speakes as it was taken without the promise and that Covenant which God made with Abraham and as men sought justification by it whether without the promise before Christ or without the Gospell since Christ or whether they sought justification by the Law together with the promise or the Gospell which was not Gods end in giving the Law to his people but mans abuse of it so it brought men into a state of bondage and so the obstinate Iews that thus abuse the Law are cast out as Ishmael and Hagar And as the faithfull were under the discipline and padagogie of the Law they were in a servile condition in comparison of that great freedome from those intolerable burdens of ceremonies and great discomfort and feare accompanying the same which the faithfull have under the Gospel But notwithstanding their bondage they were sonnes and heires and lords of all Gal. 4.1 and so they were under a Covenant of grace though legally administred As for your following discourse wherein you talke your pleasure against Magistrates and Ministers and cry out of the Baptisme of Infants as the greatest delusion and a thing of as dangerous consequence as ever the man of sinne brought into the world and that the greatest maintainers thereof are the greatest deluders and that it is time for you to awake out of your drunken slumber and seek by whom and by what meanes you are so miserablely intosticated as you call it whether by an errour of the Printer or because you are so intoxicated with your drunken slumber that you cannot speake English with much other like raving talke wherein you abuse the Scriptures and shew what manner of spirit you are of Answ I account this wild talke being the evaporations of a giddy braine intoxicated with a drunken slumber whereof you complaine worthy no other answer but this Of every idle word you must give an account at the day of judgment Matt. 12.36 much more of speaking evill of those things you know not railling upon dignities and authorities despising dominions 2 Pet. 2.9.10.11.12 Iud. 4. 8 9. c. and of calling evill good and good evill putting darknesse for light and light for darknesse Es 5.20 Which places of Scripture I would intreate you when you shall awake out of your drunken slumber to consider and seriously ponder So much for the fourth argument and clearing it from exceptions Now I come to the fifth which is of affinity with the former and confounded with it by A. R. and therefore his answers to it mingled with his answers to the former but not the same and therefore we will consider it apart and set downe his answers of any weight and replie to them God willing and this is taken from circumcision 5. Argument If Infants of beleeving parents or parents in Covenant under the old Covenant might and ought to be consecrated unto God and initiated into Covenant by circumcision then Infants of beleeving parents under the new Covenant ought to be consecrated to God and solemnly entred into Covenant by Baptisme But Infants of beleeving parents under the old Covenant might and ought to be consecrated to God and initiated into Covenant by circumcision Gen. 17.10.11 Exod. 12.48 Therefore Infants of beleeving parents under the new Covenant ought to be consecrated unto God and solemnly entred into Covenant by Baptisme For the clearing and confirming of the sequele of the proposition for of the assumption there is no question I will lay downe two or three considerations First that the old and new covenant were one and the same for substance Abraham Moses David and all the faithfull before Christ were under the same Covenant that all the faithfull since Christ are under For since Adams fall there hath been but one way of salvation common to all that have been saved which way is revealed and exhibited only in the Covenant of grace as hath been partly shewed before see Rev. 13.8 14.6 Heb. 11. through the Chapter and 13.8 Hath been demonstrated by the godly learned and must be needs acknowledged by all that will without prejudice consider that Exod. 34.6.7 first God considered as a mercifu l Father a gratious long-suffering God abundant in goodnesse and truth Ezeh 16. is the Authour of the old Covenant as well as the new secondly Iosh 24. Exod. 33.19 That man considered as a miserable sinner yet weary of sinne desiring mercy professing and promising repentance faith and obedience Eph. 1.12 upon his being received into this Covenant is the other Covenantier or confederate in the old aswell as in the new Thirdly 1. Cor. 10.4 that Christ is the Mediatour in both being the Lambe slaine from the foundation of the world Gen. 3.15 Ioh. 8. Ps 110. Exod. 34.7 the promised seed who brake the serpents head whose day Abraham seeing rejoyced A priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek Fourthly that the principall good things promised in both were pardon of sinnes Ps 32.1.2 adoption sanctification perseverance and eternall salvation Fiftly Gen. 15.6 that the condition required is repentance faith and obedience in the old Covenant aswell as the new Sixtly that the end in both is the same Act. 15.10.11 to wit the glory of Gods rich mercie in powring spirituall temporall and eternall blessings upon his people And seventhly that the summe of the Covenant is the same viz Rom. 4. Exod. 19.5 6. Deut. 4.29 30. 10.16.19 11.22 I will be thy God and thou shalt be my people All which are undenyably the same in the old Covenant and new So that considering they agree in Author Object Mediator Good things promised Duties required End Effects in a word in Matter Forme and Definition there can be no essentiall difference Only they differ in some Accidents As there the Covenant was made in Christ to come Here in Christ already come There with a few people and after Abrahams or at least Moses his time only with the house of Israel and those that should joyne therewith Here with more even with all nations Then dispensed by darker prophesies and more obscure sacraments sacrifices and ceremonies or types now by cleare revelation and plaine or open ordinances without the vaile of shadowes types and darke ceremonies Then grace was more dimly scantly and with mixture of legall slavery ordinarily bestowed now more plainly plentifully comfortably and freely all which are but circumstantiall or graduall differences Secondly when the new Covenant succeeded the old then Baptisme succeeded in the place of circumcision as the Lords Supper in stead of the Passeover Exod. 12 48. Rom. 4.11 1 Cor. 12.13 Act. 22.16 Col. 2.11 12. I say Baptisme succeeded in the roome of circumcision and is to us of the same use that circumcision was to the Iewes to wit a signe of entrance into the Church a seale of the righteousnesse of faith which comprehends remission of sinnes Baptisme of the spirit and circumcision of the heart
Apostle shews Heb. 11. that under the old Covenant the godly were famous for their faith Were those promises of God exhortations of the Prophets and practise of those Worthies spoken of concerning faith and circumcision of the hart more then was comprehended in the Covenant under which Gods people at that time were Thirdly whereas you say the Church of the Gospel doth stand on faith and circumcision of the heart Is your meaning that there is no Church of the Gospel but all that are therein and professed and acknowledged members thereof are indued with faith and circumcision of heart If so experience of the Scripture and all Christian Churches will confute you sith still chaffe is mingled with graine tares with wheat the children of the wicked one with the children of the kingdome Or is your meaning that faith and circumcised hearts is required of all in the Church of the Gospel and is truly in those that are internall and living members of the same This is granted and may be said as truly of the Church of the Iewes and therefore this can make no difference being common to both Fourthly Can you tell what you meane when you say That the old Covenant stood onely by nature and circumcision of the flesh I cannot tell how you are to be interpreted but one of these three waies Either first that this Covenant was grounded on nature Or secondly that it promised onely naturall or temporall blessings Or thirdly that it was made with all and onely the naturall seed of Abraham all which are grosse and notorious errours openly crossing the Scriptures For if you meane that this Covenant was grounded in nature this is false for God chose Abraham and Israel of free grace and love above all other people Iosh 4. Deut. 7.7 c. neither did they differ in nature from others Or secondly if you meane that God onely required of them outward circumcision and cutting off the naturall foreskin and promised only naturall and temporall blessings this opinion is fitter to be abhorred then confuted Or thirdly if you meane that to be of the naturall seed of Abraham and to be circumcised in the flesh was sufficient and necessary for being in that Covenant so that their being in Covenant consisted in being the naturall seed of Abraham this is as false for first Were not many Proselytes joyned with the Israelites in the same Covenant so that to be of Abrahams seed was not necessary Secondly Did not they want circumcision in the wildernesse fourty yeares and yet remaine in Covenant Thirdly Did not Ishmael and Esau grow out of Covenant though the seed of Abraham and so ten Tribes ceased from being Gods people long before the old Covenant was antiquated and did not the Prophets shew that Legall observations were nothing worth without sinceritie Fifthly though the outward cleansings and ceremonies of the Law have ceased and so that outward faederall holinesse be at an end yet there is an outward and faederall holinesse of the new Covenant whereby Christians are distinguished from other people They have their outward Baptisme and the Lords Supper prayer in the Name of Christ alone the Word and profession of the Gospel by which they are distinguished from unbeleevers Act. 2.41.42 There are reckoned up first Baptisme secondly the Apostles Doctrine thirdly Fellowship or Communion with the faithfull fourthly breaking Bread and fifthly Prayers as distinctive markes of the Church by which it then was and to this day is distinguished from all other societies whatsoever 1 Cor. 5.12 There is a distinction expressed of those that were within the Church or Covenant and members of the Courch and those that were without whereof these were not subject to the judgement or censure of the Church those were But how are these distinguished that the Church may neither goe beyond nor neglect her office within her bounds By inward holinesse that none sees but God and each mans owne conscience and therefore cannot be a note of distinction unto men that cannot discern the heart By outward holinesse of life Not so for some of those that were within were guilty of more grosse profanenesse then those that were without as in the same Chap. 1 Cor. 5.1 and 11. Therefore there must be some note of distinction or faederall holinesse by which those that were wicked in heart and life and yet Saints by calling and members of the Church and so under the Churches jurisdiction might be discerned from them that were without and so subjected to the Churches censure 1 Cor. 5.11 12 13. Yet you say further There is now onely the new Covenant which is a covenant of grace and salvation and brings certaine salvation to all those that rightly enter into it which is onely by faith Hence it is said Act. 2.47 That the Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved Answ It is as true that the old Covenant made with the Iewes was a covenant of grace and salvation which brought certaine salvation to all those that rightly entered into it and that it was onely by faith Heb. 11. And as for the Scripture you cite it is said indeed That the Lord added to the Church such as should be saved But it is not said onely such as should be saved were added to the Church or that all those who were added to the Church were saved You proceed And that the holinesse of children is not meant of any holinesse in relation to any Church-covenant will appeare further by these reasons First that which is an effect of regeneration is not brought to passe by generation though the parents be holy But to be of the covenant or kingdome is the proper effect of regeneration Ioh. 3.3 without which none can see it much lesse be of it or enter into it Therefore it cannot be brought to passe by generation though the parents be holy Answ We say not neither can it follow from our grounds that the children of Christian parents are in covenant with God by generation but by vertue of Gods gracious promise and from the nature of the covenant of grace wherein God is pleased to accept parents together with their children for his Secondly to be of or in the covenant outwardly of which being in covenant we speak and which is sufficient to make an externall member of the Church and give right unto the outward seales you can never prove to be the proper effect of regeneration untill you have proved that all those who were baptized by Iohn the Baptist and the Apostles and so admitted into the covenant as members of the Church were truly regenerate which to hold were to contradict the Scripture Your second reason is this Secondly contradictions cannot be the effect of one and the same covenant in one and the selfe-same respect But for one parent to be a beleever that is of the Church when the other parent is not to produce an holy seed that is in covenant 1 Cor.
it is the dutie of all that are beleevers children of Abraham and will be blessed in Abrahams seed that is Christ to imitate Abrahams example in laying hold on the covenant for themselves and their children and giving them up to God even in their infancie by requiring the seale of the Covenant to be administred unto them and not to loose any part of that inheritance that God entayled upon Abraham and his children seeing as it hath been proved it is no peculiar priviledge of Abraham to have his seed in covenant nor his peculiar dutie to lay hold on the covenant for his children but the common priviledge and dutie of all the faithfull You proceed Therefore though the promises were made to Abraham and his seed yet the consequence will not follow that the covenant is likewise made with all beleevers and their seed for beleevers onely are the seed and the seed onely and none of them a father in the Gospel sense nor any other save onely Abraham to whom and his seed the covenant and promises were made Answ First If the consequence will not follow Because God is the God of Abraham and his seed Therefore he is to all the faithfull and their seed how is Abraham a father of the faithfull and patterne of beleevers Or how will it follow that Abraham performed any dutie or received any priviledge Therefore all beleevers ought to doe those duties may receive those priviledges Secondly your reason that you bring for your deniall of our consequence is a bold assertion manifestly repugnant to plain Scripture as Exod. 20.5.6 Where God having laid downe the summe of the covenant vers 2. bindes his people to his true worship and to avoid Idolatrie with a promise of mercy unto thousands of those that should love him and keepe his commandements Now these thousands are meant of the godly mans posteritie as appeareth by the Antithesis of vers 5. visiting the sinnes of the fathers on their children unto the third and fourth generation c. Doth not this promise belong to all that are in covenant with God and are bound to the obedience of the morall Law and to the pure worship of God and abstinence from idolatry so Esa 59. last vers Act. 2.37 What is meant by Gods shewing mercy to a thousand generations making a covenant that his Spirit and word shall be continued to their seed and seeds seed that the promise is made to them whom the Lord doth call and their children but the same that God promiseth unto Abraham that he will make a covenant with him and his seed be a God to him and his seed So that this answer to your boldly-affirmed but never-proved assertion that to Abraham and his seed onely the promise was made may suffice to overthrow the inferences you bring thereupon and your absurdities that you would father upon us mingled with divers untruths as may appeare to any intelligent Reader not worth answering Onely that which you lay downe in the beginning For beleevers onely are the seed and in the conclusion Abraham hath not two sorts of seeds in the sense and acceptation of the Gospel Vpon which as upon a ground-work of all your reasoning is built that the rottennesse of the foundation being discovered it may appeare how easily the superstruction will come down of it selfe I answer therefore Answ We read in the Gospell or new Testament of three sorts of Abrahams seed First Christ is called his seed Gal. 3.16 Secondly the faithfull of what Nation soever are called his seed Gal. 3.29 Thirdly those who naturally desended from his loynes Iohn 8.37 2. Cor. 11.22 And in this last kind to be Abrahams seed was sufficient to intresse men to the outward Covenant and the seale thereof and the promise was made to Abraham Gen. 17. literally and properly in this last sense not in the first or second as is apparent by the text For with that seed God made the Covenant in Abraham and to that seed God became a God which was to be circumcised at eight dayes old in respect of the males as you say the females in the males But the natural issue of Abraham was to be circumcised at 8 dayes old in respect of the males in them the females See Gen. 17.7.10.11.12 for proofe of both propositions Therfore the naturall issue of Abraham is the seed to which according to the litteral and proper meaning of the Scripture God promises to be a God in Covenant And so it appeares to be false which you say that beleevers only were the seed of Abraham sith many naturally descending from Abraham and circumcised and so outwardly in Covenant were unbeleevers You add that wee say Infants were then members of the Church and demand when they were cast out to which you answer that they were cast out when the Iewes Church-state and old Covenant was abrogate by the comming of Christ and preaching of the Gospell and planting of other Churches farre different from that of the Iewes in many respects Answ But I hope Gods people are not so simple as to beleeve your bare words against Gods expresse truth though you were an Angell from heaven or an Apostle Gal. 1. â— much lesse being as you are discovered and to think that in former times indeed Infants were in Covenant with God but now are excluded that now all Infants of christian parents dying without actuall faith and under yeares of discretion must certainly perish as aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel and out of Covenant with God that grace is so farre straitned under the Gospell in comparison of what it was under the law that whereas God was then a God to parents and to children even to many generations yea to the children of Proselytes Exod. 12.48 of what Nation soever now the holyest Christian parents can apprehend no benefit from the Covenant for their children at least till they come to yeares of discretion and actuall faith and till then must accompt them infidells and wholly under the power of the devill Is this to advance Gods Grace to extoll the Gospell and glorifie Iesus Christ Or rather is it not a tricke of the devill greatly to obscure and indeavour the utter extinguishing of the glory of Gods grace the virtue of Christs death the lustre of the Gospell and the comfort of a Christian all at once They that will hearken to such deceits as these let them make account at the last to be cheated of all grounds of comfort in Gods word Act. 2.39 Doth not the Apostle say the promise is to you and your children and to them that are afarre off c. when the Iewes Church-state and old Covenant were abrogated But let us come to consider the many respects wherein you say that the Church of the Gospell differs from the Iewish state or old Covenant whence you would prove that Infants are now cast out of Covenant wherein because you repeat for substance some toyes and
be saved But this must not be extended to all persons and times for then it should follow that no child of Christian parents dying before yeares of discretion and actuall faith could be saved which is directly contrary to those Scriptures that shew that God will be a God to the faithfull and their seed will shew mercy to thousands of their posteritie to the childrens children of those that keepe covenant Psal 10â— 1â— 18. that the promise is to the faithfull and their children that their children are holy and such places before cited which will not suffer any one that beleeves Gods word to hold that the children of the faithfull dying in their minoritie must unavoidably be damned all of them Fourthly I adde for answer to this Scripture that infants of Christian parents as they are within the covenant and are holy so they may be said to have a virtuall faith or that which is analogicall thereto that giveth them right to baptisme as much as the converted heathens profession for being in covenant with God and being holy cannot be conceived to be without answerable faith or somewhat equivalent At last you having triumphantly concluded your dispute come to shew your disciples what they may see by what you have taught them I will examine a few of your words Say you By this we may partly see the grosse mistake of all such great clarks of our times which confound those two Covenants of Law and Gospell and make them both as one in substance and different only in circumstance as in administration only or degrees the one more darke the other more light whereas indeed they are no lesse different then old and new works and faith the administration of condemnation and the administration of righteousnesse or then the letter killing and the spirit giving life 2. Cor. 3.6.7.8.9 or then a state of bondage and a state of sonnes Gal. 4.21 Answ Yes we may see what you inferre as we may see false shapes by false glasses or one falshood by another Secondly may not ignorant phantasticks possiblely fall into grosse errours assoone as great clarks Thirdly as for the differences that you put between the Covenant of the Law and of the Gospell as you call them First we grant that the Covenant which God made with the Iewish and that which he made with the Christian Church differ as old and new But this is too narrow a difference to make them diverse in substance as he that was of old a child is a new become a man yet differs not in substance from what he was but is the same person God gave that old commandement to the Iewes Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy selfe Lev. 19.18 Christ saith to his Disciples A new commandment I give unto you that you love one another Ioh. 13.34 Must these commandements needs differ in substance or must they be accused of grosse mistake that hold that these commandements agree in substance as being the same The Apostle Iohn 1. Ioh. 2.7 saith he writes no new commandement but the old yet vers 8. he saith he writes a new commandement Will you say That great clark Iohn was grossely mistaken in saying that he wrote no new commandement but an old and yet presently saying he wrote an old commandement Because in your conceit old and new so farre differ that the same thing cannot be said to be old and new though in different respects and in regard of some circumstances Secondly In your second and third difference you how great a Clark soever are grossely mistaken in calling the old Covenant made with the Iewes a Covenant of works and a Covenant of nature Where finde you the Scripture calling it so Will you perswade men that Abraham Isaac and Iacob Moses David and the faithfull before Christ where without faith and grace That either they were saved by works and nature for you will allow them to be under no covenant but works nature you exclude them from faith and grace or else to have perished remedilesly The one whereof must needs follow upon your tenet But of this we have heard before this your opinion is so absurd and unchristian that it deserves rather to be abhorred then confuted Thirdly whereas you call the old Covenant the administration of condemnation and a killing letter wherein you would have it contrary to the Gospell as being the administration of righteousnesse and spirit giving life and bring that Scripture 2. Cor. 3.6.7.8 9. I Answer First there is no such thing proved by that Scripture that the old covenant was the administration of condemnation and a killing letter Secondly neither can any such thing be conceived unlesse we shall say that all which were under the old Covenant were condemned and killed destitute of righteousnesse and life and that God made a Covenant with his people to kill and condemne them which will necessarily follow upon that tenet which were blasphemy Thirdly the Apostle indeed calleth the law which was an addition to the covenant of promise a killing letter the administration of condemnation not as it was given and intended by God primarily who gave it primarily and properly to humble that stubborne people drive them to the promise and exercise them in obedience and to be taken along with not apart from the promise and to traine them up for draw them to and direct them how to walke in Christ which is the end of the Law not to drive them from Christ But as it was in it selfe considered without the promise and without Christ so it was a killing letter and the ministrie of condemnation and as it was misunderstood and abused by false-teachers hypocrites and Iusticiaries who before the comming of Christ forsaking the promise and since his comming forsaking the Gospell both which held forth Christ in whom alone righteousnesse is to be sought or at least mingling the Law and Gospell together in point of justification sought righteousnesse by the works of the Law either alone or with the Gospell to them it became a killing letter And the addition of the Law to the promise was a testimony and an occasion of greater condemnation to such as they who abused it sought righteousnesse in it Rom. 7.12.14 Gal. 3.21 24. and made their boast of it but were not humbled nor driven to Christ thereby though in it selfe the Law was spirituall holy and good not contrary but subordinate to the promise As the Gospell is an occasion of greater condemnation even to those that are externally under the Covenant of the Gospell who abuse it 2. Cor. 2.16 Heb. 10.29 Iud. 1.4 Yet will it not hence follow that the Covenant of the Gospell or new Covenant is the ministry of condemnation though it turne to the greater condemnation of some for their abuse of it Fourthly As for your last difference that a state of bondage this a state of sonnes Answ T is true the Law given on mount Sinai for of that the Apostle