Secondly if I may conclude they have the thing and cannot by a rule conclude they have not then though they cannot manifest it yet I may feel them and what more can be when they do manifest I may be mistaken I cannot conclude infallibly they have the thing Thirdly the Jews Infants were not able to manifest the thing yet circumcised and why may not Infants be baptized though they cannot manifest the substance seeing they may have it Last of all there is a double consideration of our being in Christian state one foederall and outward the other spirituall also and inward there is a double consideration of Baptisme as of Circumcision the one outward the other inward also now man applies on his part the outward baptisme to one that is outwardly in Christian state as Infants are it belonging to man to do no more and if hee should commonly apply it to them that are not spirituall in that state nor ever shall be yet herein hee sins not but doth that he ought to do in applying to the subject what belongs to it in respect of that which in the subject is proportionable to what hee doth My third Reason to prove that infants being now in the covenant as theirs and therefore ought to be now baptized as then circumcised was this By vertue of this word to Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Infants of old were included and therefore circumcised and the same promise belongeth to the Gentiles in the same state as to Jewes therefore the Infants of Gentiles are included and must be baptized He answereth first that the Jews till Christs time were under that promise by naturall relation only and then they ceased to be under it by naturall relation and so circumcision ceased also Secondly neither to Jewes nor Gentiles is that promise continued in the same state the Gentiles being not Abrahams seed by naturall relation and that of the Jewes ceased and so hee concludes thus if the covenant touching the naturall seed be ceased then Infants are neither to be circumcised nor baptized but the covenant touching the naturall seed ceased at Christs death Acts 10.28 Gal. 3.25 Ephes 2.14 15. Rom. 11.20.21 Gal. 4.25 26. therefore Infants are neither to be circumcised nor baptized Reply First it is flat contrary to Scripture to say that the Jews were under the promise by naturall relation Rom. 9.6.8 the Apostle fully concludeth that all are not Israel nor under that promise that are of Israel that is as they were of the flesh they are not the children of Abraham under that promise and therefore though Abraham had other children yet the promise was limited to Isaac yea though Esau came of Isaac as well as Jacob yet was the promise limited to Jacob 10.11 though both of one father and mother Rom. 4.11 the promise is made to Abraham to be the father only of them that believe and therefore none first or last then or now are under the promise by vertue of naturall relation Secondly circumcision was not applied to Abrahams posterity as his naturall seed in that respect For First it was the seal of the righteousnesse of faith and therefore not be administred to any but as believing the righteousnesse of faith or such as God promised to work it in them Secondly otherwise the proselytes and their Infants could not have been circumcised being not Abrahams posterity in the flesh Thirdly all the Scriptures alledged by him speak not of the abolishing of the covenant but of ceremonies and shadowes dispensed unto them for a time which in Christs death were done away those that seem to speak of the covenant Rom. 11.20 21. adde 7. Gal. 4.25 26. speak not at all of the abolishing of the covenant but of the continuance of it altogether as the same then and now Rom. 11. speaks of the Jewes being cut off by unbelief from the covenant and not of disanulling the covenant and the Gentiles instated in that they were cut off from that of Gal. 4. speaks not of a change of the state of the promise but of the difference of persons now and then under the same state of the promise then and now as it was and is on Gods part dispensed From all in brief we may gather these particular conclusions First God made a promise to Abraham to be his God and the God of his seed as many as should believe Jews or Gentiles which was accepted by Abraham and his family and thereupon sealed by God Secondly God continued to hold out the same promise in the same state to the Jewes and Proselytes till Christs time that hee would be a God to them and their children as hee promised to Abraham and perform all that good hee promised to Abraham or promised him to perform to them and sealed their Infants to confirm all this on his part giving all means necessary thereunto nothing wanting Isa 5.4 Thirdly some alwayes received this good in this promise through all that time till Christ and in his time viz all and only the elect the rest were punished with a spirit of slumber for their neglect and at last cut off viz. all and onely non-elect Fourthly God continues the same promise in the same state unto some Jewes and offers it also to it he Gentiles if they will beleeve and so to have Abraham their Futher and their Infants father for seed includes Infants all along Fifthly that amongst them before Christ there was many had a work of the spirit of bondage wrought upon them and some a work of the spirit of adoption Ishmael in an Allegory was the type of the children of Bondage and Isaac of the children of Adoption And so it is now in the times after Christ there are some of Isaacs rank and some of Ishmaels there were alwayes two Jerusalems Ishmael and such as he was are of the Jerusalem below Isaac and such as he was are of Jerusalem from above the two mothers or Jerusalems being not two severall dispensations of one and the same Covenant in a twofold Testament any way No change therefore is in the promise in the state of it but it is the same from the time of revealing it till now And Infants all that time from Abraham to Moses and from Moses to Christ were of that seed and Proselyte Gentiles and their Infants and so now Gentile Infants are of the seed also and as Infants were then circumcised so now are they to be baptized And thus I have done with his answer to my first Argument the second followes thus If in the whole body of Israelites as well Infants as men of yeares were baptized with the same baptisme that ours is then Infants are now to be baptized as then they were But in the whole body of Israelites Infants were baptized with the same baptisme spiritually that ours is therefore Infants are now to be baptized as then they were He answereth first the Argument is a Sophisme that is
all these ends which he hath appointed it for and so for those ends it is to be administred and the omission of it is a grievous sin But none of these ends is to give them a visible being in a visible church but by way of signification and confirmation Ergo baptisme is not the form of the church A 5th Argument is from the nature of Baptisme as it is the seal of the Covenant if there be no visible Ordinance before Baptisme to note out their visible being in the covenant whereby they may be known then it is baptisme that doth it But there is no other visible ordinance before baptisme to note out their visible being in the covenant whereby they may be known Ergo it is baptisme that doth it and so it is the form of the Church Answ 1. If he really grant it is the seal of the covenant then it is not the covenant it self for which hee hath formerly argued Secondly it must be considered to whom baptisme must note out their visible being in the covenant if to themselves they may know it before for he that believeth hath the witnesse in himself if to others either Christians they must know it before or not baptize them or else the world and baptisme can no way notifie such a thing unto them they cannot take notice thereof nor will they they know them not because they have not known Christ nor the Father And if a man truly baptized fall off from his profession to whom doth it note that he is in the covenant though it be known he was baptized And our Saviour giveth a rule wherby all men shall know his Disciples not if baptized but if they love one another and keep his commandements and if any say he hath fellowship with God and doth evill hee lies and all the world may know it though they know he was visibly baptized Ergo baptisme cannot be the form of a church seeing it doth not note out their visible being in covenant which is notified before and by other means both before and after Last of all again he contradicteth himself in saying here that baptisme is the form of the church and yet before denying baptisme or the covenant either to be the form of it The 6th Argument is taken from the commission given to the first Matth. 28.19 where the Participle baptizing concurres to making them Disciples and Mark 16.16 Faith puts a man into the state of salvation before God Baptisme before men the reason runs thus If from commission to the first planters baptisme was required to make a person a Disciple in a visible state of salvation and stated in all other ordinances of Christs kingdom then baptisme so administred is that which gives being to a true visible Church I answer First the Scripture requires first that they be made Disciples and then being Disciples to be baptized and therefore baptisme doth not make them Disciples Again faith makes them Disciples in the state of salvation before God and profession of that faith and not baptisme doth make visibly and outwardly Disciples in the state of salvation before men Rom. 10.9 10. They that baptize any must know them to be visibly such before they baptize them else not baptize them as himself hath saith from Acts 2.21.8.12 Secondly Baptisme is required to state them in the observation of all the ordinances of Christs kingdome not by making them a church or member to whom only such ordinances yea baptisme it self doth belong but to make them fit to observe them being members and there are other things though they be baptized that may hinder them from observaton of those ordinances as in the old Testament circumcision did not make them a church but being a church they were to be circumcised without which they might not observe the Passeover but there were other things also which did hinder them from observation of the Passeover though they were circumcised And thus of his Position and the grounds of it That baptisme is the thing that formeth the church only if I understand his close hee flatly contradicts himself in saying baptisme is the means and thing that formeth the church and yet it is not the outward form of our church formed For either it formeth the church withan outward or inward but not inward before God Faith doth that and therefore the outward form it must be and so hee said in his last Argument baptisme puts a man into the state of salvation before men Again hee grants the church to be formed with an outward form without baptisme in saying baptisme is not that outward form of the church formed If a formed church it hath a form that formed it but the form is not baptisme Ergo he overthrows all that he hath argued for or else the church hath two outward forms one he grants the church hath without baptisme the other by baptisme which these six arguments plead for It were well if he agreed with himself Next he answereth the Reasons I set down as he saith to prove that baptisme is not the form of a visible church The first whereof is this That which giveth being to a church must be removed to make a church cease to be a church but Baptisme cannot be removed from a church whilest it remains a church Ergo. Hee answers It is as easie to remove baptisme from a church as to remove a church from being a church Reply First this is a very easie answer and toucheth no part of the Argument Again a church is unchurched not by unbaptizing the baptized as it must be if it were the form of a church but by destroying the church it self The church must first in reasan be made no church before ordinances can cease to be ordinances in that church but destroy the church and baptisme will not be baptisme as the Edomites circumcision was not circumcision when they were not the church the Jewes circumcision and all that they do are nullities to this day since they ceased to be a church A second Reason is this That which being wanting to a church constituted doth not cause the church to be no church that cannot be the form of the church but baptisme may be wanting to a church constituted and yet it be a church As circumcision to Infants seven dayes alwayes to all females to them in the wildernesse forty yeers Josh 5. Ergo Answ He denies the second Proposition That baptisme may be wanting to a church constituted his Reason because a church is constituted by baptisme and so Josh 5. hee saith that case was extraordinary having speciall dispensation from God himself supplyed by miraculous Sacraments during the time of their necessary forbearances of circumcision and the Passeover while in travells unlesse wee can shew a like case and supply of miraculous Sacraments we cannot conclude that a church is a church or men members of a church without baptisme by which they are constituted Reply First the Reason he gives
away the Scriptures affirming no understanding Christian denying it Heb. 6.4 c. 3ly He answereth then the being under the everlasting covenant of grace and peace with God by Christ should be conveyed by naturall descent and not by the Gospel which is absurd and contrary to many Scriptures Rom. 1.16 17. and 10.17 Gal. 3.2 2 Joh. 3. 5 c. These Scritpures saith he shews first that the Gospel is the power of God to save every one that believeth Secondly that faith cometh by hearing the Word preached by which conversion is wrought whereby wee become sons of God by adoption and grace But the Position saith that some are partakers thereof by vertue of their parents by generation directly contrary yea to the whole Gospel of Christ Rom. 4.14 where if they of the Law naturally descended and circumcised only be heirs the promise the whole Gospel and covenant of grace is made of none effect Reply First they were all under the everlasting covenant of Gods grace equally on Gods part dispensed offering unto them thereby all the Gospel to peace and life Secondly this offer was not made unto them for any naturall respect but freely of Gods grace The naturall generation though many Gentiles also were taken into covenant and had the grace thereof offered unto them and to be bestowed upon them but not out of any respect to them naturall civill or religious Deut. 17.7 8. 9.5 but meerely out of his good will and faithfulnesse Thirdly the Gospel was preached unto all the posterity of Abraham all along to Christ and his time by himself and Apostles preaching no other thing then Moses and the Prophets had preached before them to all that then believed it was the power of God to save them Act. 15.11 all ought to have believed it and if they had it would have been the power of God to their salvation also and they that did not believe it was not the power of God to their salvation because they believed not Heb. 4.12 and it was their sin and will be to their punishment Now it is the power of God not to salvation of all though Church-members to whom it is preached but many came short through unbeliefe All the Scriptures therefore by him alledged are hereby answered nor is there any footing for his distinction in regard of Gods part dispensing but from them who received not what God offered but refused it Hee proceedeth thus If by grace I mean that favour of God whereby hee made the Jewes partakers of circumcision and ordinances as the fleshly seed of Abraham leading them to Christ above other nations then he grants that Ishmael and such were partakers of that grace Reply First this is not all they were partakers of but of the former also and of this from the former nor were they partakers of this or any thing else as they were Abrahams seed barely but from his grace to their fathers and therein taking them above others to he his peculiar people Secondly they were partakers of these ordinances as leading to Christ therefore not of ordinances barely but Christ offered unto them by these ordinances and of these ordinances for Christs sake given unto them I would ask whether they were to believe in Christ or no and so to be saved If so as certain it is how then can he make good this distinction or deny that they were under the everlasting covenant of Gods grace and by these ordinances to be partakers of But granting this unto them hee saith But this was taken away when Christ came all which I have spoken to before more then once Secondly he saith that the Apostles purpose is not to conclude those children spoken of 1 Cor. 7. within the limits of such a distinction because the Lord there in that state did count children borne of one believer unclean and polluted and to be put away with their mothers being Infidels Ezra 9.2 and 11.3 Therefore that state even while it lasted did not allow children to be of that state when one of the parents were forreiner to the Church much lesse hath it any force now to conclude it should be so when that the state it self is disanulled Reply First it is the Apostles meaning to conclude such Infants under the covenant with their believing parents whereby they were foederally holy nor can there be any other holinesse here intended as we shal see afterward And the reason which he giveth to disprove it is not sufficient because it is of an instance of a diverse nature from this of the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. though he would confound them whether willingly or no I leave others to judge His Reason is this That state did not allow of children born of one believing parent but accounted them unclean and required them to be put away with their mother Reply That of Ezra speaketh of a believing Jew married to an Infidel Heathen this of the Apostle speaketh not of a believing Christian marrying an Infidell but of one who being married when they were both Infidels the one being converted after marriage the other remaining unconverted That in Ezra was an unlawfull marriage first or last this in Corinth was a lawfull marriage Secondly that in Ezra therefore being unlawfull was not to be continued but the wife and children to be put away but this in Corinth is not so the Infidel here may be continued if contented to dwell with the believer nor are the children unclean but both the instances being of two cases so different thence is no ground for this reason and so that hee grounded on that reason falls with it A third Reason that he gives against that I said ¶ 3 that the Apostle speaketh of a holinesse which the Infants of a believer hath with their believing Parent standing under the same state of grace is this First that a Proselyte in the time of the Law by circumcision was made a member of the Jewish state as one born in the land Secondly hee was to circumcise all his males and thereby they were admitted and with the males wife females children there being no other Sacrament of entrance for them and unlesse he did circumcise himself and all his males though neither hee nor they believed hee could not be a member of that state Thirdly no president can be that ever one parent coming to be of the Jewish state and leave their married yoke-mates out did possesse their seed of the same state and therefore now in this state whereof men are partakers by faith only and thereupon a believer admitted and the unbelieving yoke-mate left out the Infants cannot be admitted into this state no more then the wife which in that state was brought in by the care of the husband being a proselyte and in this left out till shee believed Reply First a proselyte was not made a member of the Jewish Church by circumcision but by accepting the God of Israel to be his God and submitting himself to
that which is clean out of that which is unclean a Thorn brings not forth Figs nor a Fig-tree bramble-buries a Turk bears not a Christian nor a Christian a Turk Ergo if children be holy the unbelieving parent is sanctified to the believing yoke-mate so that they may enjoy society one with another otherwise children born of them could not be holy In a word the scruple of the Corinthians was not whether the marriage was lawfull or no but whether a believer might continue to cohabite and enjoy marriage society with an Infidel yoke-fellow and not be polluted This was the case that troubled the Corinthians and not whether their marriage were lawfull or no and there is a great difference between a lawfull marriage and a holy pure marriage the marriage may be lawfull but not pure To the impure all things are impure but not unlawfull And their marriage being made when they were both unbelievers how can they question it now but they must question whether there was any marriage in the world ever lawfull unlesse they were both believers Secondly the Arguments the Apostle gives will none of them prove that the question was of the lawfulnesse of the marriage For first he saith the unbeleeving is sanctified to the beleeving doth this prove the marriage lawfull No certainly marriage of unbeleevers is lawfull yea altogether as lawfull as marriage of beleevers but their marriage is not so pure as of beleevers For a lawfull marriage doth not sanctifie unbeleevers one unto the other nor doth it sanctifie beleevers one to another for then it would sanctifie unbeleevers also but it doth not but their marriage remaineth impure though never so lawfull onely beleeving makes all things pure and so marriage unto them that beleeve but not more lawfull A second Argument of the Apostle is from hope of gaining the unbeleeving party Now what argument is in this to prove that their marriage was lawfull and that was their scruple Thirdly the Apostle would have every one to abide in his calling and state wherein God called him to faith and how will this prove the marriage lawfull or how if the marriage had been unlawful Not a word of all these arguments will prove that he said to be the question nor give any satisfaction unto it if it should bee the question But this was the question Whether they might continue in their lawfull married estate and not be polluted from the Infidell party This is cleare in the Text the arguments prove it to be the question and fully satisfieth the scruple ¶ 6 His sixth answer therefore concluding the holinesse here spoken of is meant of legitimacy and uncleannesse of bastardy is evacuated For what force is in this holinesse to prove the thing it is brought for by the Apostle for to invert his Argument This hee granteth Such a holinesse must be here meant as must prove an unbeleeving parent to be sanctified to the beleeving yoak-fellow But this holinesse of legitimacy cannot prove the unbeleeving parent to bee sanctified to the beleeving yoak-fellow therefore legitimacy cannot bee meant For two unbeleevers may be in a lawfull marriage estate and have children legitimate and not bastards yet for all this they are not sanctified each to other all things being impure to the impure Whereas he saith it must bee such a holinesse as is derived from all parents lawfully married which legitimacy is but the other holinesse stood for is not Reply I deny it but it must be such a holinesse as is derived onely from parents whereof one at least is a beleever now legitimacie is not such a holinesse as is derived onely from parents whereof one at least is a beleever But the other is such a holinesse But saith he it must be meant of such a holinesse as is derived from all parents lawfully married Because the Argument standeth in the children which were born before one of the parents came to the faith which therefore could receive from them unbeleeving no other holinesse but legitimacie in the course of generation Reply This holinesse here comes not by generation though concurring with it but flowes from the parents state of being in grace Secondly the Argument standeth not in regard of the children born before one was a believer but of those after as is clear from the Text For a believing person sanctifieth the unbelieving party else the children not born before either believed but born of a believer and an Infidell were unclean but now they are holy born of a believing and Infidel parent and therefore legitimacie cannot be meant here by holinesse because it is not necessary to make a childe legitimate that one of the parents be a believer It must be such a holinesse of children as is proper to children of believers at least one of them and this may also answer what hee further addeth that taking holinesse for legitimacie there can be no objection made why legitimacie should not prove the unbelieving yoke-fellow to be sanctified to the believing parent To which I adde this further that legitimacie will not prove that because legitimacie may be and is in the children of both parents unbelieving and lawfully married and yet it will not prove that they are sanctified one to another there being as much legitimacie in Infidels children as in Believers unlesse he will conclude that such marriages of Infidels are lawfull and all their children bastards legitimacie cannot be understood therefore here by holinesse but foederall holinesse as shall be further cleered afterwards and thus his refutation of my third argument is cleered to be of no validity I hope fully My fourth Argument hee thus sets down If baptisme succeed circumcision then as Infants were circumcised so Infants must be baptized But baptisme succeeds circumcision Ergo as Infants were circumcised so Infants must be baptized To this hee gives foure answers Denying the consequence that is that though baptisme succeed circumcision in a sense that therefore the same subjects are to be baptized now that were to be circumcised then In his first answer hee giveth divers instances to shew the weaknesse of the consequence in this by the inconsequences in them as the Gospel succeeds the Law The sons of Aaron were Ministers of the Law Ergo they are to be Ministers of the Gospel Baptisme succeeds circumcision grown males though they had no faith were circumcised Ergo males now having no faith must be baptized females were not circumcised Ergo females must not be baptized The Lords Supper succeeds the Passeover their little children eat it with the rest of the family in one house Ergo Infants may now eat the Lords Supper now with the rest of the family in one house And he asks if this be good reason and concludes that no objection can lie against these but will lie against mine also Reply First hee saith baptisme succeeds circumcision in a sense but setteth not down what sense it is that hee meaneth which had been necessary For
rest are hardened and take we heed that we increase not the number of them If in the whole body of Israel as well Infants as men of yeeres ¶ 3 were baptized and with the same spirituall baptisme that ours is then Infants are now to be baptized But in the whole body of Israel Infants were baptized with the same spirituall baptisme that ours is Ergo Infants are now to be baptized I mean Infants of believing parents and not any other 1. First that it was the same spirituall baptisme with ours is evident 1 Cor. 10.1 c. 1. The other ordinances there mentioned were the same spiritually with ours they eat the same spirituall meat and drank the same spirituall drink on Gods part dispensing and whosoever eat and drank unworthily not discerning the Lords body and blood were guilty on their part of his body and blood therefore they were baptized with the same spirituall baptisme with ours 2. Otherwise the Apostle should link things together in his argument that were not equall nor would it be of force with the Corinthians if they were not the same with ours spiritually nor the conclusion certain that they should be punished with the like punishment if they committed the like sins 2. Secondly it cannot be denied but those Infants were baptized with the same spirituall baptisme though they could not actually repent and believe for they were a part of all Israel nor had all men of yeers faith and repentance God baptized them all one as well as another though all obtained not the full benefit of it but only the elect If then Infants were baptized with the same spirituall baptisme signified and dispensed by those signes no reason can be given why Infants may not now be baptized with the same spirituall baptisme dispensed by other signes and here were have an example of Infants baptisme which some call for so much There is the same reason of the first fruits and the lump ¶ 4 of the root and branches but the first fruits and root believing parents are holy and must be baptized Ergo Infants the lump and branches are holy and must be baptized 1. The first is cleer from the Law of sanctifying the lump by offering the first fruits there is nothing more required and so Rom. 11.16 2. The second is cleer also from Rom. 11.16 where note 1. Abraham and the Father are the first fruits and root and so all believing parents 1 Cor. 7.14 c. Infants having no actuall unbeliefe could not be cut off with their parents 2. That Infants of believing parents are branches of that root and men of yeers no otherwise branches then as they were branches first when Infants 3. The branches then broken off are those men of yeers and Infants then rejected with all their posterity to this day 4. That all the Jewes were not rejected but some branches continued on and they men of yeeres with their Infants and were baptized that all those Jewes not broken off had no Infants is unlikely without question they had many that they were branches before their parents closing with the way of the new Testament cannot be denyed that they were broken off for actuall unbeliefe could not be that their parents continued on branches and the Infants broken off will never be proved but it is manifest that they continued branches of their parents or of the fathers with their parents and so were baptized else their parents condition should be worse under the state of grace administred in the new Testament then it was in the old and they should change from the better to the worse their children who before were branches of the root and now should be broken off their parents continuing still and should be in no better case then Infidels Infants and God who was their God before now should not be their God and before they were circumcised and that being abolished they are left destitute of all signes of Gods grace and may not be baptized O wofull change if so or rather a finfull charge upon Gods grace 5. When Jewes shall be ingraffed again as Infants with men of yeeres were broken off so Infants shall be again implanted with their converted parents else such branches should not be ingraffed as were broken off which is quite contrary to the Text and their case should be far worse then it was which to hold is to lay a stumbling block in the way of the Jewes to hinder them from closing with Christ 6. The Gentiles being implanted in stead of the Jewes broken off as they were Infants as well as men of yeers so Infants of Gentiles believing are ingraffed with their parents else such branches are not ingraffed as were broken off As then Jewes Infants while branches were by vertue thereof circumcised and such as continued when others were broken off were baptized So also must Infants of Gentiles be baptized which is in part to be made partakers of the fatnesse of the Olive Rom. 11.16 17. If baptisme succeeds circumcision ¶ 5 then as Infants were circumcised so now they must be baptized but baptisme succeeds circumcision Ergo. 1. That baptisme succeeds circumcision is cleere Col. 2.11 12. where the Apostle speaks of two circumcisions the one outward in the flesh made with hands the other inward in the heart made without hands And though they had not the outward which of old was the sign and means of the inward yet they needed it not because in Christ they were compleat and through him made partakers of the inward conveyed unto them by baptisme as the signe and seal thereof Again either baptisme succeeds circumcision or something else succeeds it or it hath nothing to succeed it But it hath something to succeed it as all other ordinances of the old Testament and nothing else can be shewne Ergo baptisme succeeds it Finally the thing signified in both is the same without alteration which is cleansing from sin by justification and sanctification Ergo the signe in the former being removed baptisme must needs succeed it in place as the sign of the same thing 2. Infants are therefore to be baptized as they were circumcised there being nothing more required now nor any thing that may hinder that Infants should be baptized then was required then or that might hinder that they should be then circumcised If then their outward circumcision the signe of the same spirituall circumcision with ours was applied to Infants then So outward baptisme the signe of the same spiritual circumcision with theirs may be applied to Infants now nor do I know of any objection that need trouble any judiciously godly For the two principall that we have no command for baptizing them now or any to be baptized but Disciples are fully taken away in this Discourse by the truth of it And though I account not of humane testimony without Scriptures of any authority to satisfie in divine matters yet added to the former it is not to be sleighted I shall
A REPLY TO A CONFUTATION of some grounds for Infants Baptisme AS ALSO Concerning the form of a Church put forth against mee by one THOMAS LAMB Hereunto is added A Discourse of the Verity and Validity of Infants Baptisme wherein I endevour to clear it in it self As also in the Ministery administring it and the manner of administration by Sprinkling and not Dipping with sundry other particulars handled herein By George Philips of Watertown in New England MATTH 7.15 Beware of false Prophets which come unto you in Sheeps-cloathing A parvulo recens nato usque ad decrepitum senem nullus prohibendus est a Baptismo August Enchirid. cap. 42. Dic quaeso omni me libera quaestione quare infantuli baptizentur Orthodox ut iis peccata in baptismate dimittantur Hieron advers Pelagian Dialog ter LONDON Printed by Matthew Simmons for Henry Overton and are to be sold at his Shop in Popes-head-Alley 1645. To the Reader WHO is so ignorant but seeth what Satans Master-peece and greatest work in the kingdome of Christ is at this day viz. to divide and sow Tares of discord between man and man And truly whose heart bleeds not to behold the present divisions by sword by pen in affection in opinion under which the land of peace lies now a bleeding Among which divisions none more lamentable nor grievous to a tender spirit then those that are between persons professing the feare of God especially in those times when all their strength and spirits should be wholly taken up against the common Adversary watching their destruction at their very doores yet such is the malice of Satan to set them especially at a distance and at variance whom the pretious blood of Christ hath been shed to reconcile And this hee doth especially when he hath started a controversie according to the old observation In re Sacramentaria in matters of the Sacraments and therefore it is no wonder if hee troubles the world and divides the mindes of some piously affected about the baptisme of Infants although withall one would wonder in other respects how any godly men who have better things to minde should hold up the Buckler in defence of such a stigmatized doctrine by the pens of so many of Gods Worthies from the Scriptures If indeed there were any new light concerning it that was never yet discovered to the world this present age might have second thoughts and learn the more by others errours but when in this controversie men dig up onely the old Sepulchers and heap up little more then the dried bones and sculls of other mens examined condemned and corrupted devices this is very uncomfortable and very unbeseeming the spirit of a prudent and humble Christian who will never suffer himselfe to be removed much lesse attempt the moving of others from the ancient received opinion and practice of the most sincerely godly in all ages without mountains of arguments and light as cleare as the Sunne from the holy Scriptures to alter his mind or make him to remove the ancient Land-markes and therefore he that writ the life of Doctor Whitaker prudently observes of him that he was Academiae oraculum the Oracle of that University and Mundi miraculum the miracle of the world in his time because though hee was a man of such eminent parts yet he ever kept the ancient received Doctrine had nothing proper nor did he in veteri via novam semitam quaerere he did not seek a new path in the old way as almost all Divines of great parts doe use to doe as from Hierom he observes The Authour therefore of this Reply in which wee wish he had a stronger Adversary to honour well knowne in the gates of his people and among the Churches of Christ in this Westerne world for his learning godlinesse and peaceablenesse of disposition cannot bee justly blamed as any Fire-brand of contention in returning this Answer it doth but defend the Walls and Trenches of the ancient received Truth nor would he have made any resistance had he not been assaulted on that ground where himself with Gods truth have had just and quiet possession so long Nor hath he published it to increase disunion but for satisfaction of his conscience Firstly who hath given him this occasion to reply or if not of his yet of some others godly and tender who in simplicity have been or may be suddenly taken in the snares of the Fowlers of these evill times I remember it was Luthers prayer seconded often by learned holy and aged Paraeus A Doctore glorioso Pastore contentioso inutilibus quaestionibus liberet Ecclesiam suam Dominus To start this controversie about Infants baptisme I feare upon sad examination will fall under the head of those inutiles quaestiones especially in these unsetled and troublesome times and though pretended to be a work of Reformation yet will give as sad a blow to that which is firstly and principally to bee attended in it as almost any opinion I know and the end will speak as much And therefore a sober strong defence of the baptism of Infants may be very profitable useful against an unprofitable questioning of it now and the more because it is much to be feared that the doctrine of Anabaptisme especially in this controversie concerning Infants will gangrene farre and leaven much and that for these Reasons First because there is not that expresse word nor such manifest cleernesse in such full and expresse sentences of the Scripture as in many other practicall points For the practice of this there is sufficient Scripture to satisfy a sober humble mind that loves the truth in sincerity in this point yet they that are contentious and love scruples and questions a disease Paul would have cured 1 Tim. 1.5 6. will be alway touching upon that string viz. Where is your commandement I see not any expresse Scripture Yes that you may by just and ful deduction from the Scripture and that is a good proof from Scripture or else our Saviours proof of the resurrection was bad from I am the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob which is not expresly contained in these words but deducted from them Secondly if conscience and experience may speak there are but few Christians that have tasted the sweet and comfort of their baptisme and therefore are very apt to question this ordinance if they meet with a fit tempter to deceive them For this is a certain and everlasting truth viz. that that truth which a man hath received without love to it by some sense of the sweetnesse of it in times of temptation he will quickly cast off A man will not care for that bread that doth not feed him nor will keep on those clothes in Winter time that do not warm him nor love that truth which doth not refresh him and consequently will be ready to cut down that barren baptisme under whose covert he hath so long lived but never tasted of the fruit
of it never felt the comfort of the shadow of it and assuredly what ever reasons men pretend against baptizing of Infants this is generally the root of those evills they never felt the benefit of it they never received this truth in love and for this cause God sends strong delusions about it 2 Thes 2.10 11. And it 's Calvins observation concerning the Libertines and Anabaptists in his time the Lord saith he never suffered a wicked man to fall into a strong delusion but because he did not love the truth at all nor leaves a godly man in a delusion for a time but because hee did not love the truth enough Some have therefore thought the best way to stop the spreading of Anabaptisme was for some holy and able men to leave the controversall part and more plainly cleerly and positively to set out the nature and use of baptisme and what benefits a Christian may reap thereby and how he may suck out the milk and honey from this Rock and then hee that once tastes the good of it beholds the infinite riches of Gods grace therein will not be easily perswaded to cast away that which he feels of such daily use and precious vertue to him Thirdly in regard of the unsetlednesse and ungroundednesse of so many godly Christians partly through the want of setled and able Ministers among them partly through a carelesnesse of spirit in taking truths upon trust of other mens judgements only not labouring to be grounded in them themselves and hence when they are strongly assaulted by Familists Anabaptists Antipsalmists c. they fall down heaps upon heaps and most miserably wounded because they want armour and weapons strong grounds and cleere principles from Scripture to defend themselves and therefore it was the ancient complaint of zealous Gildas that the Arrian heresie and other poisonfull opinions like so many poisonfull Serpents infected the ancient Britains because they were a people alwayes desirous of novelties and stablished in nothing and therefore let the Reader make much of such books and of this in speciall whereby the judgement may be convinced and the heart established in the blessed truth of Christ try all things herein and weigh them in the ballance of the Word what thou findest to be of weight receive in love and remember to take heed of rejecting that if some things herein should want some grains and seem too light do thus for the truths sake and so imbrace this truth in these divided times for peace sake that they that have one God and one and the same Jesus may have one faith and one and the same heart as in other so in speciall in this point and not set the whole house on fire to roast their own Egs and that this may be let sober minded men attend but unto these generall rules 1. First remember the blessed Apostles Golden rule of peace Phil. 3.8.9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. Let every Christian make it his chiefest studie his greatest businesse to prize Jesus Christ to be found in him to know him and the power of his death and resurrection to presse toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus here is work for you saith Paul sufficient to take up all your life-time and thoughts all your life long let us therefore saith hee as many as be perfect i. that think our selves most perfect and exact Christians knowing more then all others be thus minded and then if in any thing you be otherwise minded and differ one from another God will reveal the truth unto you On that God would give those that are most zealous against Paedo-baptisme to consider of this rule How usefull is it for many to trouble themselves and the churches with these conceits who if well catechized would be found extremely ignorant and ungrounded in the most necessary matters about their union and spirituall communion with Jesus Christ and if they were well busied in matters of that heavenly nature they would have little desire to spend their time and thoughts about lesse weighty and more doubtfull points 2. Secondly labour for holinesse of mind and a mean esteem of your gifts parts knowledge wisdome c. The Apostle doth beseech the Philippians if any consolation in Christ if any comfort of love if any fellowship of the Spirit that they would be like minded Phil. 2.1 2. and the means to this he sets down vers 3. In lowlinesse of mind let each man esteem of others better then themselves You that contend against Paedo-baptisme think thus viz. that as you are to prize Christ so every truth of Christ and you are perswaded in your consciences that you have herein the truth on your sides otherwise you would not strive for it and that though many nay most godly men have been and are otherwise minded yet you think they are but men and therefore may be deceived I answer 't is very true they are men and I had thought you had been so too and therefore may not you be deceived Is not lowlinesse of mind of use now to think how foolish thou art and apt to be deceived and to esteem of others very godly better then thy self didst never see the folly of thine own counsels hadst never experience how blind thou hast been many times not able to see things before thy very feet Did the Lord never acquaint thee with thy extreme ignorance and uncapablenesse of spirituall mysteries even about such as none question or doubt of and maist not thou be wofully deluded and blinded about that thy opinion with so many as much acquainted with God as thy self yet dare not but question and do fully condemn hast not felt thy heart naturally disliking truth and imbracing errour and through the hollownesse of it returning many ecchoes to one false noise Feare therefore thine own weaknesse deny thy own wisdome think meanly of thy self and this difference will soon cease Little threads may be easily tied together you can hardly do so with cables ends they are too big to fasten be little in thine own eyes and thou wilt soon cease contending about these points 3. Thirdly observe the fruit of this opinion for by the fruits not of false teachers lives for they are in sheeps clothing but of their false doctrines yee shall know them Mat. 7.6 First it leads men to destroy the extent of Gods free grace in that everlasting covenant he hath made with Abraham and all his seed Jewes and Gentiles to be a God to him and his seed and hence come those audacious cries of a carnall covenant God made with Abraham and not Evangelicall nor a covenant of grace and is it nothing to destroy Gods grace Is it not a crying sin to refuse God to be thy God and is it no sin to refuse his promise of being the God also of thy seed which but that I dispute not now is as much Evangelicall as the first branch is if the
following which he sets forth to be between those two states agree to also they being not substantiall but accidentall differences yet so as they are not to be distinctly limited to one time in respect of the substance and things themselves and the effects thereof for all that he saith belongs to the new Testament were communicated unto many of them under the Old as Moses Aaron and all the elect of God and none of them are made good to many in the New But on the contrary all that is spoken by him of the Old may bee verified of men in the New as experience witnesseth the Scriptures affirm Gal. 4.29 The fault why all did not enjoy all these priviledges in the new Testament dispensed under shadowes in the Old being in themselves 2 Cor. 3.13.14 Heb. 3.7.8.22.4.2 8.8 and many now deprive themselves of these priviledges Heb. 4.1 and attaine to no more then they in the Old to establish their owne righteousnesse onely Rom. 10.3 And therefore as none are to be admitted to the priviledges of the new Testament or Gospel now but such as are sutable though many prove otherwise So none ought to have been admitted nor were in the Old Testament the same Gospel preached unto them and the new Testament shadowed under the old to enjoy the priviledges of the Old shadowing the priviledges of the New but such as were sutable even such as are required in the New though few of them proved such with this difference they were to beleeve in Christ to come to whom the Law and shadowes directed them we are to beleeve in Christ already come to whom the Ordinances doe direct us And therefore what he further repeateth having said the same all before that whosoever circumcised themselves and their Males and observed the Rites of the Law they and their children though Proselytes were the seed fleshly seed too for so he saith all this time and in that covenant and of that Church But now onely such as beleeve in Christ and be thereby regenerated are the seed and in this covenant and of the Church might well have been spared and have been answered before yet seeing hee addeth six other reasons to prove this latter clearly proving as he saith I shall bee willing to follow him And he saith First beleevers regenerate onely are in this Covenant and of this Church because none of the naturall seed of Abraham are in this Covenant by vertue of naturall relation though they remained in the Jewish Churches till Christs death But their being in the Churches by naturall relation then ceased as the Church ceased I reply First I have shewed that their standing in that Covenant and Church was not by fleshly relation but by spirituall who were counted for the seed Rom. 9.8 2dly Those few that were added to the Gospel Church were not cut off as the rest but remained naturall branches still in their owne Olive tree and what naturall relation they had they put not off and when the rest be added the Apostle saith the naturall branches shall bee ingraffed into their own stock For if the root be holy the branches will be so too Rom. 11.16 17.24 3dly The Scriptures by him quoted prove not the thing he alledgeth them for Acts 10.28 Rom. 9.8 Gal. 3.7 9 28 29. 4.28 His second Reason The Gentiles have no naturall relation to become his seed by and therefore their infants cannot become the seed of Abraham by being the seed of a beleever but must beleeve themselves otherwise they cannot be partakers in the Covenant made with Abraham Reply First there needs no such relation naturall nor were the Jewes as naturall seed onely without faith counted for the seed Rom. 9.8 Secondly the Gentiles Proselytes need not that naturall relation before to be in the covenant then but were ingraffed into the body by faith and therby their Infants Thirdly all now are not children of promise but many alwayes are deceivers and deceived as many then but not all only this may be noted that he yeeldeth that Believers now are partakers of the covenant of Abraham and therefore that then and now is the same And yet in the next and his third Reason hee denies the covenant under Christ to be the same with that which was made with Abraham because the three thousand converts Acts 2. when they were baptized did not baptize their Infants this he saith is plain Acts 2.41 and 8.12 where it is they that gladly received the Word were baptized they and they only which the Infants could not do Reply In the old Testament they that submitted themselves to the Jewish covenant and would take their God to be theirs were circumcised but Infants could not do that yet they were circumcised Secondly it is not said they were baptized and then it is not a perfect relation Reply It followeth not for all is not written that was done they might be baptized though it is not said they were For were not Christs Apostles baptized yet it is not written where when or who baptized them it is no argument to say it was not done because it is not set down but take it for granted their Infants were not baptized then which yet I will not grant for some considerations I shall afterward set down in another place doth this difference make that the covenant with Abraham and now is not the same It is not the same in this respect as all can be concluded which is but a circumstantiall difference The fourth Reason followeth if Paul and others writing to the visible Churches calls them Saints faithfull Brethren the Sons of God by adoption Rom. 16 c. and the Prophets notwithstanding they were led by the same Spirit were wont to speake otherwise of the visible Church of the Jewes as Isa 1.16 Jer. 1.2 Ezek. 3.4.4.12 Chap. 16.48.51 then naturall Infants were not in the covenant and of the Churches which the Apostles wrote unto as they were in that covenant and of that Church the Prophets spake to But Paul calls them Saints and the Prophets the other sinners yea grievous sinners and bids them wash themselves c. therefore naturall Infants were not in the Churches which the Apostle wrote unto as they were in the Jewes Reply I deny the consequence in the Reason as no way following and the proofe of it as invalid For as the Apostles do call the Churches Saints c. and the Prophets the Jewes sinners in the places alledged yet in other places the Scriptures call those sinners Saints Believers Brethren adopted c. as in many places may be made evident one or two may be enough Exod. 19.6 A kingdome of Priests a holy nation Deut. 33.2 3. Psal 22.22 and 122.8 Rom. 9.3 4. c. And the Apostle 2 Thes 2. calls them sinners carnall bids them repent c. to whom they wrote unto as Saints as Galat. Corinth where were many grosse things and sinfully amisse and most of the
that Christ should be born of their seed after the flesh And in these respects they stood in the same grace with Abraham Reply First Abraham had not those ordinances which they had their standing therefore in these things differ Secondly these were not all the respects for the passages in Luke 1. vers 54. speak of other things namely remission of sinnes justification and sanctification In a word did not Christ come of Terah as well as of Abraham yea of Noah Sem c read Luke 3. And did they not beleeve in him to come Heb. 11.7 and how can any exclude them before Abraham of this priviledge yea and the Gentiles also with them before the time of distinction of the people more then them after in the due and proper consideration of the thing it selfe But to say no more I come to the other sense of the word Grace and did and doe intend my reason in that acceptation But here he denies that ever the Jewes were required to make any such manifestation to make them members of that Church before Christ as all Jewes and Gentiles since must doe to make them members of a Church now Reply First Abraham and his Males made such a protestation and all Proselytes that ever after joyned without which they had not been members as having no other relation and besides the seale should have been set upon them as the seale of the righteousnesse of faith which they had not Secondly the Jewes after Moses time were required first and last to make such manifestation of their faith in Gods righteousnesse and they sinned and were liable to Gods displeasure when they failed were often punished and at last cast off for want of it which could not have been if it had not been required of them Thirdly suppose that there was not the like manifestation required of them that is now yet the same thing was required of them that was of Abraham and is now of us namely faith in Gods righteousnesse And therefore though they then and wee now should differ in this respect that there was not such a manifestation of faith required as is now yet the covenant may be is the same now and then the manifestation being not the covenant but a circumstance about the covenant To conclude if the matter propounded in all these three periods not excluding the first in the time before Abraham be the same viz. Gods righteousnesse the Word of Gods grace and the Gospel if the condition required of all bee the same viz. faith in Gods righteousnesse And if the effect be the same in all that doe beleeve viz. that they that beleeve are freely justified by Christ without the deeds of the Law though the elect onely obtaine and the rest refuse are hardened and perish for ever for their sinfull unbeliefe then the covenant is the same in all these three periods as I first propounded and my proofes are full and cleare for this purpose come not short at all nor are taken away as hee would perswade himselfe but I question not but others will see that he is much mistaken many of the things he speakes being not onely unsound but absurd and uncongruous to wholesome doctrine It followeth that I next goe on with him about the consequent from this antecedent which he supposeth he hath taken away and so the consequences therefrom will fall and faile also and certainly so they would if he had taken away the antecedent and therefore hee might have spared his labour in seeking to disprove them and the proofes I added But it seems he thought not as he said and therefore he setteth down my consequence and the proofes thereof and seekes to overthrow them all as he hath done my antecedent My first consequent was that seeing the covenant with Abraham the Jewes and us Gentiles is the same Therefore as infants were then in covenant so they are now in covenant since Christ To cleare this consequence to be just I added as hee sets them down foure reasons The first Else the covenant were not the same in all as I have proved it is He answereth he hath disproved my proofes of that particular and therefore this reason is nothing Reply How hee hath disproved my proofes others shall judge and I have removed those disproofes of his and therefore this Reason is something and the Consequence thereby certain My second Reason Else the state of Gods grace should bee straitned and made of lesse extent by Christs comming then it was before whereas it is more enlarged and of greater extent there being then no more in the state of persons to interest infants into the covenant then now To this he answereth diversly denying the consequence that is that unlesse infants be now in the covenant as they were then the state of Gods grace is straitned and made of lesse extent by Christs comming First saith he because the preaching of the Gospel is as full as large and ample a testimony of Gods grace as any of the fleshly seed of Abraham had by the covenant and larger The Gospel preached now is a fuller declaration of the grace of God and the benefits that come by Christ then ever circumcision and the ordinances of the old Testament did declare to them The fleshly seed had but the declaration of the grace of God by the covenant now the seed of the Gentiles beleevers and unbeleevers are made partakers of the preaching of the Gospel though they be not in the covenant Reply First he seemeth to oppose the preaching of the Gospel now to the former times as if the Gospel were not preached unto them all that time for in this passage Gospel now preached and Covenant then is a direct opposition And so in the next branch he opposeth Circumcision and the Ordinances of the old Testament to the Gospel preached now as if the Gospel preached were peculiar to the new Testament contrary to the Scriptures Secondly I affirme and none can deny that there is not any point of doctrine held forth by the Gospel in the New Testament nor any grace of God or effect thereof but it was held forth then in the Old though more darkly then sparingly yet the same in both And therefore it is not right that he saith The Ordinances of the Old Testament did not make so full a declaration of Gods grace as the Gospel preached now doth unlesse he mean it of the measure and manner and then it is not to the purpose hee should aim at Thirdly I suppose it is evident that since Christs comming for many hundred yeares under the state of the Apostles there was a little preaching of the Gospel and declaration of the grace of God as ever was by the dispensation of the old Testament for the most part Fourthly whereas he saith that Abrahams fleshly seed had but a declaration of Gods grace by the covenant adding though the beleeving seed of Abraham had the grace of God in Christ
so absolutely Last of all to this consectary which I added that there was nothing then in the state of persons to interest Infants in the covenant more then now hee giveth this answer Though there was nothing in the state of persons yet there was something in things and order of times Christ being yet to come and here hee concludeth two things First that the whole fleshly seed of Abraham separated by ceremoniall holinesse was a type of Christ to come and therefore Infants then in the covenant and but ceremonially holy Secondly that Christ the thing typified being come all that typicall state is utterly abolished c. Infants now not to be in it Reply First I deny that the fleshly seed of Abraham was a type of Christ and have spoken to it before and do conceive it a very erroneous conceit and full of absurdities Secondly wee must then exclude grown men also upon the same ground from the covenant and Baptisme now for if they were a type therefore children then in covenant and circumcised but now not in covenant and baptized men also being a part of the type must now not be in covenant nor be baptized or else Infants may Thirdly all proselytes could not be a type of Christ because not of the fleshly seed of Abraham nor Abraham and his family with all those succeeding till Moses time because the ceremoniall ordinances were not yet instituted nor doth the circumstance of things and time put any essentiall difference between them and us it being the same Christ then by those things and in that time dispensed that is now by these things and in this time not any other nor any thing else but I have said enough for this in some Reply before and so much to his answer to my second Reason A third Reason whereby I proved Infants to be in the covenant now as they were then was this as he hath set it down for I cannot remember that I used it here Abraham being the root and Jews and Gentiles the branches as when the Jews were broken off as well Infants as men of yeers were broken off so the Gentiles being planted in their stead they must be Infants as well as men of yeers And so the Jews when they shall be again implanted as well infants as men of yeers shall be so To this hee answereth First hee conceives Christ to be the root here meant Reply Then they were in Christ with of and from Infants also without actuall faith or unbelief Again that Christ is the root of Abraham himself and all else I question not but that Christ is not meant here Rom. 11.4 I am confident and no man will affirm that reades the Chapter with understanding Rom. 11.28 they are said to be beloved for the Fathers sake not that Abraham or Christ are equally a root or at all in the same respect and sense but in a diverse Christ the reall and efficient root Abraham but foederally and in regard of Gods covenant made with him as a father of many nations but I shall say no more hereto because himself admits it and answereth Secondly the Gentiles are not branches in a naturall relation nor the Jews branches in a spirituall relation but by personall faith To make Jews and Gentiles equally branches therefore of the root of Abraham wee must make the relation spirituall which is proper to them both Reply First he contradicteth himself in these words saying the Jews are not branches by a spirituall relation and yet they and the Gentiles cannot be equally branches but by a spirituall relation Further if he mean by faith personall habituall as well as actuall and excludes not habituall I consent for Infants may have habituall that cannot have actuall while Infants and many men may seem to have actuall saving faith that have not true saving habituall faith Secondly if he mean by spirituall relation foederall I also grant what he saith but if he mean by personall faith actuall and by spirituall saving faith I reply all the Jews had not actuall faith then nor Gentiles now who yet professe actuall faith then and now nor had Infants their actuall faith no more then they can have now and yet they were branches of the Olive then which hee concludes cannot be but by personall faith it being not by naturall relation which now Gentiles Infants may have as well as they had or whatsoever else those Infants had whereby those Infants were branohes of their own Olive tree To that I say that when the Jewes were broken off as well Infants as men of yeeres were broken off hee answereth it is true because the naturall relation in the covenant ceased when Christ the promised seed came and now there is no relation in the covenant with Abraham but by faith in Christ Reply First this contradicteth that which in the foregoing answer he seemed to set down that there must be such a spirituall relation as is possible to them both and that is faith for no otherwise can the Jewes and Gentiles suit nor could they have been broken off by unbeliefe which maketh not the Jews cease to have a naturall relation to Abraham unlesse faith was required of them and yet here he saith they were in covenant by naturall relation Secondly the Jewes were not in covenant by naturall relation and as a type of Christ which hee said before and I have disproved but Abraham was the father of Jewes and Gentiles as hee believed and they his children as believing and no otherwise as is cleer Rom. 4.9.14 the Apostle shewing that hee was heir of the world not through the Law but the righteousnesse of faith to the Gentiles though uncircumcised and not to the Jewes though circumcised but as they walked in the steps of that faith of Abraham which he had being yet uncircumcised besides if they had been in the covenant by naturall relation how could those many hundreds in Abrahams family be in the covenant who were not of Abrahams flesh or how could Ishmael or Esau cease to be in the covenant being Abrahams naturall seed Whereas I said when the Jewes be again implanted as well Infants of such as believe as men of yeeres shall be implanted He answereth as unbelief did break them off so faith only must graffe them in but that Infants of the Jews being members of that Church before Christs coming shall be planted so as to be members of a Christian Church without manifestation of faith lawfully can no way be proved but is an absolute error Reply Dictator-like but first Why may not Infants be now implanted without manifestation of faith and so be of a Christian Church as then they were of that Church without such manifestation of faith Secondly such a faith may graffe Infants in again as is opposite to the unbeliefe that cut them off that faith therefore or whatsoever it was that made them branches of that root and for want whereof they were cut off the same may
graffe them in nor can any man render a reasonable cause why hee should deny it It is therefore too peremptory to say it is an absolute error and his bare saying will never prove it to be so but himselfe to be too rash and unadvised My fourth Reason to prove Infants are now in the covenant as they were then is thus If the Jewes and Gentiles be incorporate into one body in Christ and the Jewish Infants were in the body then so may and must Infants of believing Gentiles now be verum prius To this hee answereth two things First the Jews had means before and some of them faith by those means and so true members of Christ hee the head and they the body there being no other members known but the Jewes The Gentiles by Christ coming had this speciall benefit to have the means and faith by the means and thereby united to Christ the head and so to Jews the body and the Jewes had no other relation to Christ the head but by faith and the Gentiles to Christ nor them but by faith Reply First where hee saith some of the Jews had faith and were true members if hee means saving faith and savingly his argument runs not because the faith of the Gentiles and their union with Christ was not saving and savingly in all as Simon Magus Judas c. If he means it generally according to charity then more Jews had faith then some that had true faith and were true members even all foederally in regard of profession nor is it true that there were no members known and of that body then but Jewes for the many hundreds in Abrahams family and very many proselytes were known members of that body and yet were not Jewes Secondly there is two wayes of being united to Christ the head and to the body Jewish then and of the Jews and Gentiles now the first is foederally sacramentally outwardly and visibly so all the Jewes were then the body and all of it as is cleer 1 Cor. 10.1 c. all baptized all eating and drinking one and the same Baptisme Manna Rock as the Apostle saith we are one body by being baptized into one Christ and by eating and drinking one bread cup by one Spirit a body mysticall 1 Cor. 12 13. Acts 7.38 The second is really spiritually and effectually inwardly and invisibly In the first sense the elect and reprobate are both considered so many as the Lord calls by means In the second sense the elect only are to be considered whether of Jews or Gentiles that there are these two sorts of being in Christ is evident from many Scriptures Joh. 15.1 two sorts of branches one fruitfull and shall be saved the other unfruitfull and shall be damned Mat. 22.14 Many are called but few are chosen Many are called and not chosen many are called and chosen and all this is true of the Jewish state before Christ as is cleer in the seven first verses and all is true likewise of the state after Christ as is plain in the rest and of both 14. All the Jewes therefore though not savingly from Abraham to Christ were that body successively and the Gentiles since Christs time added to that body by being made neer no alteration of the Jewes as the body in the reall and essentiall consideration of it but an accesse of the Gentiles to them which our Saviour also in another place expresseth John 10.16 Other sheep I have which are not of this fold and I must bring them into it that there may be but one fold and one Shepherd For Rom. 11.17 some of the branches were broken off not all and thou wert graffed in amongst them therefore as Jewish Infants were then in the fold and members of the body all along so it must be granted that the Infants of Believing Gentiles now added to the body and fold are in it His second answer is this First that the Gentiles by conversion did not enter into the Jewish nationall Church Secondly if neither Jews nor Gentiles were the body of Christ considerably as a nation but only by consersion then were not the Jews as Jews of the body and consequently not their Infants But neither Jewes nor Gentiles were the body of Christ considerably as a nation but by conversion therefore neither Jewes as Jewes were of the body nor their Infants and consequently not the Infants of the Gentiles Reply First he seemeth to restrain the being of the body to the present Jewes in Christs time which is erroneous and denies it of the former Secondly the proselytes of the Gentiles before Christ did by conversion enter into fellowship with the Jewish nationall Church and their Infants with them Thirdly the Jewes were not the body as a nation yet the nation was the body and that foederally God taking hold of them by his covenant and making them unto himself an holy nation as well Infants as others Exod. 19.6 Deut. 29.11.14.15 at the first constitution they were the body by conversion at least appearingly But ever after all succeeding were the body for to be truly converted on Gods part promised though on their part not alwayes injoyed through their own default Next he comes to my other consequence which is this seeing Infants are now in the covenant as these were then in the covenant therefore Infants ought now to be baptized as then they were circumcised sealed with the sign of the covenant now as they were sealed with the sign of the covenant then To cleer this my first Reason was thus else the covenant were not the same and Infants in it Hee answers that it is not the same in respect of naturall relation to Abraham as hee had shewed and therefore Infants not in it Reply First he here holdeth the Jewes to have fellowship in the covenant before Christ by vertue of naturall relation and yet he said before that they were not the body which they were by covenant as Jewes that is by naturall relation Secondly I have shewed before that the Jewes were not in that covenant by naturall relation but by faith which is the only condition of the covenant Thirdly it no way followeth it is not the same in respect of naturall relation therefore it is not the same at all nor doth it hinder Infants being in it because they now have no naturall relation to Abraham for the proselyte Infants were taken in of old into fellowship with the Jewes in that covenant but not in respect of naturall relation which they have not the reason there remains firm and unanswered My second was this if they had the thing and substance they cannot be denied the seal and circumstance if the first grace then the second and confirming Hee answereth it is true when they or any other for them can manifest that they have the thing and substance then let them have the seal and circumstance Reply First he denies not that they have the thing though they cannot manifest it
and let believing Gentiles be counted branches yet Infants then were some of the branches when they were in the Olive or root and so were branches cut off when their parents were cut off as long as the parents stood branches so long the Infants were branches nor were any parents branches but from that state they had when Infants Gentiles Infants therefore are branches with their believing parents and stand in the same state with them Secondly wee know that the Scriptures do not so appropriate the words root and first fruits as not to apply them to others besides the particulars Jerem. 11.16 God called the Church there an Olive and the people branches so she is called a Vine Isa 5 c. So others are called first fruits as 1 Cor. 16.15 Rev. 14.4 c. And if parents had no relation to children nor Infants to parents in this respect how could Infants being branches with their parents to Abraham the root be cut off with their parents seeing they could not be cut off for their own unbeliefe and their relation to Abraham was intire in respect of any thing on their part to the contrary This place therefore is not abused in the application of it but fully concludeth what I brought it for Next hee considereth 1 Cor. 7.14 which hee saith neither suppresseth roots nor first fruits nor hath it any such meaning as that the holinesse of the parent should cause a holinesse in their Infant In a word I reply root and first fruits are not expressed but necessarily implyed and so much is expressed as amounts to that For if the children be holy upon their parents believing and if the parents did not believe the children should not be holy it is as much as if he had said the root is holy and the branches are holy not in the parents believing any cause of their childrens holinesse but Gods free grace But not to strive about words in the view of the place it self before he comes to expresse his Reasons negative and affirmative he conceives it necessary to observe what I say which hee thus sets down I suppose it is mistaken when expounded of the same holinesse spoken of before of an Infidel person sanctified to a believing yoke-fellow And the Apostle speaking of a two-fold holinesse the one not in the thing it self but to another use the other of the thing it self it cannot but be sinfull to confound them Hee answereth he◠will not contend nor gain-say any thing of this Reply Herein he makes himself an Adversary to some of his judgment in this case of Baptisme who maintain that state of holiness to be meant in the children that was in the parent that is holy to the believers use Further he saith I say the Apostle saith two things that to the pure all things are pure Ergo a believing person may dwell with an Infidell yoke-fellow Secondly that by vertue of a believers state in grace all the fruit is holy and partakers of the same state in grace unlesse they do by some act of theirs deprive themselves of it as Esau and Ishmael c. In answer to this he grants the former but denies the latter wholly and that it is not the purpose of Paul so to speak and therefore he gives divers reasons First ¶ 1 the Apostle intends such a holinesse in the Infants as is inseparable from their very being or else it would not have been a sufficient proof of the sanctification of the unbelieving unto the believer Reply I deny that the Apostle intends to conclude such a holinesse as is inseparable to their very being for then it would be common to all Infants whereas this is appropriate to an Infant of at least one believer In a word there is a two-fold holinesse of a person one is externall and is the separation of him from common state to be the Lords and bound up in covenant with him which is foederall holinesse The other is internall and is the speciall separation of a man from the state of sin by inherent sanctificaon from justification in Christ which is inseparable from them that have it The other is separable as in the case of Jewes who by this were called a holy people when yet they were not really sanctified by inherent grace and the holy city called an Harlot and of this in his place which fully will prove what the Apostle intends as wee shall see afterward His second Reason follows which is this ¶ 2 If by a believers state in grace be meant the covenant that Abraham and all believers do possesse by faith then he saith first Ishmael Esau c. were never of it Rom. 9.8 and therefore could not by any act of theirs deprive themselves of it Reply First by the state of grace is meant that covenant that Abraham and all believers do possesse by faith Secondly I say Ishmael Esau c. were of that covenant dispensed on Gods part unto them and to be received on their part by faith at present or afterward And if Ishmael and Esau were not so in that covenant as well as Isaac and Jacob then how could they be circumcised with the seal of the righteousnesse of faith they had the same seal set unto them that Abraham Isaac and Jacob had and if it were not the same covenant then Abraham Isaac and Jacob were in one covenant and sealed to that and Ishmael and Esau and the like were in another covenant and sealed to that with the same seal that the others were sealed to the other Further whether or no shall Ishmael Esau c. be judged according to that covenant of Abraham and punished for refusing it if so as it is certain then they were under that covenant though they injoyed not the benefit of it which is the meaning of Rom. 9.8 and deprived themselves of it by hardening their hearts and had a spirit of slumber inflicted upon them as a just punishment of that their refusing Rom. 11.7 Secondly he saith that if Ishmael and Esau were deprived by some act of theirs then we must fall upon Arminius tenet of falling from grace which all understanding Christians do utterly abhor Reply First it is well known that many holding with the Consuter in this point of paedobaptisme do maintain that a man truly elected and in state of salvation may and do fall away and perish if he dissents in this I will not blame him 2ly What understanding Christian did ever deny that some men fall from grace and are there not many Scriptures that do testifie as much Christians do deny that any elect of God and made partakers of saving calling can fall away from that estate they thereby are made partakers of But there is another state of grace whereof many non-elected are partakers of by the covenant on Gods part dispensed and of many effects of Gods operation in their hearts some more some lesse and from this all of them may many of them do fall
hee admitted them that he would have their Infants also and so in time of the Gospel to the Jewes and Gentiles at first setting it up Secondly Disciples are those that being entred with their parents into the school and profession continue successively so till God turn them off and no otherwise were the Jewes from Isaac till Christs time Disciples and so also it is now to say therefore there is no command to baptize Infants now because Disciples are to baptized is not upon any just consequence Besides let any shew me a command of baptizing females there being no command to circumcise them examples there are of baptizing them but I suppose that without a command will not suffice If any shall say it is commanded Mat. 28. where under the term of nations they are included I reply Are not children a part of all nations as they were a part of the Jewish nation But yee will say they must be made Disciples first Reply First Disciples as I said are made two wayes actually by profession or foederally by imitation as Infants were then so Infants may be now Secondly God taketh care of Infants now and requirâ—â— they should be instructed in the discipline and admonition of the Lord now God never took the care of any that were not his and in that he commanded them to be nursed up in his discipline it plainly argueth they are his Disciples His fourth and last answer is the same with the former from the difference of the subjects that were circumcised now to be baptized there being the same reason of changing the subject that there is of changing the Sacrament viz. Christs coming and if it were absurd to circumcise children now because they were circumcised then then it is absurd to baptize Infants now because they were circumcised them because Christs coming doth put an end to the subject also and hath put another subject to be baptized namely believers and only believers Reply First there is not the same reason of changing the subject that there is of the change of the Sacrament God changed the Sacraments he gave to Adam in Paradise but hee changed not the subject but continued the same offer of happinesse to Adam the same subject but he continued not the same Sacrament Secondly the Sacrament is not changed into another of another nature For the grace signified in both is the same the manner of signifying is the same in both sacramentally but the signes only are changed Thirdly the subjects are not changed by reason of Christs coming as being types of him which I have disproved before though here again implyed but because of their unbelief the kingdome being taken from them because they refused to submit Mat. 21.22 and now the subjects shall be cut off if they cease to be loyall and they should not if they had been loyall Fourthly the change of Gods administration of his grace hath been divers but the subjects to whom the grace was offered were never changed from Adams time to Abrahams where were the same subjects men women and Infants none will say Infants were excluded if they died before they came to yeers of discretion From Abrahams time to Moses the administration of grace was changed not the subjects Infants also from Moses time it was more changed till Christs time the subjects were not changed Infants not shut out no not Infants of Proselytes and why should Infants be shut out since seeing the offer of grace is the same though the administration of it differs but especially with more inlargement Upon all that hath been said it may appeare that the consequence of mine Argument is not weakened and so the point proved by it certain that as Infants were then circumcised so Infants are now to be baptized baptisme succeeding circumcision The second Part. AND thus for reply to his full answer to the discourse touching Infants baptisme it remains that I proceed with him in the rest about the form a Church wherein first he saith I speak of agreement in this that matter and form doe constitute a Church Also that the matter is a company of visible Saints professing faith in the righteousnesse of Christ and living accordingly To which he answereth First this definition agreeth not to Infants which I would make to be subjects of baptisme who are born in sinne and are children of wrath Eph. 2.3 Psa 51.5 Secondly nor doth it agree with the Jewish Church which I would make to be a pattern for ours in bringing grounds from them for baptizing infants who never were required to make such profession at the time of their admission as all Churches and members added doe since Christs time Acts 2.41 8.12 c. Thus he Before I come to reply let me give notice of this That I cannot own these words thus expressed That he and I with whom I had this discourse agreed of this that matter and forme doe constitute a Church I am consident and before we accorded had many passages to and fro but proceeded not till wee consented there nor can I say that I writ it down And touching the definition of the matter of a Church as is there expressed I am confident so farre as I can remember it was none of mine nor doe I now owne them and therefore let all observe how vain and rash he is so ungroundedly to publish these things under my name unto all the world Yet because some things in the discourse I well remember to be mine I shall cleare my way in passing this in a word or two and setting down such a definition of a Church as I have by me and go along with him in the rest and to what he saith I make this reply First I would say that the matter of a Church is a company of visible Saints And this I conclude to be clear in every place where a Church is stiled Saints Beleevers and the like Secondly this definition agrees to children as well as grown men being Saints also and holy seed of holy parents though it is true they bee born in sinne and children of wrath by nature so were infants in the old Testament as well as now as the place Psal 51. by him alledged evinceth and the same is true of the holiest men of yeares and Paul confesseth himselfe with others to be the children of wrath by nature yea then when he said it there is no hinderance then why that description may not agree to infants Thirdly it agreeth right well to the Jewish Church who were not a company of prophane persons but a holy people unto God a company of Saints and no otherwise a Church but as such or beleevers and wee are upon these terms admitted continued members of that Church so long as it continued a church as hath been shewed afore So that the description of the matter of a church doth well agree to all churches and members of churches alwayes nor are Churches to consist of or admit
others unto them Now a Church I conceive to be an institution of it whereby a company of men and women called by the word of Gods grace and some work of Gods Spirit upon them doe joyn themselves unto the Lord and one to another by entring into covenant with the Lord to have him to be the God of them theirs and they and theirs to be the Lords and his Christs as also one with another to meet together to worship God for his glory their mutuall edification to life according to Gods revealed will Now as I tie no man to my expressions so I shall be willing to learn of any that shall help me to a better understanding in this point yet in this description all the causes concurre The efficient an institution of Christ with the instrumentall the Word in some effects upon their hearts the materiall a company of men and women so called and from thence Saints and beleevers the formall joyning themselves to the Lord and one with another by entring into covenant whereof there are two branches one called Zach. 11. The staffe of beauty taking the Lord to be the God of them and theirs and giving up themselves and theirs to be the Lords the other called The staffe of bonds or brotherhood and both the covenant the finall to meet together to glorifie God the supreme and edifie one another to life with the meanes worshipping God according to his own appointment revealed in his word onely I would be understood of a Church in the constituting of it which is continued in the same state by succession till the Lord the efficient dischurch them But to proceed this confuter next saith That I make this quaere Whether baptisme be not the form of a church and answering No giving reasons of my deniall I affirm a covenant acted is the form of it To all which he answereth first in generall And here he distinguisheth between the form and the thing formed and saith That a Church being an Assembly the form or fashion thereof is the relation that every member possesseth from Christ their head and each with other wherby every law and service is communicable and executed concluding that neither a covenant or baptisme is the form of a Church but baptisme of a beleever is an instrumentall meanes by which a Church is made partaker of that forme which it hath as by which it becomes a Church Further that the instrumentall meanes of the being of a Church both of matter and form is by consent of love issuing forth from the covenant of grace made in and from our Lord through one Spirit one Faith one Baptisme Ephes 4.4 5. And if any of these be wanting and be not supplied the Church can have no visible existence and being From whence it followeth though baptisme bee not the form of a Church yet being an essentiall meanes and the last too of the visible Church where true baptisme is wanting there can be no true visible Church Reply First to let passe his distinction onely this I say that he confoundeth forme and figure as one thing which are divers For water in a round glasse or square hath this or that figure or fashion but it is not the forme whereby water is water and not another thing and therefore form differs from figure and fashion Secondly whereas he denieth a covenant or baptisme either to be a Churches form he contradicteth what he said before in his answer to my first argument to prove the covenant before Christ and after to be the same It is true said he that the coventnt of God maketh the Church both in the time of the Law and Gospel too and a Church is nothing but a people in covenant with God That saying of his here and there cannot be both true Thirdly he saith that the form of the Church is that relation that each member possesseth from Christ the head and each with other which is by consent of love Reply First the relation that each member possesseth from Christ the head and each the other is either internall as Spirit Faith Love or externall the manifestation of these as they are internall they cannot be the form of an externall visible church as they are manifested outwardly they cannot make the churches form because they may manifest these graces and yet be no church nor members of a visible and this particular church And indeed they are neither matter nor form though hee makes them both but the manifestation of these maketh them to be fit matter for a church which yet cannot be a church without the form added to the matter and that is a covenant or as he calleth it a consent which indeed is a covenant by which alone every Law and Service is communicable and excecuted Last of all he saith that consent of love from one Spirit Faith and Baptisme are essentially necessary meanes of the being of a church for matter and forme Ephes 4.4 5. And if any of these bee wanting then there can be no visible church Reply First in making all these to concurre to the matter and form of the church as meanes thereof hee necessarily yeeldeth the form and matter to be something else differing from them all Secondly he confounds baptisme with faith and love which are internall graces unlesse he means the externall profession of them flowing from the covenant of grace which if he doe then I conceive he yeelds as much as I require that in a covenant or mutuall engagement of all parties and one main part by profession of faith and love through one spirit without which a covenant cannot be in the state we speak of it Thirdly that of Ephes 4. intends not to describe the forme of a church but perswades to unity by a sevenfold unity that they are already church-members were all partakers of Lastly if baptisme may be wanting for a time and yet a beleever essentially a church-member as Abraham and his many males and females were before circumcised for the space of at least 14. yeares between the covenant and circumcision and therefore doth not concurre to the constitution of a churches matter and form but for the confirmation of a church constituted in matter and forme before And when a man of yeares is baptized in a church is the baptized a visible Saint or no If yea for he may be no reall Saint then his baptisme doth not give him matter and forme but hee hath both before or else hee ought not to be baptized And thus much to his generall discourse In particular he goeth on and saith First as it is in natural birth so it is in spirituall but in naturall birth we have the beginning of our natural being among the world and in the affairs of this life by our birth from our parents therefore wee have the beginning of our spirituall and visible being among the church as in the affaires of life eternall by our spirituall birth and this spirituall
that baptism cannot be wanting in a church constituted because it is constituted by baptisme is of no force because a church is not constituted by baptisme as I have shewed before and he begs the question Secondly To that of Joshua the 5th the case was not extraordinary nor need they be hindred by their travells no more then they were hindred by the danger they were in after they were over Jordan for all the fighting men 60000 thousand were now all sore by circumcision easie had it been for the Canaanites to have come upon them and slain them as Jacobs two sons did the Sichemites If any shall say that God could and did defend them I say was not God as able to defend them in the wildernesse where the most of them would have been alwayes well To say that God dispensed with them is not proved it is as easie to say hee did not and who so reads Josh 5.2 c. shall have cause to conclude that they sinned in omitting it though God imputed it not unto them besides they stayed sometime a yeere in a place and often long enough to have been healed I rather think God did not dispense with them and that they sinned in omitting it and therefore called the reproach of Egypt and for the miraculous Sacraments they had it was not to supply the absence of the other ordinances for then they should not have begun before these were taken away as they did nor should these have been continued after those were given them as they were especially the Passeover celebrated the second yeer Numb 9.1 c. and for any thing I know continued all the time till they came into the land yeerly according to institution and so Calvin upon Johshua the 5th thinketh and that God did tolerate them though not circumcised and a reason he gives because they offered sacrifices continually which was not much lesse then to eat the Passeover no man being to bring a sacrifice that was unclean as all uncircumcised were nor is it probable that all were circumcised who celebrated the Passeover Numb 9. and therefore Manna and the Rock did not supply the absence of the Passeover but they were both together for a time as circumcision and the sea and cloud to all that were circumcised some whereof came into the land And therefore though I shew no extraordinary case nor miraculous sacraments to supply the absence of ordinary yet from that place especially adding the case of Infants alwayes seven dayes without circumcision and sometimes more and females alwayes and yet members I see nothing that is said but as then the church was a church and all members though many not circumcised so a church may be a church now and yet baptisme for a time wanting though it ought not to be and then baptisme is not the form of the church A third Reason I give as he saith for I cannot remember I used a word of it is this That which is an adjunct to a thing cannot be the form of it but baptisme is an adjunct of a church Ergo. To this hee answereth This is not against his question as hee stateth it because that which is an adjunct may be a means of forming the thing to which it is adjoyned and so baptisme is Reply First how hee states his Question is nothing to mee his Answer must be to the question as I stated it seeing he takes upon him to refute it In altering the state of the question therefore hee shewes he had nothing to say against it as I set it down But Secondly I grant an adjunct may be a means of forming the subject so as it is by the adjunct and without that adjunct the subject could not be so formed and denominated As freedome is an adjunct to man and is necessary to make him be and named a free man but it is not necessary to make him a man he may be a man without it So baptisme is necessary to forme a church or member to be and named a baptized church and member but it concurres not therefore to make a church or member to be a church or member and therefore that form whereby it is and called a church or member ariseth from something else A subject may have twenty adjuncts but not one nor all make it a subject that it is before the adjuncts and without them A 4th Reason That which is the seal of the covenant cannot be the form of the church but baptisme is the seal of the covenant Ergo. His answer is That the seal of the covenant may be a means to constitute and put the church into an outward visible form and referres to his fifth Argument where hee hath spoken something before Reply He answered to neither Proposition here That baptisme is the seal of Gods outward covenant cannot be denied that baptisme therefore cannot be the form of a visible church is evident as a seal cannot be the form of that place or honour which a man hath by the kings grant under writing it is the grant and contract that makes the man to honour this state or that from the king and not the seal though the seal be usefull and necessary So here baptisme makes not the church to be the church but it is added to Gods covenant made with the Church before whereby it is a Church and this seal added to the covenant made for confirmation without which the state would be the same though not so authenticall to us in regard of our weaknesse For his reference see my answer to it A fifth Reason That which remains when a man is excommunicate and is not to be administred to restore him again when cut off that cannot be the form of the church but baptisme remains when a man is excommunicated nor is to be administred to restore him to membership when cut off Ergo. To which hee answereth by denying the Assumption that is that baptisme remains when a man is excommunicate nor is to be administred again when he is to be restored and denying this hee must affirm that baptisme doth not remain where a man is no member by excommunication and such a man must be baptized that he may be restored again To make this good he giveth a long answer which I contract into these Propositions First that by faith a man possesseth Christ and so baptisme and membership with the Church Secondly that some have true saving faith and so they have Christ baptisme and membership in the truth of all and savingly and some have but seeming faith and so have Christ baptisme and membership not in truth but seemingly yet accounted by others true that cannot discern them to be but seeming Thirdly that a true believer excommunicate for sin is not really deprived of faith Christ baptisme and membership but seemeth only to be cut off but hee that seemed to have faith but had not indeed excommunicate for sin is cut wholly and really from Christ c.
and he proceedeth to disprove setting downe a Proposition and the proofes of it that I alledged The Proposition is this An outward covenant acted between God and a company of beleevers to be one anothers and for the like among themselves is the form of the visible church I cannot say these were my expressions yet I shall justifie the Proposition That a visible Covenant according to my former distinction is the form of a visible church His answer to this is That the covenant of God makes the church but that any can be concluded to have an outward being in the covenant of the Gospel now without baptisme hee denieth requires me to prove it and saith he hath proved the contrary before To which with my answer to it I referre you Hee goeth on and saith Whereas I say a company of beleevers acting a covenant to become one anothers amongst themselves to be the form of the church He answereth By the same reason if without baptisme at present they may receive the forme of the church without administration of the Gospel for the future which he conceives will be absurd to affirm Reply First the administrations of the Gospel doe not concurre to the forme of the church and therefore she hath her forme without them nor could she bee partaker of them but being a church first They are necessary for her well-being not her being And if shee should neglect the administration of the Gospel and administer the contrary yet she should be a church still by her first constitution till God cast her off which without question in time hee will doe though she doe but neglect his Secondly a church receives her form to be a church for administrations sake and to enjoy those administrations to bee exercised therein according to Gods word and therefore shee will not be wanting to her self herein If I shall say If baptisme be the form of a church then by the same reason shee may receive the forme without all administration of the Gospel for the future I conceive it would be absurd to affirm it There is nothing in what hee said therefore worth answering And the same hath been said and answered before Secondly he saith God hath appointed no such thing for men to act such a covenant for any such end and therefore so to doe is will-worship invention of man and in Gods worship plain superstition and flat breach of the second commandement and therefore if it be the form of a Church it is a superstitious church which is so formed by such a superstitious action Reply I grant all humane inventions in Gods worship are sinfull superstitious and flat breaches of the second commandement and added to Gods worship doe pollute the same But secondly it doth not disanull a church that some inventions of men are joyned which ought not to be to Gods worship nor doe I thinke that himselfe thinkes as he saith that God hath not appointed men to act such a covenant for any such end because he hath said many times and granted a few lines before these words that the covenant of God makes the church Now a covenant of God is that which is acted between him and beleevers outwardly with whom he first makes it any other I suppose he understood not by it and so continued in by them following till God cut them off If thus then suppose it should be a mistake to say to become one anothers also that cannot so alter the covenant as to make it superstitious or a humane invention And when they baptize a man in yeares will they not first require him to take God in Christ to be his God and to submit to him in all things c. And is not this a covenant acted and the end of it to be to form him a church-member What invention of man is in this But if the proofe be found good this will be found his mistake so to say and therefore I shall stay till we come to them Thirdly he saith A covenant acted by beleevers to become one anothers cannot be a forme of a true visible church because it may be with ignorance both of the nature and duties of a true church as is proved by presupposing it to be the forme of the church before Baptisme Reply First I see no force in this reason for none ought to be ignorant of the nature and duties of a true church before they bee joyned but to be well catechised first nor is there any colour of reason to prove that such may be ignorant as are joyned by a covenant by presupposing it to bee the form of the Church before baptisme Secondly a covenant acted by beleevers and baptizing them are not supposed to be so distant in time as that they may not goe together but the covenant must proceed in order of nature and time baptisme being but the seale of it and is but an idoll with out it the covenant making them capable of baptisme and nothing else and baptisme being a visible and outward seale it must needs be an outward and visible covenant to which it is added and so maketh a member to be a formed member The Scriptures quoted by him 1 Cor. 1.15 c. to prove that all their externall relations must flow from their relation and union in baptisme are absurdly alledged and there is no relation and union in baptisme but by way of signification and confirmation The union must goe before if they doe not professe faith in Christ whereby they are united unto Christ before baptized they must not be baptized as himselfe hath often said and is truth But to come to the proofes I added to my proposition the first he saith was this If the Kingdome of heaven that is the Church state that we now have be the same that the Jewes had then if such a covenant as I have above expressed was the forme of that Church it is the form of ours now But the Kingdome of heaven that is the visible Church state that wee now have is the same they had Ergo If such a covenant was the forme of that church it is also the form of these now And the form of the Jewish Church was such a covenant Ergo. He answereth first If the Church state then and now bee not the same then the form of that is not the form of this and so my Argument grounded upon an IF is nothing But the Church state then constituted of a naturall seed was not that we have now constituted of a spirituall seed Ergo. Reply In denying the Church state then and now to bee the same he flatly contradicteth the Scripture Mat. 21.33 43. where it is clear that the Vineyard and Kingdome of heaven being the Church state they possessed is threatned to be taken away and given to other nations It is the same Vineyard and Kingdome taken away and given Secondly it is a grosse mistake to say that they were a Church stated of Abrahams natural seed
of the manner of administration as I have shewed before a Kingdome is not to be taken there in the sense that it is here in Matthew it ceased to them but was not dissolved in it self nor in respect of others to whom it was given not another Kingdome and Church estate given to others diverse from that but the very same So Matth. 22.1 c. the marriage Supper in one and the same continued all the time of that church estate before Christ and in these churches since Christ They were invited and called from time to time but they would not come at last they were therfore destroyed the Gentiles called in their stead therfore that then and this now was but one covenant and the same church estate the form of it then and now the same which then was an outward and visible covenant acted between God and the people mutually and therefore this same is the forme of churches now Having passed through the Argument which I gathered out of the old Testament I next added some others and first from Mat. 18.20 where the word used in the Greek is commonly used for church assembling or Synagoguising taken from the Jewes whose assemblies and places of assembling were called Synagogues John 20 10. Acts 4.21 11.26 13.44 14.27 20.7 1 Cor. 5.4 11.18 c. and other places many though some by him set downe are misquoted His answere hereto was this that the assembling of persons meerly in the Scripture was not the cause of that denomination nor will any Scripture prove that that name Church is given to a company of unbaptized persons but the assembling of a company of persons baptized in Christs name is the reason why they are denominated a true visible Church Rep. I grant that according to the intent of the question that the assembling of a company of men unbaptized is not the occasion why they are denominated a church yet the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is generally applied to a company of unbaptized persons as Act. 19.31.39.41 thrice together but that a church so meeting is of baptized persons yet the reason why a company of baptized persons meeting together is called a Church is truely and onely because they meet together and that not accidentally for so many thousands meet together in one place because they constantly meet together in one place by agreement to performe the solemne duties which they are bound to perform to God and each other Such a meeting together is that which onely giveth them the denomination of a Church nor is baptisme any reason of their meeting together for then all baptized persons must meet together in one place nor could this or that company bee called a church for that reason much lesse severall companies churches if there were nothing else added Matth. 18.19 Whatsoever two of you shall agree together in where the word agree is properly by a consent manifested by concurring voyces and paction so used Matth. 20.2.13 To say no more to this though I might say much more because I am not privie to my selfe that it was used by me I come to the next reason which was That whatsoever maketh a man a member of a church or no member that makes a company of men to be a church or no church there is the same reason of the whole that there is of every part but the making or unmaking or restoring a man to bee a member is by a covenant acted Esay 56.4 6. Ergo that is the form of the church His answer grants that the covenant of God is the ground upon which the church and every member thereof is stated but hee denies that a covenant acted to become one another doe form the church or member either nor doth Esa 56.4 5. prove any such thing but onely that the Eunuch or stranger that took hold of Gods covenant that is were circumcised and performed the duties which they were thereby bound to performe Gal. 5.3 should have a place in his house not by acting a covenant and neglecting circumcision Reply What he saith here hath been said before and answered and I am confident that he cannot make good what hee grants that a Church is grounded upon Gods covenant and thereby stated but in this sense I speak of a covenant acted by beleevers between God and them which he alwayes leaves out and between themselves and therefore a covenant acted doth form the church or membership thereof Esay 56. doth prove it sufficiently where the Lord saith If an Eunuch or stranger shall take hold of and embrace my covenant that is shall submit themselves to enter into covenant with me taking me to be their God and becomming one of my people by joyning themselves to me and them thereby and receive circumcision as a seale thereof and doe my works shall have a place in my house whereas he expoundeth the covenant to be circumcision hee doth but run in a common mistake it being but a signe seale of the covenant and cannot be the covenant it selfe no more then a signeor seale of a thing can be the thing it selfe that it signifieth and sealeth and is not onely an errour in religion but against manifest reason too But of this often before though therefore they were to be circumcised yet that was the first thing before which there was nothing acted visibly and that they did not first make some outward profession and expression of being one with them and having their God to be theirs will never be proved by him and if he will not yeeld the contrary by what is and hath been said let him bee content that other men be of another judgement and have his leave to be quiet or else convince me of his calling hee hath to deale in such matters as he doth with arrogancy enough He addeth not by acting a covenant neglecting circumcision I grant it and so also not by acting a covenant or circumcision and neglecting sacrifices c. but acting a covenant doth form the church and giveth them right to circumcision and the rest which must be added or else they will be found despisers of Gods covenant which they had made whereby they were bound to observe circumcision and all other appointments of God before they were circumcised as is manifest in all them that lived before Abrahams dayes and in Abrahams dayes by Gods expressing himselfe to Abraham Gen. 12 13.15 chapters which was before hee was circumcised As for that Gal. 5.3 it hath been fully answered before and therefore I omit it My next reason was taken from the comparison of a church with a Candlestick Rev. 1.12.20 such as is the forme of a candlestick such by proportion is the form of a church as the matter signifies the matter of a church proportionally but the form of the candlestick is the joyning together of the shaft and branches signifying the uniting together of many members and Christ which cannot be but by agreement
and covenant Ergo a covenant acted is the form of a church His answer first granteth the comparison and proportion also But secondly denies that a covenant acted by beleevers or agreement mutually is necessary to form the church to be one body and concludes that persons may be united to Christ by faith and baptisme and so stated in the covenant of grace and members of the visible church proportionally as the form of the candlestick is the joyning together of the shaft and branches Reply First where he denies mutuall agreement or a covenant acted is the forme of the church hee doth it without any reason given which is an easie way of confuting for where he saith it may be by faith and baptism he should prove it is and must be or else he shewes himself to heare himself speak Secondly in saying faith in Christ and baptisme may unite them to Christ and so state them in the covenant of grace I affirm faith alone doth it But it is faith professed that may make a man capable of baptisme in those that they themselves will admit members and therefore it must be faith professed that unites a man to Christ visibly and so he is a member of Christ visibly before baptisme comes nor could be baptized without that visible union and therefore hee is not made a visible member of Christ by baptisme but is so before Thirdly though by faith professed a man is visibly united to Christ and may be so acknowledged yet this doth not unite him or make him a member of this or that particular church but there must be something whereby he may be united to this or that church and make him a member thereof rather then of another baptisme doth not so make him for then all baptized should be of one and the same church and not of Ephesus more then of Smyrna nor can they be any other things then mutuall agreement or covenant acted aâ— we know it to be certain in all consociations a mutuall covenant is the bond and form of them as in marriage common-wealths 2. Rev. 17.21 and so of other societies and bodies incorporate so also in this mysticall body of Christ a church visible being an Ecclesiasticall body politike consisting of many members consociated it must needs be by covenant acted mutually and by this comparison of marrying the Apostle sets forth the relation of Christ and the Church the bond tying the members each to other that uniteth them all to the head which is a marriage covenant Ephes 5. baptisme being but the seal of it And thus wee are come to the last Argument If the removing of the candlestick and so unchurching of a church be by dissolving the covenant and their fellowship as to them by dissipation Zach. 11. then a covenant acted is the form of a visible church But the removing of the candlestick is the dissolving the covenant and their fellowship thereby as to them by dissipation Ergo a covenant acted is the form of it To the second Proposition hee answereth two things First because the covenant in the new Testament established in Christs blood is everlasting and cannot be shaken and dissolved and differ from the covenant which was before Christ which was shaken dissolved and taken away therefore their kingdome of Heaven was shaken and church-estate was taken away but the kingdome and church-state now cannot be taken away Heb. 12.27 Matth. 21.43 Reply Here is nothing which is not said before and answered yet observe that he declines the true question which is of a visible church and flies to the invisible state for to visible churches there is an end many times of their visible state and yet the covenant of God remains eternall to all the elect of God and never is taken away from them nor indeed is the visible kingdome of Christ altogether taken away but it hath and doth remain somewhere upon earth though many particular churches are often ruinated and destroyed Again he speaks to the state before Christ and the difference of this since Christ whereas the Proposition speaks of this since Christ only and the argument is taken from the state of churches since Christ as the expressions fully declare Rev. 2. 3. where churches compared to candlesticks are threatened dissolution for their faults Ephesus Rev. 2.5 I will remove thy candlestick that is I will make thee no church Rev. 3.16 I will spue thee out of my mouth noting an utter undoing of them and an allusion was made to Zach. 11. to intimate the way how God would unchurch them not by taking away their baptisme but by destroying them and dissipating their fellowship in the covenant nor was that of Zachary any part of the argument that hee could have nor advantage from that to fetch in the state of the old Testament in his answer And whereas I say the destruction of the church of Ephesus or Laodicea was not by taking away their baptisme from them so that who so remains alive of them at the time of dissipation should not be accounted baptized persons having received baptisme though it will do them no good in the state they are in for let me put this case a whole church is dissipated and unchurched yet one or two of them that live still after a few dayes are truly converted from their hypocrifie and apostasie justifying the Lord and seeking the one to joyn to Philadelphia the other to Smyrna and each give such satisfaction to the church of their faith and repentance as they dare not deny the right hand of fellowship Shall these two be now anew baptized having received true baptisme before whilest they were members of Ephesus before shee was destroyed If any shall say as hee did before in his answer to the first Reason against baptisme being the form of the church that all before being but seeming was nothing indeed and so account he was not baptized at all and never had any capacity of being baptized truly till now Besides what hath been replied there I adde that the same state must be then of a man that is a member but an hypocrite in the church unknown so to be who in continuance of time by Gods Spirit in the Word is convinced of his unsound estate repents of it manifests this to the church and so cleers it that the church is satisfied that she was before mistaken and he was but seemingly a believer and so had but a seeming membership and baptisme I say likewise that this man also must be baptized if he were not before truly baptized And how fearfull a thing is it thus to dally in Gods matters and to make Gods ordinance descend upon our apprehension to be or not to be humanus intellectus non est mensura institutionum Dei the ordinance administred to such a man before was Gods ordinance and true baptisme but he did not receive it savingly which now upon this work of grace he doth and baptisme in it self applied
flesh successively Secondly by passing the promise into a solemne formall visible covenant as the father of the blessed and all-blessing seed and of all believers of all nations Thirdly confirming it by circumcision the sign and seal of the righteousnesse of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised 3. The third from Moses to Christs coming in the flesh this is the same in substance with the former the same Christ and doctrine and grace dispensed but differing from the former in the manner of dispensation in divers circumstances First in adding these ten words in tables of stone and drawing a vail of shadowes over it consisting of all those Lawes and Ordinances delivered to Moses on the mount according to the pattern shewed him and by him communicated to the people Secondly in adding the Ordinance of the Passeover with divers rites thereto belonging all which were to continue till the time of Reformation and this and not the former is the old Testament ratified by the death of Bulls and Goats c. Shadows of better things without the application whereof the other purified the flesh and not the conscience 4. The fourth begins with the manifestation of the Son of God in the flesh and still continues and is the new Testament ratified by the death and blood of the Lord Jesus the testator who being come the vaile of shadowes was utterly removed and the Mosaicall administrations quite abolished the old being done away that the new might be established which cannot be removed And this is to be attended that all the Scriptures that speak of the removall of the old and setting up of the new Testament or that declare the abolishing of the old and establishing of the new as was foretold is to be understood of these two periods from Moses to Christ and after not of that from Abraham to Moses and he opposition in this case made in the Scriptures is of that under Moses and Christ only 5. The covenant that God made with Abraham and continued to his seed the Jewes and us Gentiles hath two parts in it the first respecteth God the other respecteth us In the first concerning God is contained all that concerns our good temporall and eternall and himself held forth as the sole efficient of all preventing us with his grace freely and performing all the good pleasure of his grace in us according to his own will nor doth any thing that hee is pleased to work depend on us nor requires he any thing of us by way of efficiencie or causality yet so as that hee worketh something in us without us even being meerly passive in the act of working till it be first wrought something he works by us stirring up and assisting that which hee hath first wrought in us nor can we at first do any thing till hee hath principled us by supernaturall grace nor first or last more then hee helpeth us who worketh all the will and deed according to his will 6. Infants are passively capable of the dispensation of God and of the Spirit and grace of the covenant and what ever men of yeers are capable of though not wrought in the same way or by the same means yet the same things and by the same Spirit so far as is necessary to union with Christ and his justification to life thereby else no children dying Infants are elected or shall be raised up again in their bodies and saved nor is the judgement that we can have of men of yeers infallible as in Simon Magus c. 7. The Lord having taken hold of any man or woman by outward dispensation of means to call them out of Infidelity into visible profession of faith in the Word of his grace and obedience to his commands they are hereby made partakers of his covenant and all the priviledges outwardly belonging thereto yea though they have not saving faith but be hypocrites and so themselves and all that ever proceed from them continue in the same state parents and children successively so long as the Lord continues the course of his dispensation nor can any alteration befall them whereby this estate is dissolved but some apparent act of God breaking them off from him 8. Baptisme is not the first grace but the second nor doth it confer grace but confirm the former which therefore must be presupposed and it is the seal of the righteousnesse of faith in the new Testament to all that receive it as circumcision of old was to them Rom. 4.11 By baptisme I mean the ordinance of the church administred by a just calling which is too oft though it never should be separated from inward grace yet remains true baptisme so administred else Simon Magus and those false breathren Gal. 2. being not inwardly baptized were not truly baptized and if they had repented must be baptized anew 9. Last of all as of old more was required of Abraham and of men of yeers turning Proselytes when they were to be circumcised then of Isaac and their Infants continually afterwards circumcised So now in administring baptisme to persons more is required of men of yeers then of Infants God required faith of Abraham in the blessing seed before circumcised but hee required not faith of Isaac nor of any one of Abrahams seed after him before circumcision but that they should believe afterward which he promised to work in them So now of men of yeers faith is to be required and must be that a man of yeers be baptized but not so of Infants of baptized persons who are to be baptized that they may believe afterward c. Having premised thus much I come to the proof of the question that Infants of believing parents and in covenant with God by visible profession may and ought to be baptized ARGUMENTS ¶ 1 IF the covenant now under Christ be the same that it was with Abraham and the Jewes before Christ then as Infants were in that covenant and partakers of the signe thereof circumcision so are Infants now in the covenan and should receive the signe thereof baptisme But the covenant now under Christ is the same with that before Christ with Abraham and his posterity in the flesh Therefore as Infants were then in the covenant and signed with circumcision so are Infants now in the covenant and are to receive baptisme the signe thereof In this Argument three things are to be cleared First that the covenant made with Abraham and his posterity before Christ and this under Christ is the same And secondly that Infants were then in that covenant so they be now in this And thirdly that all Jewish Infants were then partakers of the signe and circumcised and so should Infants now receive baptisme the signe of it Of each of these I will set down particular grounds 1. That the covenant with Abraham and the Jewes before and the Gentiles now is the same is evident by these reasons First the Gospel is the doctrine of the covenant but this is but