absolutely to every one of them to write his law in their heart c. And are not the Sacraments signa conditionalia conditionall signes and seales and did any Orthodox Divine before your self charge this to be Arminianism to say that the Gospel runs upon conditions I confesse it is Arminianisme to say any thing is conditionall to GOD this I never asserted but that the Gospell is both preached and by the Sacraments sealed to us upon condition of faith will passe for orthodox doctrine when you and I are dead and rotten You adde that you doe not well understand that God required of the Jewes Infants to seale in their Infancy I reply but I hope you understand that the Jewes Infants were sealed in their Infancy and by this they received not onely a priviledge to bee accounted as belonging to Gods family but it also obliged them to the severall duties of the Covenant as they grew up to bee capable of performing them I added secondly God hath other ends and uses of applying the Seale of the Covenant to them who are in Covenant with him then their present gaine it is an homage worship and honour to himselfe and it behooves us in that respect to fulfill all righteousnesse when Christ was baptized and circumcised hee was as unfit for the ordinance through his perfection as children through their imperfection being as much above them as Children are below them your answer is Baptisme is Gods worship Paedobaptisme a wil-worship Christs Baptisme was of a transcondens nature children are unfit for this ordinance not because of their imperfection but through defect of Gods appointment had God appointed it there were no doubt to bee made of their fitnesse all this hath been considered and weighed againe and againe and I desire not to burden the Reader needlesly I added thirdly the benefit and fruite of it at the present is great both to the parents and to the children to the parents whilst God doth thereby honour them to have their children counted to his Church and under his wing whilst all the other Infants in the world have their visible standing under the Prince and in the kingdome of darknesse and consequently while others have no hope of their childrens spirituall welfare untill they bee called out of that condition these need not have any doubt of their childrens welfare if they die in their Infancy nor if they live untill they shew signes to the contrary God having both reckoned them unto his people and given them all the meanes of salvation which an Infants age is capable of You answer First all this passage is but dictates Secondly you say if I meane the unbaptized children of beleevers doe belong to the kingdome of the devill it is a harsh and uncharitable speech Sir I am glad to heare you give that censure upon your owne judgement it is your judgement that all Infants even of Beleevers as well as Pagans though they may potentially belong to the kingdome of Christ yet actually they belong to the Kingdome of the devill but for my selfe I meant onely the children of Infidells I doe not thinke that beleeving Anabaptists doe through their ignorance or errour put their children out of this priviledge You demand further What comfort doe I give more to beleeving parents that have their children baptized then belongs to them though their children were not baptized I answer if it bee not through the parents fault that their children be unbaptized but onely by the providence of God they may have the same comfort yet I conceive it a greater inlargement of comfort to enjoy the visible Seale an ordinance which they are capable of and which God uses to blesse according to his good pleasure but I say when parents doe therefore not baptize upon this principle that their children doe not belong to the Church of Christ no more then the children of Turkes and Pagans and consequently are without that pale where ordinarily salvation is onely to bee had it is easie to say that their
of Satan Hee would have Infants of all who are taken into Covenant with him to bee accounted his to belong to him to his Church and family and not to the Devills So much weight lies upon this Conclusion and it so neerely concernes you to make at least a shew of overthrowing it that in 40 Pages and upward you try all your wits and artifices to shake the strength of it by scornefull speeches by clouding and darkning what was expressed plainely by framing senses and confuting what was never asserted nor intended by Bringing in at the by opinions of other men and disputing against them by alledging the Testimonies of some eminently learned men when they are nothing to the purpose in hand and by seeking to elude the strength of my arguments In all these I shall attend you and endeavour to cleare what you would seeme to have obscure briefly to passe over what is impertinent and chiefly buckle with you in that which concernes the cause in hand First you tell me this conclusion is a bâ—â—kin that may bee put on either leg right or left exprest so ambiguously that you know not in what sense to take it Truely Sir you take a course to make it seeme so I knew a man in Cambridge that went for a great Scholler whose remarkable facultie was so to expound a Text as to make a cleare Text darke by his interpretation even thus have you dealt with a plaine Conclusion you bring first three sorts of senses then you subdivide them and under each of them bring severall Imaginable senses foure or five under one head five or six under another head and then blame me that I have not distinctly set downâ— in which of these senses Infants of Beleevers belong to the Covenant whether in respect of Election or of a promise of grace in Christ whether potentially or actually whether they are so to bee accounted by an act of science or faith or opinion and that grounded on a rule of haritie or prudence or probable hopes for the future thus you expresse your skill in multiplication of senses But I reply that hee that runs may reade my sense and with the tenth part of the paines you have taken to fasten a sense upon it which I never thought upon might confidently have concluded that I meant of a visible priviledge in facie visibilis Ecelesiae or have their share in the faedus externum which my words plainely enough held forth when I spake of Gods separating a number out of the world to be his Kingdome Citie Household in apposition to the rest of the world which is the Devills Kingdome and afterwards in the same Conclusion God having left all the rest of the world to bee visibly the Devills Kingdome although among them many belong to his invisible kingdome as being of the number of his elect he will not permit the Devill to come and lay visible claime to the off-spring of those who are begotten of the children of the most High is not this plaine enough that as all they who by externall vocation and profession joyne to the Church of God though few of those many so called are elected have a visible right to bee esteemed members of the Church Kingdom of God which is a visible Corporation distinct and opposite to the rest of the world which is visibly the corporation and kingdom over which the Devill doth reign So God would have their children even while they are children to enjoy the same priviledge with them what Delian Diver is there any need of to fetch up the meaning of this But that you may no longer complaint of not understanding my sense I say plainly The Covenant of grace is sometime taken strictly sometime largely as it is considered strictly it is a Covenant in which the spirituall benefits of justification regeneration perseverance and glorification are freely promised in Christ Secondly as the Covenant of grace is taken largely it compâ—â—hendss all Evangelicall administrations which doe wholly depend upon the free and gratious appointment of God and this administration is fulfilled according to the counsell of Gods will sometimes it was administred by his appointment in typeâ— shadowes and other legall Ordinances this Covenant of administration God said Zâ—â—â—ary 11. 10. hâ—â— did 〈◊〉 with the people of the Jews and at the death of Christ hee did wholly evacuate and abolish and in stead thereof brought in the administration which wee live under where also hee rejected the Jews or booke them off from being his people in Covenant and called the Gentiles and graffed them in ramâ—rum defractorum locum into the place of the branches broken off as your selfe page 65. doe with Beza rightly expresse it Now according to this different acceptation of the Covenant are men differently said to bee in covenant with God or to be members of his Church and family some are mysticall members by inward grace the inward grace of the Covenant being bestowed upon them being made new creatures c. others are members in regard of the externall and visible aeconomy accordingly among the Jewes some were said to bee Abrahams seed according to the promise and not onely after the flesh who had the Circumcision of the heart as well as that which was outward others were Jewes in propatulo Jewes onely in foro visibilis ecolesia and in like manner is it under the Evangelicall administration in the Christian Church some are in Christ by mysticall 〈◊〉 so as to bee regenerate c. 1 Cor. 6. 17. 2 Cor. 5. 17. others are said to bee in Christ by visible and externall profession as branches which beare no fruite Iohn 15. 2. and these also are called branches of the Vine though such branches as for unfruitfulnesse shall at last bee cut off and cast away and often times tells us many are called but few are chosen Unto both these do belong great priviledges though the priviledgâ—â— of the one be saving the other not as shall by and by appeare Furthermore according to this different notion of the Covenant grounded upon the different manner of mens being in Christ there are also different Sâ—ales belonging unto the Covenant some peculiar and proper onely unto those who are in Covenant spiritually a quoâ—d substantiam et gratiâ—â— faeâ—â—ris as the testimony and Seale of the Spirit 2 Cor. 1. 2â— Ephes 1. 13. 14. 30. Rom. 8. 16. others common and belonging unto all who are in the visible body and branches of Christ the Vine in any relation and so in Covenant quoad 〈…〉 till by scandalous 〈◊〉 which are 〈◊〉 with that very outward dignitie and profession they cut themselves off from that relation and such are the visible and externall Seales annexed to the externall profession among Christians as the Jewish Seales were to those who were Jewes externally When therefore I say they are visibly to bee reckoned to belong to the Covenant with their parents I meane looke what
you and your children so many of them as the Lord shall call viz. you and your children have hitherto been an holy seed But now if you beleeve in Christ your selves your children shall bee in no better condition then the rest of the Pagan world but if afterward any of them or any of the heathen shall beleeve and be baptized their particular persons shall be taken into Covenant but their Children still left out this said I would not have been a very comfortable Argument to perswade them to come in in relation to the good of their children To this your answer is that this witlesse descant followes not on the applying the restriction in the end of the verse to them their children and all that are afarre off and that which I burden my adversaries Tenet with of putting beleevers Infants out of the Covenant into the condition of Pagans children is a Coâ—cysme answered before But Sir bee it witlesse or witty they must owne it whose it is and I perceive you can more easily put it off with a scoffe then give it a solid answer and it is a thorne which will not so easily bee plucked out of your side the strength of it is Peter could not have used this as an Argument to perswade them to come under this administration of the Covenant whereof Baptisme was a seale from the benefit which should come to their children if your interpretation bee true because by this their children should be in a worse condition in relation to the Covenant then they were before all grant in the former they were included you say in this latter you know no more promise for them then for the children of 〈…〉 How then could this argument be fit to be used tel me I pray you suppose a man held some Farm or Office under some great man and that in his Grant or Patent there were some apparent priviledges or benefits included concerning his posterity If now the Lord of whom hee held it should offer him a new Grant in which his children should be expressely left out and no more priviledges for them then for meere strangers could an Argument bee taken from the benefit that should come to his Children to perswade him to give up his former and accept this latter Grant I thinke not And whereas you call that expression of putting of the children of beleevers into the same state with the children of Turks a Coccysme which you have answered before I pardon your scornfull expression you doe but kick at that which bites you it is a truth which you have no cause to delight to heare of you have answered it indeed by granting the truth of it as the Reader may plainly see in my Answer to your 10 Section of the second Part and to Sect. 3. of this part Whereas I further said in my Sermon except in relation to the Covenant there was no occasion to name their children it bad been sufficient to have said a promise is made to as many as the Lord shall call You answer Their children indeed are named in relation to the Covenant But there was another reason then that which I alledge not onely their imprecation Matth. 27. 25. but especially because Christ was first sent to the Jews and their children Acts 3. 26. I Reply but this reason which you alledge affords no Argument for them now to beleeve and repent from any benefit should come to their posterity by vertue of that promise I will bee thy God and the God of thy seed To close this Section you say The Antipadobaptists have hence a good Argument against baptizing of Infants because Poter required of such as were in Covenant repentance before baptisms I answer just as good an one as because Abraham was in Covenant and an actuall beleever and justified by the faith he had in uncircumcision and received it as a seal of the righteousnesse of faith therefore all these must go before Circumcision and because all who turned Proselytes to the Jews must first make profession of their faith therefore none may bee circumcised but such as they are But more of this when we consider this Argument in your Exercitation Next let us try whether your successe bee any better against the next Text of Scripture which I brought to prove this Conclusion viz. Rom. 11. 16. c. where I said The Apostles scope was to shew that we Gentiles have now the same graffing into the true Olive which the Jewes formerly had and our present graffing in is answerable to their present casting out and their taking in at the latter end of the World shall bee the same graffing in though more gloriously as ours is now and it is apparent that at their first graffing in they and their chiâ—dren were taken in at their casting out they and their children were broken off and when they shall be taken in again at the end of the world they and their children shall be taken in together and all this by vertue of the Covenant Ero Deus tuus c. Which is the same to us and to them we and they making up the Church of God In your Examen of this Argument you still proceed in your old method first to cast scorne upon it as such an obscure Argument That none but a Diver of Delos can fetch up the meaning of it and indeed should you not pretend difficulties you could have no colour to bring in so many imaginary senses thereby to darken an Argument which is the second branch of your Artifice As whether this ingraffing be meant of the visible or invisible Church by faith or profession of saith certain by reason of election or Covenant of grace made to them or probable and likely because for the most part it happens so c. Alas Sir why doe you thus strip your selfe to dive under the water when the sense swims upon the top Look how the Jewes were Gods people so are the Churches of the Gentiles looke how the Jewes children were graffed in so are our children we are taken in in stead of them who were cast out and become one visible kingdom of Christ with the rest of them who kept their station this is the plaine sense of my Argument Now if you please but to apply all your imaginary senses to the Jews and their children and say if they and their children were graffed in together was it into the visible or invisible Church was it by faith or the profession of faith was it certain or probable Doe you not thinke your Reader would smile at the vanity of these questions When you have set downe your senses next you thus proceed the thing that is to be proved is That all the infants of every beleever are in the Covenant of Free grace in Christ and by vertue thereof to bee baptized into the Communi of the visible Church No Sir the thing to bee proved from this Text is That our infants have
Christ 〈…〉 circumcised and baptized p. 168. Why Jewes infants circumcised p. 1â—â— How the Jews received it p. 1â—â— Christianity how is may bee called â—â— birthright p. 119. Chamler often ciâ—ed to 〈◊〉 purpose 〈◊〉 Against hiâ— ownâ— judgment p. 144. Constantine M. why not baptized in his infanty p. 25. Cotton vindicated p. 114. 〈…〉 Mr. Rutherford reconciled p. 123. Cyprian vindicated p. 38. c. Covenant and Seal connected together p. 89. What is meant by being in the Covenant p. 89. Covenant of grace alwayes 〈◊〉 and the same p. 97. Infants taken into the Covenant with their Parents p. 105. Men may bee under is severall wayes p. 106. Priviledges of them who are under the externall Covenant p. 108. Anexternall right to it proved p. 140. The promise in it not peculiar to Abraham p. 127. D Disciples What it is to make Disciples p. 212 213 214 c. E Epiphanitis mentions infant-baptisme p. 21 45. F Sâ—eâ— of Flesh what p. 104. G Goodwin vindicated p. 143. Grotius not to bee relyed on about infant-baptisme p. 29. Misreports the Greek Church p. 32 33 34. Gospel how conditionall p. 236. H Hacket his Story p. 72. Henricus Stephanus mis-retited p. 151. Holinesse derivative and inherent not â—pposed p. 142. Fedrall holinesse assented by the Ancients p. 148. I Infants taken into covenant with their Parents 105. of beleevers left by Mr. Tombes to be under the Devils kingdome p. 112. Why Jewish Infants circumoised p. 180. Whether Infants may be said to bee beleevers p. 231. Ought to be baptized though we know not that they have grace p. 232. How their Baptisme is commanded in Matth. 28. p. 207. Capable of the grace whereof Baptisme is a signe p. 219 224 226. Infant-baptisme Antiquity of it vindicated p 7 c. p. 44 45. Episcopacy not so ancient as it p 8. Why some Ancients speake not of it p. 19. Athanasius p 20. And by Epiphanius p. 21 45. Not dispreâ—ed because of questions put to the party that was to be baptized p. 21. c. Grotins not to be relyed upon in it p. 29. The Greek Church received it p. 32. Asserted by Tertullian p. 35. And Cyprian p. 38 39. c. By Augustine p 43. c. By Fulgentius p 50 How it is called a Tradition p. 44. Why not mentioned in Councels before that of Carthage p. 49. Still acknowledgâ—d in the Church p. 63. The rejecting of it not the way to Reformation p. 76. Examples of it by consequence p. 218. Not a Will worship p. 195 225. Benefits of Infant-baptisme 236. No occasion of humane inventions c. 253. John Baptist initiated to the Christian Church p. 171. Irenausâ—ind â—ind indicated p. 10 11 12. Justine Martyr vindicated 9 10. L Ludovicus Vives examined p. 37 38. Lords-day p. 80 81 82. Proved by consequence from the Sabbath p. 205. Comparison between evidâ—nce for it Paedo-Baptisme p. 81 82. Lords Supper not eaten by unbaptized persons p. 167. not by Infants p. 240. N Nazianzen vindicated p. â—8 not baptized in his Infant p. 26. Nation when it is to bee reputed Christian p. 211. Neocaesarean Councell vindicated p. 30 31. O Origen vindicated p. 15 16 17. P Parents beleeving are roots of their children p. 142. Passeover our Sacrament comes in stead of it p. 203. Priviledges ours not straitned but enlarged p. 185. A great abridgement of them to have our children left out of the Covenant p. 193. Photius Patriarch p. 33. Q. Questions put to the baptized disprove not baptisme p. â—1 â—ay they prove it p. 52. R Rogers vindicated p. 5. S Selden p. 170. Strabo examined p. 37. Sacrament what it seales absolutely and conditionally 117. How they are Seales p. 201. our rule in administring them p. 233. how we may argue from Jewes Sacraments to ours p. 198. 201. T Tombes his way of reasoning p. 3. 105. 125. 134. Vnjustly charges the Assembly p. 79. thinkes some may be saved out of the communion of the visible Church p. 88. He joynes with 〈…〉 Circumcision to bee a seale of any thing p. 183. makes it a priviledge not to have Infants baptized p. 187. He makes the Covenant Heb 8. to be the Covenant of workes p. 188. Misinterprets the 2 Cor. 3. 10. p. 188. Leaves all Infants of beleevers to bee under the Devills 〈◊〉 p. 112. Symbolizâ—th 〈◊〉 Arminius p. 144. compares Priest and Ministers to 〈◊〉 purpose p. 108. 〈◊〉 his ownâ— opinion â—â—â—nfants condition p. 238. Tortulliaâ— speakâ— for Infant-Baptism p. 35. Talmud p. 171. V Vines vindicated p. 73. Usher de successione Chr. Eccles p. 64. 65. Voâ—â—â—i 〈◊〉 p. 68 69. W Waldenses p. 64. no Anabaptists p. 65. History of Waldenses p. 64. Women not capable of Circumcision p. 93. how Circumcised in the men p. 94. if they had not been esteemed as circumcised they could not have eaten the Passeover 96. Errata PAge 1. 10. Line 11. read you will not doe p. 144. l. 34 for where r. were p 145. l. 35. r. thrasi p. 157. l. 23. dele not p. 164. l. 22. â— sequitur p. 166. l. 5. r. 〈◊〉 p. 167. l 6. r. Catechumeni p. 173 l. 3. r. impure to you a sense p. 175. l. 〈…〉 â— 176. l. 13. 1. 〈◊〉 1. 16. r. tempore p. 178. l. 38. r. faâ—â—â—uâ— p. 191. l. 33. for That r. But p 199. l. 1. dolâ— comma after omnibus p. 213. l. 1. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 213. l. 5. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p 222. l. 7. â— as for â—a p. 226 l. 19. 〈◊〉 Baptisme and prayer all one r. baptizing into the name of the Father Sâ—nne and holy Ghost and prayer all one l. 22. for his Baptisme and prayer was all one read that Ananidâ— his baptizing Paul into the name of Christ or into the name of the Father Some and holy Ghost and Pauls calling upon the name of the Lord was all one Jude 3. Mr. John Goodwins answer to Mr. Edwards Gaâ—gr p. 20. Psal 76. 3. James 1. 20. Psal 25. 9. Reply to the Preface Sect. 2. Reply to the Historical part vindicating the Antiquity of Infant Baptism Justine Martyr or the Treatise under his name vindicated Hoc Ecclesia semper habuit semper tenuit hoc a majorum fide accepit hoc usque in finem per severanter custodit Aug. Serm. 15. de verbis Apost Iust Mart. qu. 56 P. 5. Irenaeus testimony vindicated Trithem P. 6. Answ Just Mart. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dionys Areop Hierarch ca. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De Sab Circumcis Basil exhortatione ad baptismum Lib. de initiandis ca. 2. P. 6. Mr. Mede P. 6. Ezek. 37. De resur ca. 31. Origens Test vindicated Hierom ad Pammachium Ruffini peroratio in Ep. ad Rom. He contracted it halfe in halfe Ruffi praefat aâ— Rom. Epiph. in sâ—ne operis Ign. ep ad Hier. Greg. orat 40. in Bapt. Nazian vindicated P. 8. P. 9. Vide Clem. Alex paedagog Athan.
right a visible prâ—fessor hath to bee received and reputed to belong to the visible Church quâ— visible professoâ— that right hath his child so to bee esteemed now all know the spirituall part and priviledges of the Covenant of grace belongs not to visible professors as visible but onely to such among them who are inwardly such as their externall profession holds out but yet there are outward Church-priviledges which belong to them as they are visible professors as to be reputed the sonnes of God Gen. 6. 1. the sonnes of God saw the daughters of men Deut. 14. 1. ye are the children of the Lord your God and Paul writing to a visible Church Gal. 3. 26. saith yea are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus yet I suppose you doe not thinke that all the Galatians were inwardly so so likewise to bee reputed children of the kingdome Matth. 8. 12. the children of the kingdome shall bee cast out the children of the Covenant Act. 3. 25. yee are the children of the Covenant which God made unto our fathers and many other of their priviledges which belong to them who are Israeliteâ— in this sense viz. being by such a separation and vocation the professed people of God though they were not all heires of the spirituall part of the Covenant Saint Paul reckons up in severall places as Rom. 9. 4. to them pertaineth the adoption even to the body of that people not a spirituall adoption but the honour of being separated and reputed to bee the children of God Deut. 14. 1. and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the service of God and the promises yet of these Paul saith they were not all children of Abraham when he speaks of the spirituall seed So likewise Rom. 3. 1. afteâ— Paul had shewed Rom. â— that nothing but faith and inward holinesse gave right to the spirituall part of the Covenant and that all the externall priviledges of the Jewes who were onely Jewes in propatulo Jewes outwardly were nothing to justification before God hee then propounds this question Cap. 3. 1. What advantage then both the Jew or what profit is there of Circumcision what priviledge or gaine is it to bee a visible professor a visible member of the Jewish Church hee answers the advantage is great many wayes and instances in this one particular that the Oracles of God were deposited to them the custody and dispensation of his Ordinances which they might use as their owne treasure and thereby learne to know and feare him therefore it is called their Law John 8. 17. It is also written in your Law when the rest of the nations all that while were without God in the world and received the rule of their life from the Oracles of the Devill according to that of the Psalmist Psal 147. 10 20 He shewed his word to Iacob his statutes and his judgments to Israel hee hath not dealt so with any nation and as for his judgements they have not knowne them So Deut. 33. 4. The Law is called the inheritance of the Congregation of Iacob And although it bee true that these visible and externall priviledges will end with the greater condemnation of them who live and die in the abuse of them while they rest in Cortice in the outward thing it selfe and labour not after the spirituall part yet the priviledges themselves are very great It is no small mercy to have a membership or visible standing in that societie where salvation is ordinary this our blessed Saviour told the woman of Samaria Iohn 4. 22. Salvation is of the Iewes this was the priviledge which the Church of the Jewes had above the Samaritans that salvation was to bee found in their way and God in his wisedome hath so ordained it to have his visible Church made up of such I meane so as to have some of them inwardly holy and others of them by externall profession onely for this reason among many others that there might bee some who should from time to time bee converted by the Ordinances dispensed in his Church as well as others who should be built up that the Pastors which hee sets up to feed his flocke should not onely bee nursing fathers to build up but also fathers to beget sonnes and daughters to him and though all are bound de jure to bee inwardly holy who joyne to the Church yet would hee have his Church admit those who professe their willingnesse to bee his that hee by his discipline might make them inwardly such as they externally professe themselves and as yet are not in truth as into a Schoole are admitted not onely such as are actually learned but such as are dedicated to be learned not onely quia docti sed ut sint docti and who ever will deny this that there are some rightly admitted by the Church to visible membership who onely partake of the visible priviledges must deny that any are visible members who are not inwardly converted which I thinke you will doe but lest you or any other should I shall at the present back it onely with that speech of the Apostle Rom. 11. where Paul speakes of some branches grassed into the Olive and afterwards broken off not onely the Iewes whom hee calleth the naturall branches were broken off but the Gentiles also the Gentile Churches who were graffed in in their roome and were made partakers of the roote and fatnesse of the Olive even they also may bee broken off if they beleeve not and God will no more spare these branches then hee did the other now this cannot bee meant of any breaking off from the invisible Church from partaking of the spirituall roote and fatnesse of the Olive from this neither Jew nor Gentile are ever broken off it were Arminianisme to the purpose to affirme the contrary it must therefore bee meant onely of a visible standing and externall participation of Church-priviledges and if you thinke otherwayes that none of old were nor now are visible members of the Church or had right to externall Church priviledges unlesse they were inwardly sanctified I beseech you in your next to cleare this and open our eyes with your evidence that wee may see it with you and in stead of leading your Reader into a maâ—e by framing multitudes of senses the like produce some solid arguments to shew and prove that no other but true beleevers may in fore visibiâ—â—â— Ecclâ—siae bee reckoned to belong to the Church and people of God But I suppose in this particular you will hardly deny a lawfulnesse of admitting men into a visible communion upon a visible profession and that rightly even by a judgement of faith though their inward holinesse be unknown to us for so much you grant pag. 159. and if by a judgement of faith a Minister as Gods Steward may dispence the seale of the Covenant of grace and not stay from applying the seale
to him who makes an outward profession because wee have not a Spirit of discerning to know them to bee reall beleevers then it undeniably follows That some may rightly be accounted to belong to the Church of God and Covenant of grace beside reall beleevers which is as much as I need to make my sense and meaning in this Proposition to passe for currant And truly Sir whoever will grant that a Minister in applying the seale must doe it de fide in faith being assured he applyes it according to rule must either grant such a right as I plead for that many have right to bee visible members and bee partakers of the externall administration of Ordinances though they be not inwardly sanctified or else hee must by revelation be able to see and know the inward conversion of every one hee applyes the seale unto for certainly hee hath no written Word to build his faith upon for the state of this or that man And for my own part when once you have disproved this that there is such a visible membership and right to externall administrations as I have here infisted upon I shall not onely forbeare baptizing Infants but the administration of the externall seale to any what profession soever they make untill I may bee de fide assured that they are inwardly regenerate This then was and is my meaning when I say That Infants of believers are confederates with their Parents that they have the same visible right to be reputed Church-members as their Parents have by being visible Professors and are therefore to be admitted to all such external Church-priviledges as their Infant age is capable of and that the visible Church is made up of such visible Professors and their Children that the invisible takes in neither all of the one nor the other but some of both Whereas therefore you say you are at a stand to finde out what my meaning is and know not what to deny or what to grant and again pag. 45. You are at a stand whether I meane they are to bee taken in with their Parents into Covenant in respect of saving grates or the outward priviledge of Church-ordinances I beseech you stand no longer doubtfull of my meaning I meane of them as I meane of other visible Professors they are taken into Covenant both ways respectively according as they are elect or not elect all of them are in Covenant in respect of outward priviledges the elect over and above the outward priviledges are in Covenant with respect to saving graces and the same is to bee said of visible members both Parents and Infants under the New Testament in this point of being in Covenant as was to be said of visible members in the former administration whether Jewes and their children or Proselytes and their children I endeavour in all this to speak as clearly as I can possibly not onely because you say you are oft at a stand to pick out my meaning but because this mistake runs through your whole book that none are to be reputed to have a visible right to the Covenant of grace but onely such as partake of the saving graces of it Now I proceed with you When I say That God would have beleevers children reputed to belong to his Church and family and not to the devills You answer That you feare I use that expression of not belonging to the Devills Kingdome to please the people But Sir why doe you judge my heart to intend amisse in using an expression which your self cannot mislike I have more cause to think you use all these words it cannot be denyed but God would have the Infants of beleevers in some sort to be accounted his to belong to him his Church and family and not to the Devills And againe it is true in facie visibilis Ecclesiae the Infants of beleevers are to bee accounted Gods c. onely ad faciendum populum to please the people because this is not your judgement for when you speake your full meaning and sense of this point you professe you know no more promise for them in reference to the Covenant then to the children of Turkes And even here you onely grant them a nearer possibility to belong to the Covenant of grace then the children of Infidels have therefore in your judgement they are not now actually belonging to it but onely in a possibility so that though they may be accounted to belong to the Kingdom of God potentially yet by your doctrine they belong to the Kingdom of the Devill actually and all this charitable opinion which here you expresse toward them dontaines no more then is to be allowed to the child of a Turk if born among Christians especially if a Christian will take it and bring it up in Christian Religion and by what may we ground any probable hopes they will actually receive the profession of Christ since by your rule there is no promise no externall Covenant why may I not have as good hopes of Heathens children if Gods promise helpe not here But say you To make them actually members of the visible Church is to overthrow the difinitions of the visible Church that Protestant Writers use to give because they must be all Christians by profession I reply it overthrows it not at all for they all include the Infants of such Professors as the visible Church among the Jewes did include their Infants male and female too lest you say that Circumcision made them members I adde also Baptisme now as well as Circumcision of old is a reall though impâ—iâ—â—â— Profession of the Christian Faith But say you Infants are oâ—ly passive and doe nothing whereby they may bee denominated visible Christians I answer even as much as the Infants of Jewes could doe of old who yet in their dayes were visible members Yea say you further it will follow That there may bee a visible Church which consists onely of Infants of beleevers I answer no more now then in the time of the Jewish Church it 's possible but very improbable that all the men and Women should dye and leave onely 〈◊〉 behindâ— them and it 's farre more probable that a Church 〈…〉 Anabaptists why may consist onely of Hypocritâ—â— Againe you affirme We are not to account Infants to belong to God either in respect of election or promise of grace or presenâ—◠〈◊〉 of in being in Christ 〈◊〉 â—state by any act of 〈…〉 with in a particulâ—â— revelation because there 〈…〉 declaration of God that the Infants of prisâ—â—◠〈…〉 all or some either are elected to life or in the Covenant of grace in Christ either in respect of present in-being or future estate To which I answer briefly though all this bee granted if meant of the spirituall part of the Covenant onely yet this makes nothing against that visible membership which I plead for Yea I reâ—ort the argument upon your selfe and dare boldly affirme that by this argument no visible Church or all
the visible Professors of any Church are to be accounted to belong to God either in respect of election from eternity or promise of grace or present state of in-being in Christ c. without a particular revelation because there is no declaration of God that the present visible Professors are indefinitely all or some either elected to life or are in the Covenant of grace in Christ either in respect of present in-being or future estate look by what distinction you will answer this for visible Professors who are growne men the same will serve for the Infants of beleevers In the next place you make a digression against an expression of Mr. Cottons which you thinke necessary to do because you fâ—â—de many are apt to swallow the dictates of such men as Mr. Cotton is without examination he affirmed the Covenant of grace is given to Christ and in Christ to every godly man Gen. 17. 7. and in every godly man to his seed God will have some of the seed of every godly man to stand before him for ever against this you except many things and according to your usuall course you frame many senses of the Covenants being given to every godly man and his seed some whereof are so absurd as no charitable man can imagine ever came in Mr. Cottons thoughts That every godly man should be to his seed as Christ to every godly man which in truth as you say would be little lesse then blasphemy But I shall give you this short Reply that I take Mr. Cottons meaning to be that looke as Abraham Isaac and Jacob and other godly Jewes were to their seed in respect of the Covenant that is every godly man to his seed now except onely in such things wherein those Patriarchs were types of Christ in all other things wherâ—in God promised to be the God of them and their seed godly parents may plead it as much for their seed 〈◊〉 as they could then and whatever inconvenience or absurdity you seem to fasten upon Mr. Cotton will equally reach to them also as for example suppose an Israelite should plead this promise for his seed you 'll demand if â—ee plead it to his seed universally that 's false and so of the rest of your inferences look what satisfying answer an Israelite would give you the same would Mr. Cotton give and at satisfyingly As for what you say concerning Abraham that by the seed of Abraham are meant onely elect and beleevers I have sufficiently answered to it before and shall have occasion to meet with it again in its due place therefore I now say no more of it but the chief thing you grate upon against M. Cotton is that expression in the close That God will have some of every godly mans seed stand before him for ever You aggravate this to the utmost as a bold dictate imposing on Gods counsel and Covenant the absurdity and falsity wherof you indeavour to manifest at large to which I answer in two or three words that supposing his meaning to be as you set it downe That it is in reference to election and everlasting life that every godly man shall have some of his seed infallibly saved I confesse the expression is not to be justified nor doe I thinke that that sense ever came into the mind of so learned and judicious a man as Mr. Cotton is for my part I think he onely alluded to that promise made to Jonadâ—â—s children Jer. 35. thaâ— God would alwayes beare a mercifull respect unto the posterity of his servants according to that promise Exod. 20. 5. I will shew mercy to thousands of them that love mee and keepe my commandements And that being his scope as I thinke it was you need not have kept such a stirre about it After your digression to meet with Mr. Cotton in stead of returning to my Sermon you wander further out of your way for after a short discourse of judging children to bee within the Covenant by opinion according to a rule of prudence or charity senses which I meddle not with and therfore need not stay the Reader in descanting upon them My rule of judging their condition being limited to the Rule of Gods revealed will in his word you then proceed in an indeavour wherein you doe but lose time and waste paper for many pages together endeavouring to confute what was never asserted by me viz. That the Covenant of saving grace is made to beleevers and their naturall seed that the Infants of beleevers are so within the Covenant of grace as to be elected and to have all the spirituall priviledges of the Covenant belonging to them this you would needs have to be my meaning and I almost suspect you would fasten this sense upon mee against your owne light for pag. 142. you doe as good as cleare mee of it where you say You suppose that I doe not hold that the Infants of beleevers indifferently have actually the thing signified by baptisme union with Christ adoption pardon of sinne regeneration c. So that in all this discourse you doe but luctari cum larvis according to your owne expression pag. 45. my plain meaning was as is before expressed nor doe any of the expressions used by mee and here brought by you as Arguments to prove this to be my meaning hold forth any such thing as they are within the Covenant of grace belonging to Christs body kingdome houshold therefore are to partake of the seale True as visible professors are quà visible Againe they are to bee accounted to belong to him as well as their parents True as well as their parents doe by a visible profession Againe they are made free according to Abrahams copy True according to the promise made to Abraham I will bee a God to thee and thy seed that looke as Abraham and his seed the Proselytes and their seed upon their visible owning of God and his Covenant had this visible priviledge for their posterity that they should be accounted to belong to Gods kingdom and houshold with their parents so it is here One Argument more you bring beside laying of my words together to prove that this must needs bee my sense because you doubt not but my meaning is agreeable to the Directory which holds forth That the promises are made to beleevers and their seed and directs Ministers to pray That God would make Baptisme to the Infant a seale of adoption regeneration and eternall life And you conclude that if there be not a promise of these saving graces to Infants in vaine are they baptized and the seale is put to a blank To which I reply my meaning is indeed according to the sense of the Directory and according to that direction I doe pray that God would make baptisme to bee a seale to the Infant of adoption and the rest of the saving graces of the Covenant yet I utterly deny you consequence that unlesse there bee absolute promises of
sense every child of a beleever is brone a Christian that is hee is a member of the visible Church in the second sense none can claime it as a birthright men must be made Christians in that sense and not borne Christians thus this which is a weake objection of the Lutherans against the Calvinists is easily answered to bee children of wrath by nature and yet to bee holy in an externall Covenant being borne of beleeving parents do no whit oppose one another thus it was not onely among the Jewes who had a visible standing under the Covenant of grace and yet multitudes of them were the children of wrath but even thus it is unto this day among growne men who are admitted to be Christians in your way some of them are sancti called and holy in the face of the visible Church and yet not so coram facie dei whilst others are so both in the spirit and in the letter Your great errour and mistake is that you speake not distinctly of the Covenant of grace for whereas the Covenant is to bee largely understood for the whole dispensation of it in outward Ordinances as well as saving graces you usually take it strictly for saving graces which belong onely to the elect You cannot bee ignorant how our Divines owne the outward administration of the Covenant under the notion of faedus externum and the spirituall grace of it under the notion of faedus inteâ—â—um you still restraine the Covenant to the spirituall part onely and would perswade your Reader that they who speake of the Covenant of grace must meane it thus strictly and yet you bring not arguments to disprove a true visible membership upon a visible profession whether the inward saving grace be known or not Now I returne with you to my Sermon where your examen proceeds I used for illustration sake â—â— comparison from other Kingdomes Corporations and Families the children follow the condition of their parents free mâ—nâ— children are borne free the children of slaves are borne slaves c. and thus hath God ordained said I that it shall bee in his Kingdome and Family children follow the Covenant condition of their parents this passage you slight first in generall as that which containes nothing but dictates but parâ—ius-ista-vitis you may give your adversary two in the seven at dictating you who call my onely using a comparison or allusion to bee a dictating can dictate in this very place Christianitie say you is no mans birthright this was but even just now the question betwixt you and Mr. Blake and you here without any proofe â—et downe this peremptory conclusion which was the very question betwixt you Christianitis is no mans birth-right but the thing is true call it what you please and will not bee blowne away with a scornefull puffe but say you I doâ—very carnally imagine the Church of God to bee like civill Corporations as if persons were to bee admitted into it by birth whereas in this all is done by free election of grace and according to Gods appointment I reply you carnally and sinfully judge of Gods wayes in this particular for is it not evident that the Jewish Church was in this like civill corporations were not children then admitted in by birth-right and yet was not grace then as free as it is now had the Jewes by birth no seale of grace and that by Covenant because God was the God of them and their seed or was there no grace accompanying the Jewish Sacraments I suppose you are not so Popish as to deny it And further I pray you tell mee was not all done among them as much by the free election of grace as among us are you of Arminius his mind that Iacob and Esaâ— both circumcised persons are not proposed to us Rom. 9. as such who hold forth to us the soveraigntie of God in election and reprobation Secondly what meane you when you say all is done in the Church according to the fâ—â—â— election of grace T is true if you meane it of the Church invisible all is there done by the free election of grace but wee are speaking of the visible Church and I hope you will not say all is there done by free election of grace you will not say that none have any interest in the visible priviledges but onely they who are elected You adde yea to conceive that it is in Gods Church as in other kingdomes is a seminary of dangerous superstitions and errors Dr. Reynolds in his conference with Hart hath shewed that hence arose the frame of government by Patriarchs Metropolitans c. and this is say you the reason of invocation of Saints c. I reply true for men to say thus it must be or thus it may bâ—e in Godâ— kingdome because it is so in other kingdomes is the very Seminary which Dr. Reynolds speaks of but to mention some things alike in Gods Kingdome and other kingdomes when God himselfe hath made them so it is obedience and not presumption Yea it is a great sinne to call that a carnall imagination which is Gods owne doing Next when I say if hee take a father into Covenant hee takes the children in with him if hee reject the parents the children are east out with them You answer if I meane this in respect of election and reprobation it is not true or in respect of the Covenant of grace which is congruous to election or reprobation I answer you judge right I meant it not of election or reprobation nor that the saving graces of the Covenant are alwayes made good either to Infants or growne men who are taken into Covenant I meant it as before I expressed it of taking in into a visible Church-standing But say you neither is that true it is not true in respect of outward Ordinances the father may bee baptized and not the child and è contra the father may bee deprived and the child may enjoy them I answer but this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the thing that is in question betwixt us the contrary whereunto I undertake to justifie Indeed de sacto the one may enjoy them and the other hee deprived of them a father may bee baptized and his child die before it bee baptized but our question is de jure whether a Parent being a beleever his child hath not right to Baptisme and other Church-priviledges as it growes copable of them at the â—ewâ—s children had to Circumcision c. De sacto it fell out sometimes so among the Jewes David the â—ather circumcised and not the child borne to him by Bathsheba which dyed the seventh day and was not Circumcised and many multitudes more in the same condition but is this any thing against the right of Infants to beâ— Circumcised Next say you In this point there i◠〈◊〉 certaintie or agreement in the paedobaptists determination becausâ— Mr. Rutherford saies the children of Papists and excommunicate Protestants which are barne
the same right which the infants of the Jews had and your Arguments fight against the Infants of the Jews as much as against the Infants of the Gentiles for to apply your own words spoken of beleevers now to the Jewes then Though it may bee granted that the infants of the Jews were for the most part under the election and Covenant of grace and so in the visible Church yet it will not follow that every infant of a Jew in as much as hee is the child of a Jew or a beleever is under the Covenant of grace because we have Gods expresse declaration to the contrary Rom. 9. 6 7 8. and all experience proves the contrary is not this as much against the one as the other To what I said the Jewes Infants were graffed in by Circumcision therefore ours are to be ingraffed in by Baptisme You answer by demanding whether in good sadnesse I doe thinke the Apostle here meanes by graffing in baptizing or Circumcision or incision by outward Ordinances for if that were the meaning then breaking off must be meant of uncircumcising or unbaptizing To which I reply that in good sober sadnesse I do think that graffing in is admission into visible membership or visible communion with the Church of Christ and that the externall seale of their visible graffing in was Circumcision and of ours Baptisme and yet it follows not that breaking off is onely uncircumcising or unbaptizing but breaking offâ—â—â— a casting out from that visible membership whereof this Sacrament is a Symbole But to you it seems that ingraffing here is meant of the invisible Church by election and faith I Reply if it be meant of the invisible Church onely and that all who are graffed in in the Apostles sense whether Jews or Gentiles are onely electones I will solemnly promise you never to plead this Scripture more for any Infants either of Jews or Gentiles no nor for visible Professors of either of them provided onely if you cannot make that good you will as indeed you must yeeld that some are to be reputed visible Church-members though not elect whether Jews or Gentiles and that our graffing in is as theirs was they and their children we and our children and if you please let us a little try it out The Text is plaine some of the branches were broken off such branches whose naturall growing in the Olive yeelded them that priviledge which they now partake of who are graffed in in their stead were these broken off from the invisible Church you dare not say so if then the Olive from which they were broken off bee the visible Church I have enough and I wonder that any but an Arminian should make any question that the Apostle speaks onely of rejecting the Nation of the Jewes from being the visible Church and taking the body of the Gentiles in their stead to be Gods visible Kingdom in that it is meant of such an ingraffing as may be broken off which cannot bee from the invisible Church But let us see how you seek to evade this and how you prove that it must bee meant of the invisible Church Abraham say you bad a a double capacity one of a naturall Father and another the father of the faithfull in respect of the former capacity some are called branches according to nature others wilde Olives by nature yet graffed in by faith and when it is said that some of the naturall branches were brokin off the meaning is not that some of the branches of the invisible Church may be broken off but onely such as were so in appearance according as our Saviour expresses it Joh. 15. 2. But I Reply I professe I understand not how this distinction gives you the least helpe for tell me I pray you were not these whom you cal naturall branches is truly in the Olive as they who being wilde by nature were yet graffed in in the stead of them who were broke off If they were how doth this distinction help you You say indeed That the Infants of beleeving Jewes were not in the Covenant of grace because they were their children if by this you meane they were not members of the invisible Church you say the truth but nothing to the purpose But if your meaning be that they had not a visible membership such an ingraffing as gave them a right to outward Ordinances you not onely contradict the Scripture but your selfe who plead this That it was a peculiar priviledge to Abraham that his children should have such a visible standing as ours have not plainly the Jewes were the naturall branches some of them were elect some not the body of them were the branches spoke of in this place many of these were broke off others of them kept their station yet Gods election failes not even so is it now the Gentiles were graffed in that is their visible faith gave them a visible ingraffing their invisible faith gave them who have it an invisible membership yea to me your selfe seem to say as much when pag. 63. you affirme incision may be either into the visible or invisible Church graffing in may be either by faith or profession of faith And pag. 65. It is true that our present graffing in is answerable to or rather for their casting out that is God would supply in his Olive tree the Church the casting away of the Iews by the calling of the Gentiles so much the Apostle saith ver 17. thou being a wilde Olive wer 't graffed in in ramorum defractorum locum into the place of the branches broken off if you mean it in this sense say you I grant it And truly Sir in these words to my understanding you grant not onely my interpretation of this place but even the question controverted betwixt us First you grant my interpretation that it is not meant of the invisible but the visible Church for I know you will not say that any of the elect Jewes were broken off and the Gentiles elected and put into their place It must therefore be meant of the visible and of the visible Church of the New Testament and that those Jewes who kept their station and we who are in the roome of those that were broke off doe make that Olive which the Jewes made before Yea secondly you by necessary confequence grant that our children are taken in as theirs were we are graffed in in ramorum defractorum loeum we supply in the Olive tree the Church the casting away of the Jews Now if we thus supply our children supply the place of their children which were broken off and beside we are one with the rest of the Jews who remained in this Olive and their remaining in the Olive did not I hope deprive them of that priviledge which before-times they had for their children and therefore we must have the same with them and a greater then they had for their children none of us ever pleaded though ours be clearer and a greater
of generations that feare him and visit the sins of parents upon their children may wee not say truly when God cast out the nation of the Jewes from being his people that for their sins he gave the Bill of Divorce to them and to their children that they should no longer be his people in Covenant as they were in time past and yet his grace remain free I spake expressely of outward administration of the Covenant That when Parents are taken into Covenant their children also with them have a visible right and when God gives a bill of divorce from a visible Church standing for to true beleevers hee never gives any their children are cast out with them as appeares in the Jewes at this day is this to symbolise with Arminius or doth Doctor Twisse or Moulin or any other of our Orthodox writers gainesay this I appeale to every learned Reader to judge But é regione I desire you to shew how you will avoyd symholizing with the Arminians who indeavor to prove falling away from true grace and holinesse from this 11. of the Romans because the branches were broken off when you with them say the graffing into the Olive here is meant of true beleevers graffed into the invisible Church yet of the branches growing in or graffed into this Olive it is expresly said some were broken off and others will fare no better if they beleeve not Bert us in his relation of the conference at the Hague urges this very place to prove that it is possâ—ble for the Saints to fall away from grace because we are advised to take warning by the Jewes Example who were broken off for their unbeleefe I know that you thinke not that true beleevers may fall away but how you will avoid the Argument interpreting this place as you doe I professe I cannot tell And now I leave it to every judicious Reader whether you or I have darkned this Scripture whether you in saying this Text is meant of the invisible Church onely and the graffing in is by election and faith or I who say the rejecting is of the Jewes from being of the visible Church and ingraffing is meant of the taking in of the Churches of the Gentiles to bee the visible Church kingdome and people of God in their roomes whether in a word I who interpret it of such a growing in the Olive or ingraffing into it as may endure a breaking off and yet none fall from saving grace who once had it or you who make such a graffing in as that if any branches bee broken off it must necessarily follow that branches may bee rent off from the invisible Church and fall away from inward holinesse have interpreted this Text most agreeable to the Analogy of faith and the Apostles scope and to conclude let the Reader also judge whether this Text notwithstanding all your indeavors remaine not still in my hands as one of my strong holds to defend this conclusion That the obildron of beleevers new have the same right to the Covenant with their Parents as the children of the Jewes had with their Parents Now say you you are come to my principall hold 1 Cor. 7. 14. I perceive at first you thinke there is some strength in it for you have brought a huge army against it and drawne a long line about it raised abundance of batteries and in a very long discourse say something almost to every sentence of mine concerning this Scripture and after all your shot is spent you cry Io triumphus I have got your chiefe hold which you had best manned Truely Sir you speake like 〈…〉 qui diffâ—aviâ— omnes 〈◊〉 Gurgu 〈◊〉 But the best is all the ground is not yours that you walke over nor every man killed that you shoot at I have no feare that your great swelling words will give any satisfaction to your judicious Readers wee will come to what you have done and try what strength there is in this long Section and that I may make my answer to it as briefe as is possible I shall bring all the matter of your discourse to three heads First such things as wherein you and I doe agree and must necessarily agree Secondly such things as wherein whether wee agree or disagree it matters not much to the point in controversie these two I shall but touch upon Thirdly such things wherein wee differ and which really concerne the controversie betwixt us And these things God willing wee will try out hand to hand First wee agree that sanctified may have many senses and that of those many two onely are applicable in this place either the matrimoniall sanctification which you insist upon viz. Chastitie in the wife and husband or lawfull matrimony between them and legitimation of the children Or else Instrumentall sanctification in the husband and wife and federall holinesse in the children which I insist upon Wee agree also secondly that iâ— may signifie by as well as in Wee further agree thirdly that the seepe and meaning of the Text is that the Corinthians having writ for the Apostles resolution whether it were lawfull for them who were converted still to retaine their Infidell wives or husbands the Apostle here resolves that case upon the affirmative And I will further agree with you fourthly that these words else were your Children uncleane c. are a medium or argument whereby the Apostle proves the former sentence the unbeleeving husband is sanctified in the wife c. I yet further agree fiftly that all the places which you cite out of the learned Chamier are Orthodox and clearely prove that for which hee brings them viz. That sanctification cannot bee understood of the conversion of the unbeleever through the diligence of the beleever page 73. And that the Argument is not fetched from a contingent thing pag. 74. And that holinesse is not meant of ceremoniall holinesse which sense was ascribed to Augustine pag. 76. And that the holinesse of Children here is not that which they receive from their education pag. 75. And I am sure you must agree with mee sixtly that in all these testimonies you have cited out of Chamier there is not one word against my Interpretation or for the Justification of yours yea and I know also that you will agree with mee seventhly that the learned Chamier in a large dispute doth confute your interpretation and vindicate my interpretation as the onely true and proper meaning of this Text even in that very place where you quote him And therefore I know the Reader will agree with mee whether you doe or no that you doe but abuse your Author and Reader both in making a flourish with Chamiers name nothing to the purpose and thereby would make the Reader conceive Chamier to bee of your side when hee is point-blanke against you I yet further agree with you eighthly that some Interpreters both antient and moderne doe interpret this Text as you doe and I am
that no part of the spirituall Covenant made with Abraham did appeare to belong to Ishmael when he was circumcised or not to Esau when hee was circumcised God indeed did then declare that Isaac was he in whose family the Covenant should continue but not a word that Ishmael should have no part in it prove if you can in your next that Ishmael and Esau were not by their circumcision bound to have their hearts circumcised and to beleeve in the Messiah that was to come of Abrahams seed And whereas you say againe and againe that no benefit of the Covenant was the proper reason why these or those were circumcised but onely Gods precept I have already cleared it out of the Text Genesis 17. that though Gods command was the cause of the existence of the dutie of Circumcision yet the Covenant of grace was the motive to it and these two are well consistent together Whereas I answered to that carnall objection of the Anabaptists that nothing is plainer then that the Covenant whereof Circumcision was a signe was the Covenant of grace you reply first it was a mixt Covenant which is before taken away in answer to your exceptions against my first conclusion Sect. 2. Part 3. Secondly you say all circumcised persons were not partakers of the spirituall part it 's one thing to bee under the outward administration another thing to be under the Covenant of Grace Sir I thanke you for this answer you grant as much as I have been proving all this while viz. that men may have a visible membership though they bee not elected and that there ever was and will be some such in the Church to whom the outward administration and externall priviledges doe appâ—â—taine though they are not inwardly sanctified and I hope you will not deny but that these are called in that sense which our Saviour meanes when hee sayes Many are called but few are chosen I added Abraham received Circumcision a signe of the righteousnesse of faith true say you Circumcision was a seale of righteousnesse but not to all or only circumcised persons but to all beleevers whether Iews or Gentiles though they never are or may be sealed in their own persons I reply first this is but a peece of odde Divinitie that Circumcision should seale righteousnesse to them who never are circumcised nor reputed so nor capable of being circumcised nor might lawfully be circumcised but let that passe 2ly Indeed none but beleevers have the spirituall part of Circumcision but visible professors had a visible right to it and were obliged to seeke the spirituall grace of it and though they who are externally called and not elected never come to attaine the spirituall part yet are they in foro visibilis Ecclesiae to be reputed Church members and they have as Austin saith veritatem sacramenti though not fructum Sacramenti they receive the truth of the Sacrament though they partake not of the best part of it And the Iewes said I received it not as a nation but as a Church as a people separated from the world and taken into Covenant with God against which you object if I take as with reduplication they received it neither as a nation nor as a Church for if as a nation then every nation must have been circumcised if as a Church then every Church must be circumcised they received it as appointed them from God under that formall notion and no other But what poore exceptions are these my plaine meaning was the Jewes were both a civill societie or Common-wealth they were also a Church or a people in Covenant with God Circumcision was given them in reference to their Church State not in reference to their civill state and was in ordine to the things of Gods kingdome and though the formall reason of their being circumcised was the command of God yet the Covenant of grace or their Church state was the motive to it and the thing it related to as is most cleare out of the 17. of Genesis and many other places where their Circumcision denotates their religious standing as hath often been shewed before But what is all this say you to the answering of the objection which was that Circumcision was not the Seale of the spirituall part of the Covenant of grace to all circumcised persons and that Circumcision was appointed to persons not under the Covenant c. I answer I thinke it very fully answers the objection for if it was commanded and observed as that which was a priviledge and dutie belonging to the Covenant and they used it as being in Covenant the objection is wholly taken off Your frequent bringing in of the manner of administration by types shadowes c. hath been abundantly answered in my vindicating my first conclusion and elsewhere Next you much trouble your selfe how I will cleare that expression of mens conformity to temporall blessings and punishments because blessings and punishments are Gods acts and not mens I desire you to require an account of it from them who assert it I said Circumcision bound them who received it to conforme to that manner of administration of the Covenant which was carried much by a way of temporall blessings and punishments they being types of spirituall things is this all one to conforme to temporall blessings and punishments I added no man can shew that any were to receive Circumcision in relation to these outward things onely or to them at all further then they were administrations of the Covenant of grace you answer they received Circumcision neither in relation to these outward things onely no nor at all either as they were temporall blessings or types of spirituall things and so administrations of the Covenant of grace but for this reason and no other because God had so commanded I reply here had beene the fit place for you to have made good what you have so confidently asserted heretofore that Ishmael Esau and others were circumcised for some temporall respects that Circumcision sealed the temporall or politicall promises c. but in stead of proving this you doe here as good as deny it for if they were not circumcised in any respect at all to their temporall blessings how I pray you did Circumcision seale their temporall blessings Nay further you by consequent deny that Circumcision sealed either temporall or spirituall blessings and consequently it was no seale at all or a seale of nothing at all for if they were circumcised with respect to nothing but onely because God commanded them to bee circumcised how was Circumcision any Seale to them If a father give a child a Ring and command him to weare it onely to shew his obedience to his fathers command what doth the wearing of this Ring seale to the child it declares indeed the childes obedience to the father but seals nothing to the child from the father Nor doth that which you adde any whit helpe this you say You deny not
once the Infants of all Covenanters had this priviledge may I not also exact of you to shew when and where this was taken away who though you goe not about to expunge them out of the book of life yet you expresly expunge them out of visible membership while you say the Jews Infants had it and ours have it not Lastly I added who ever will goe about to deprive them of it to cut off such a great part of the comfort of beleeving Parents must produce clear testimonies before they can perswade beleevers to part with either of them either right to the Covenant or to the seale of the Covenant because next to the glory of God and the salvation of their owne soules their Infants interest in the Covenant is one of the greatest benefits beleevers have from the Covenant of grace even to have their Children belong to Gods family and Kingdome and not to the Devills Children being the greatest treasure of their Parents and the salvation of their childrens soules the greatest treasure in their children and therefore to exclude them out of that society or visible standing where salvation is ordinary is so great a losse or eclipsing of their comfort aâ— whoever would make them yeeld to it had need produce very strong evidence and much more I said in my Sermon to this purpose You answer Here I am upon my advantage ground in a veine of Oratory and on a subject of all others aptest to move affections to wit Parents tendernesse to their children I confesse in this point I stand upon a vantage ground not in Oratory to which I pretend not but in point of truth had I only spoken words without weight you could and would have discovered their emptiness and scoffed at them sufficiently you make severall small exceptions which I shal briefly touch as First That I touch something too neare upon the Popish Opinion as if I might be guess'd to symbolize with that Opinion of the Papists who judge all unbaptized infants to perish which is not worth the answering Then you demand What comfort doe wee give Parents which the Antipaedobaptists doe not give them as well as we or what discomforts in truth doe they give them which we doe not I answer the difference is very great you leave them in the state of Infidells we in the condition the Jews children were in while they were the people of God wee account them actually belonging to the visible kingdom of Christ you actually to belong to the visible kingdom of the Devill wee leave them under the benefit of that promise I will be the God of thee and of thy feed you acknowledge no more promise for them then for the children of Turks it may be these things are of no account to you but I doubt not but they will bee with your unprejudiced Reader I next proceeded to the maine and onely Objection made against this whole Argument which is this There is no command no expresse institution or cleare example in all the New Testament of baptizing of Infants and in administration of Sacraments wee are not to be led by our owne reason or grounds of seeming probabilities but by the expresse order of Christ and no otherwise You say this is indeed the maine Objection and without answering it all that I have said is to little purpose But Sir did not you formerly grant that upon the proving of my two first Conclusions the whole cause depended if therefore those Conclusions remaine firme there is enough already said to the purpose You adde Vnlesse this Objection be removed the practice of baptizing infants will never be acquitted from Will-worship and that the Prelatists will shew vertuall commands from analogy of the Ceremoniall Law of the Jews and Traditions Ecclesiasticall as ancient as ours for Paedobaptisme for their Prelacy Holy dayes Surplice c. And therefore if I stand not to iâ— here I must yeeld up my weapons Sure you think you are here like to get some advantage you speake so big but by this time I have had such sufficient experience of your strength that I much feare not your great words First for the point of Will-worship I shall desire you to prove this Conclusion That all things belonging to Christian worship even in the circumstances of it even the ages and sexes of the Persons to whom the Ordinances are to bee applyed must bee expresly set down in the new Testament if you prove not this you say nothing to the purpose for this is our very case I have already shewed the falsenesse of it in the point of the Christians Sabbath for though the Ceremoniall Worship which was a type of Christ be wholly abolished yet not every thing which concerns all Worship which must have an institution is abolished And for the plea which the Bishops and others may pretend from the analogy of the Ceremoniall Law when you shew how they will raise their Arguments which possibly you have more skill and experience to doe then I have as plainly as I doe for Infant-baptisme you may possibly prevaile with the Reader in their behalf And when you shew as much Ecclesiasticall Antiquity for Prelacy Holydayes Surplice c. I shall beleeve your Reading to be greater then I can yet be perswaded of that you have seen some such Monuments of Antiquity which the Prelaticall Party could never yet light upon But I proceed with you I first granted That there is no expresse syllabicall command for baptizing of Infants no expresse example where Children were baptized Sure say you this is a shrewd signe that I am not like to make good my ground having yeelded thus much And why so I pray your very next words leave me ground enough when you say That if it bee made good by good consequence it is sufficient what need was there then of this idle scoffe I added Many other points of high concernment are not expresly laid down in the New Testament aâ— forbidden degrees of marriage Laws against Polygamy the Law of a weekly Sabbath c. You answer In meere positive Worship it must be so it must have either Precept or Apostolicall example equivalent to a precept found in the New Testament else it is will-worship and this say you is our case in hand I answer as before there is no absolute necessitie that every circumstance of an Ordinance or the severall Sexes or ages to whom an Ordinance ought to bee applyed must bee thus set downe in the New Testament this is sufficiently cleared Part 2. Sect. 8. and part 3. Sect. 1. As for the forbidden degrees of marriage you say there is one branch mentioned and censured in the New Testament viz. the incestâ—ouâ— Corinthians case and that is say you a finne against a morall commandement but how would you laugh at such a consequence in another a man may not marry his fathers wife a thing which by the light of nature was abborred amongst the Heathens Ergo