Abraham had before he was yet Circumcised nor do many of them nor can they walk in the Steps of Abraham having not his Faith If any object and say If Infants of Believers are not included in that Covenant made with Abraham How can any of them who died in Infancy be saved I answer 1. Cannot God save dying Infants unless they were included in that Covenant made with Abraham How then could the dying Infants of the Godly who lived before that Covenant was made with Abraham be saved God has a thousand Ways through Christ's Undertakings to save dying Infants as Dr. Taylor notes which we know not of Secret things belong to God and revealed things to us 2. Were they in any sense included in that Covenant made with Abraham though not accounted counted for his Natural or Spiritual Seed yet it would not follow from thence that they ought to be Baptized because the Females who were truly Abraham's Natural Seed and some of them might be his Spiritual Seed too yet were not Circumcised no more than the Male Children of the Godly were before Abraham's Time And 3. Were they in Covenant as they are the Natural-Seed of Believers then Baptism however does not bring them into the Covenant and if so their State is good whether Baptized or no. And if Baptism brings them into the Covenant of Grace then they have not right thereto because they are in the Covenant And if Baptism brings them into the Covenant of Grace and makes the Covenant sure to them then it would follow that 't is in the Power of Men either to bring their Children into the Covenant of Grace or keep them out and that it is in effect to say Parents have Power to save or destroy their Children and how absurd that is I will leave to all impartial Men to judg I shall in the next place prove that the Covenant of Circumcision was not a Covenant of Grace or Faith and therefore doth not concern the Infant-Seed of believing Gentiles 1. I argue thus That Covenant that was made to separate the Natural Seed of Abraham from all other Nations of the World and made sure unto them the Earthly Promise of the Possession of the Land of Canaan could not be a Covenant of Grace which concerns the Infant-Seed of Believers under the Gospel But the Covenant of Circumcision was made to separate the Natural Seed of Abraham from all other Nations of the World and made sure unto them the Earthly Promise of the Possession of the Land of Canaan Ergo The Covenant of Circumcision could not be a Covenant of Grace which concerns the Infants of Believers under the Gospel The Major cannot be denied because the Gospel or second Covenant is established upon no such earthly Promises as the Covenant of Circumcision was not that we should have an Earthly Kingdom or possess the Land of Canaan but it is established on better Promises than these as Heb. 8.6 Also if that Covenant concerned us or our Children who are Gentiles then the Gentiles had equal Right to that Earthly Inheritance and then were not the Natural Seed of Abraham separated from all other People upon the account of that Earthly Blessing as their Possession only As to the Minor see Gen. 17. I will establish my Covenant between me and thee v. 7 And I will give unto thee and to thy Seed after thee the Land wherein thou art a Stranger all the Land of Canaan for an everlasting Possession and I will be their God v. 8. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy Seed after thee Every Man-Child among you shall be cirumcised v. 10. 1. There were some who were circumcised to whom the Promise of the Gospel-Covenant God made with Abraham did not belong as Ishmael Esau c. God expresly said that his Covenant i. e. the Covenant of Grace was not established with Ishmael but with Isaac and yet the Covenant of Circumcision belonged to Ishmael as well as to Isaac See Gen. 17.20 21. As for Ishmael I have heard thee behold I have blessed him c. But my Covenant will I establish with Isaac whom Sarah shall bear unto thee Compare this with Rom. 9.7 8 9. Not because they are the Seed of Abraham are they all Children that is Children of the Covenant of Grace or the Children of God but the Children of the Promise are counted for thy Seed see Gal. 4.29 30. Nay all that were in Abraham's House whether born there or Strangers or such who were bought with his Money were circumcised but will you say all these were in that Gospel-Covenant God made with him Moreover there were other Persons in Abraham's House who no doubt might some of them be in the Covenant of Grace and had the Promises belonging to them who were nevertheless not circumcised namely the Females also Male Infants dying before the eighth day coming from Abraham Moreover other godly Men who were not of Abraham's Family yet lived in his time as Melchisedec Lot Job c. none of these had right to be circumcised But if any object and say the Females were circumcised in the Males I answer with Mr. Tombs it is without Proof and by like perhaps greater Reason it may be said that the Children of Believers are baptized in the Persons of their Parents and therefore are not to be baptized in their own Persons Also 't is apparent that the Jews comprehended in that Covenant made with Abraham and circumcised accordingly were nevertheless not admitted to Baptism upon that foot of account which had the Covenant of Circumcision been a Gospel-Covenant i. e. of the same nature I see no reason why John Baptist should deny their Argument i. e. We are Abraham's Seed c. Hence it plainly appears that the right Evangelical Promises were not the adequate Reason of Circumcision But as I have before said the Precept or express Command of God to Abraham And from hence I shall infer this third Argument That Covenant that was made with or did belong unto the fleshly Seed of Abraham and ungodly ones as well as the godly was not a Covenant of Grace or Gospel-Covenant But the Covenant of Circumcision was made with or did belong to the fleshly Seed of Abraham as Ishmael Esau and all the lineal Seed of Abraham who were ungodly as well as to the godly Ergo The Covenant of Circumcision was not a Covenant of Grace or Gospel-Covenant If all who are in the Covenant of Grace or Gospel-Covenant do know the Lord from the greatest to the least of them then the Covenant of Circumcision could not be the Covenant of Grace or Gospel-Covenant But all who are in the Covenant of Grace or Gospel-Covenant do know the Lord from the greatest to the least of them Ergo The Covenant of Circumcision was not the Covenant of Grace This Argument is fully proved by that in Jer. 31.32 33 34. Speaking of the
which you in Pag. 8. laid down thus viz. If the Infants of believing Christians under the Gospel are in Covenant with God as the Jewish Infants under the Law were then the Seal of the Covenant which is Baptism may and ought to be administred to them But the Infants of Believers under the Gospel are in Covenant with God as well as the Jewish Infants under the Law were Therefore Baptism the Seal of the Covenant ought to be applied to these as Circumcision was to them Answ Tho this Syllogism is not perfect in Form yet I will pass by that Oversight of yours and consider it in each part and finding it sophistical must deny the whole Argument 1. For first as to your Major If the Infants of Christians were in Covenant with God as the Jewish Infants were yet Baptism cannot belong to them unless God hath commanded them to be baptized and made it also a Seal of the same Covenant for as much as Baptism as I have told you before once or twice already is a meer positive Law or Institution 't is not Man but God himself must make it their Duty to be baptized and a Seal of the Covenant if it were so indeed but God hath neither enjoyned them or made it their Duty to be baptized nor appointed it to be a Seal of the Covenant of Grace to them Ergo. Also you mistake in calling Circumcision a Seal of the Covenant made with Abraham for 't is only called the Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith he had that is Abraham and which he had being yet uncircumcised 'T is not called a Seal of the Covenant but of Faith and that too of Abraham's Faith only because none before they were circumcised had such a Faith but himself only Nor can you prove Christ's true Baptism is a Seal of the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel the holy Spirit is the only Seal of the Covenant of Grace mentioned in the Scripture Ephes 1.13 14. chap. 4.30 If therefore I should grant that the Infants of Believers under the Gospel as such were in Covenant with God which I must deny yet it would not follow in the least that they ought to be baptized from that ground for were not think you all the Children of the Godly before Abraham's time or before he received that express Command to circumcise them in your sense in Covenant with God If you do not say this why do you affirm that the Children of Believers were always or ever in Covenant as well as their Parents but if it were so Do you think it was their Duty to circumcise them If you should say no because they did not know to circumcise them was the Will of God But you might say more viz. it was not the Will of God they should do it 't is God's Command only and not their being in Covenant made it their Duty to circumcise their Children and had God given us such a Command or any Authority to baptize our Children we ought and would baptize them but must not dare not without such positive Command or Authority 2. We utterly also deny your Minor and say that the Infants of Believers as such under the Gospel are not in Covenant with God We will therefore examine your Grounds to prove that which you affirm upon this account Pag. 8 9. and thus you argue viz. They who by Circumcision were once solemnly taken into Covenant with God and never since were solemnly cast out do undoubtedly continue in a Covenant-State But Infants under the Law were solemnly by God's Appointment taken into Covenant with himself and were never since by any Command of God cast out therefore they do still continue in Covenant Answ 1. I answer first of all that your Argument is not true in form Is Circumcision in your Minor Sir if you are a Logician speak like one your Minor should run thus viz. But Infants were once by Circumcision solemnly by God's Appointment taken into Covenant c. But I 'll pass by that and must tell you your Argument in another respect is lame also You do not tell us what Covenant 't is you here intend ought you not to have added They who were once solemnly taken into the Covenant of Grace by Circumcision c. but Infants were once solemnly taken into the Covenant of Grace by Circumcision If you do not affirm that you say nothing that concerns our Controversy If the Covenant of Circumcision was not the Covenant of Grace you will and must give up your Cause and if you say that you ought to have put it into your Syllogism 3. There is yet another fault in your Argument If you would include the Controversy ought you not to have said All they who c. Can your Conclusion be good when your Propositions are bad and defective But to the business If you say Infants as such were solemnly taken into the Convenant of Grace by Circumcision then I deny your Minor Infants as such were never by Circumcision nor any other ways under the Law taken into the Covenant of Grace Moreover I affirm that tho they were once solemnly taken into Covenant with God by Circumcision yet that Covenant and that Covenant Seed viz. the natural Seed of Abraham are both solemnly cast out and this I shall God assisting prove and afterwards take off all those pretended Absurdities you in the 9 th and 10 th Pages of your Book mention and give a full Answer to your Reasons and Arguments you bring to prove the Covenant of Circumcision was a Covenant of Grace 1. And now to proceed to raze and quite overthrow this main Foundation and Pillar of Pedo-baptism I shall argue as Mr. Tombs hath done whose Arguments could never be yet answered We are first of all to consider whether the Gospel-Covenant and the Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham be the same Secondly Inquire what Seed of Abraham it is of which 't is said I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed Gen. 17.7 Thirdly Whether there be the same Reason of Circumcision and of Baptism in signifying the Gospel-Covenant Fourthly Whether there is the same Parity of Reason for the one as for the other First The Covenant made with Abraham we affirm is not a pure Gospel-Covenant but a mix'd Covenant partly made with his Natural or Fleshly Seed and partly made with him and his Spiritual Seed and therefore we thus argue Arg. 1. If the Covenant takes its Denomination from the Promises and the Promises are mix'd some Evangelical belonging to those to whom the Gospel belongeth some Domestick or Civil Promises specially and absolutely respectinâ— the House and Natural Seed of Abraham and Policy of Israel then 't is a mix'd Covenant But the Covenant takes its Denomination from the Promises and the Promises are mix'd some Evangelical belonging to those to whom the Gospel belongeth some Domestick or Civil Promises specially and absolutely respecting the House and
into the Church Sure had Paul been of your Judgment he would have rather past by that Priviledg when he spoke of Circumcision which he calls the chief and have said chiefly in that it was a Seal of Infant Church-Membership But since he speaks the quite contrary who shall we believe you or the great Apostle of the Gentiles And evident it is he confirms the same Doctrine Gal. 5.3 For I â—â—stify to 〈◊〉 Man that is Circumcised that he is a Dâ—â—tor to keep the whole Law And Hence 't is said to be a Yoke of Bondage which neither they nor their Fathers could bear Acts 15. because it obliged them to univerâ—â—l Obedience or to keep the Law perfectly and brought them under a Curse if they did not Gal. 3.10 These things considered fully shew of what stamp and nature Circumcision was together with that Covenant to which it did appertain I come now to what you further assert in the 9 th Page of your Book viz. That Infants were in Covenant under the Law and by special appointment of God Gen. 17.7 but are not now cast out by Christ under the Gospel This differs but little from the old Argument of Mr. Baxter Sidenham c. the latter speaks thus Infants of Believers were never cast out of the visible Church of which they were once Answ 1. Infants being once Members of the Jewish Church doth not prove they were ever Members of the Gospel-Church the Male Infants of God's Priests under the old Covenant when grown up had other Priviledges If we must call Circumcision a Priviledg which the Sons of Christ's Ministers have no right to under the Gospel and yet no where in express words in the New-Testament excluded from that Priviledg 2. But I have proved the Covenant for Infants in Covenanting under the Law was no Gospel Covenant and so concerns not our Infants 3. According to that Maxim Ownis privatio intimat habitum you know that every Dispossession implieth a Possession Infants therefore cannot be cast out of the Gospel-Church before it can be proved they were ever admitted If Mr. Burkitt or the Athenian Society or any Men living can tell us in what visible Administration Children were admitted visible Church-Members before Abraham's days which was above 2000 Years and you say somewhat you affirm they were always in Covenant Mr. Sidenham makes mention of a two-fold being in Covenant 1. In relation to Election 2. To be in Covenant In faciâ— visibilis Ecclesiae To this I answer The Covenant of Circumcision belonged to the Children of the Flesh to Ishmael and Esau as well as Jacob who were not in the Election of Grace therefore those who were Circumcised were not so in Covenant Children of Unbelievers may be in that sense in Covenant as well as the Children of Believers as many of them afterwards prove to be nay may be more of them than of the Children of Believers 2. As touching Infants being in Covenant In facie visibilis Ecclesiae in the face of a visible Church I answer Though they were so in the Jewish Church under the Old Covenant some with Circumcision were brought in and some without it yet that Covenant and Covenant-Seed are as I have and shall yet prove cast out which will be a final Answer Thus I argue If the Covenant for incovenanting of Infants was the Old Covenant signified by Hagar and that Covenant-Seed signified by Ishmael are cast out then the natural or fleshly Seed of Believers are cast out or not to be admitted into the Gospel-Church But the Covenant for Incovenâ—â—â—ing of Infants was the Old Covenant signified by Hagar and that Covenant-Seed signified by Ishmael are cast out Ergo The 〈◊〉 or fleshly Seed of Believers are cast out or not to be admitted into the Gospel Churchâ— see Gal. 4.22 23 24 25 26. For it is written that Abraham had two Sons the one by a Bâ—ndâ— woman the other by a 〈◊〉 woman Ver. 24. Which things are 〈◊〉 Allegâ—ry for these are the two Covenants the one from the Mount Sinai which gâ—ndereth to Bondage which is Hagar c. Ver. 30. Nevertheless which saith the Scripture Cast out the Bond-woman and her Son for the Son of the Bond-woman shall not be Heir with the Son of the Free-woman By Hagar is meant all agree the Old Covenant and by casting her out is held forth the abolishing or taking away of the Old Covenant He took away the First that he might establish the Second 2. By Ishmael is meant the natural Seed of Abraham and so the natural Seed of all Godly Men of his Race that succeeded him who were Members of that Church and as the late Annotators note by this place is signified The total Destruction of the Jewish Church which consisted of Parents and their Children or the whole Nation of Israel this Church and Church-Seed and manner of Church-Membership is cast out and gone for ever Pray read Mr. Cary's Solemn Call and what I have formerly said in that Book intituled Gold Restn'd or Baptism in its Primitive Purity p. 113. Mr. Cary and we all say That Children were once admitted Members of the Jewish Church But evident it is that God hath now quite pulled down and razed that House to the Foundation thereof I mean that National Church of the Jews and broke up House-keeping and turned the Bond-woman and her Son i. e. the fleshly Seed or natural Off-spring of Abraham out of Doors the natural Branches are broken off and God hath now built him a new and more glorious and spiritual House under the Gospel into which he admitted none as his Houshold-Servants to dwell in this his Spiritual Family or Gospel-Church but Believers only or such as profess themselves so to be Yea saith St. Peter as lively Stones are built up a spiritual House c. And that the Old House the Jewish Church-State with all the Appurtenances Rites and Priviledges of it are abolished or pulled down and a new one built and set up into which Infants are not to be admitted is very evident Heb. 7.12 For the Priesthood being changed there is made of necessity a change also of the whole Law which must needs include Circumcision with all the Appurtenances and Priviledges belonging to it And therefore as Infant Church-Membership came in with the Law of Circumcision and as a direct Part of the Old Covenant or Old Law so likewise plain it is that it went out and was disannulled with it Take again my former Simily viz. What Priviledges soever are given to any Person by an Act of Parliament which said Law was to continue in Force so long and no longer then when that time is expired and another Parliament makes a new Law where many things are contained that were in the first Law But those divers Priviledgâ—â— given to those Persons in the former Law are left out in this latter Act would it not be a piece of Folly for any of them
Disciples Does Christ say you own them for Subjects of his Kingdom and shall we allow them no better standing than in the Devil's Kingdom Answ Does Christ own Infants to be Subjects of his Kingdom and yet did not baptize them for that he did not and shall we attempt to Baptize them as if we were wiser than he I must again turn the Eâ—g of the Sword against you If little Children were brought to Christ and he did not Baptize them then we must not But little Children were brought to Christ and he did not Baptize them therefore we must not Here is both Truth and Reason in this Argument as Dr. Taylor confesses but none of both in yours You your self confess Christ did not Baptize those Infants that came to him and whom he took in his Arms and blessed because with his own Hands he baptized none at all Joh. 4.1 2. Therefore since Christ who was God foresaw what Contention would arise about the Baptizing of Infants had it been his Will they should be Baptized would he not at this time put the Matter out of doubt have Baptized them or have given Command to his Disciples so to have done If therefore Infants be in so good a Condition as you say i. e. Subjects of Christ's Kingdom of Grace let us let them alone for we cannot by baptizing them put them in a better state than they are without any Warrant from Christ and by baptizing them not we cannot put them into any worser state or standing than they are in without it Well you are angry with us because we know not but that the Children of Turks and Infidels may be in a good condition as well as Children of Believers though we deny not but that the Children of Believers have greater Advantages than the Children of Infidels namely by the Prayers good Education and the good Examples of their Parents c. In pag. 22. you say Can any wise or good Man believe that our Saviour would speak such favourable Words of Infants and his outward Gesture manifest so much good-will towards them only with an intent to ensnare and deceive us doubtless it was to encourage his Ministers to perform all charitable Offices towards them Answ 1. You mistake our Saviour speaks very little concerning Infants and that which is said of them was accidentally spoken being occasioned by those who brought little Children to him which the Disciples forbad and from hence he spake what he did Moreover the Cause why our Saviour spoke those words might be more for the sake of Parents that they might not be afraid touching the Condition of their dying Babes than to shew any Ordinance belonged to them for had it been so doubtless the Disciples would not have forbad those People to bring little Children to Christ 'T is therefore an Argument against Infant-Baptism and not for it because the Disciples were appointed by their Master to be the Administrators of that Ordinance on such to whom it did of right belong and had Infants been the Subjects would they have forbid People to bring Infants to him 2. You therefore may rather conclude had they been the Subjects of Baptism Christ by not hinting any such thing in the least on this Occasion might rather have left us in a Snare in speaking nothing of it neither here nor at any other time 3. Therefore Christ speaking so favourably of Infants and yet baptized them not may teach us to judg favourably of them and do any charitable Office towards them but not to presume to give them holy Baptism without Christ's Warrant no more than any other Gospel-Ordinance 'T is no matter what Calvin spoke 't is no Sin to keep such out of Christ's Fold which he has given no Authority to take in nor have any People a more charitable Opinion of the state of dying Infants than those you call Anabaptists 4. Those who are capable of some kind of Blessings of Christ we have shewed are notwithstanding not capable of Baptism We read not the Disciples baptized these little Children nor none else Object To this you answer Perhaps they were Baptized before But say you it doth not follow that the Apostles did not baptize these Children because no mention of it the Scripture no where tells us that the Apostles themselves were baptized shall we conclude therefore that they were never baptized Answ 'T is no matter whether we read or read not that the Apostles were baptized since we find it was his Precept and Practice to baptize Disciples or such who did believe in him We read of multitudes of Disciples that were baptized and we know the way of Christ was one and the same that which was the Duty of one Disciple as a Disciple was the Duty of every Disciple We read but of two or three Churches who broke Bread and celebrated the Lord's Supper could you shew us but a Precept for Infant-Baptism or but one Example or Precedent where one Infant was baptized we would not doubt but those little Children might be also but this you cannot do And whereas in pag. 23. you say That there is not the same Reason why Infants should be admitted to eat the Lord's Supper as there is for them to be admitted to Baptism Answ We deny it utterly What though the one be a Sacrament of Initiation and the other of Confirmation Yet pray observe that Repentance and Faith is required of them that are to be baptized even actual Faith and Repentance as well as actual Grace and Examination c. to discern the Lord's Body in those who are to receive the Lord's Supper If all that were to be Circumcised had been required to repent and believe as in the Case of admission to Baptism you had said something but the contrary appears Male Infants as such had a Right to that but have no Right to this And thus I pass to your fifth Argument If the Infants of Christian Parents are sâ—dorally Holy then you say they are Subjects qualified for Baptism but the Scripture pronounces such Children federally Holy therefore they are qualified for Baptism and may be admitted You cite Rom. 11.16 If the Root be Holy the Branches are also Holy where by the Root you say we are to understand Abraham Isaac and Jacob and by the Branches their Posterity the People of the Jews Now forasmuch say you as the Jews the natural Branches are for Unbelief broken off and the believing Gentiles are grafted in their stead and succeed in their Privileges in the sense that they were Holy not with an internal and inherent Holiness passing by natural Generation from Parent to Child but with an external relative Covenant-Holiness grounded on the Promise made to the Faithful and their Seed Answ 1. I deny your Major and say If Children of Believers were federally Holy under the Gospel yet they are not qualified for Baptism because 't is not what you imagine gives them right thereto or
the Commission saith he I explain the former thus First teach them that is make them my Disciples by teaching them to believe and repent Here we are to consider the order which God observes in making with Men a Covenant in Baptism First of all he calls them by his Word and Spirit to believe and repent then in the second place he makes a Promise of Mercy and Forgiveness and then thirdly he seals his Promise by Baptism They saith he that know not nor consider this Order which God used in covenanting with them in Baptism deal preposterously over-slipping the Commandment of repenting and believing and is the cause of so much Prophaneness in the World This Divine Order Christ signifieth when he saith make them Disciples and was always observed of God Mr. Perkins as he was a very learned Man so you know he was a Member of the Church of England and how fully does he confirm what we say and teach and how does he confute your Notion and Practice Moreover Mr. Richard Baxter speaking of the Order of the Commission Christ gave to his Disciples saith viz. Their first Task is to make Disciples which are by St. Mark called Believers The second work is to baptize them whereunto is annexed the Promise of Salvation The third work is to teach them all other things which are after to be learned in the School of Christ To contemn this Order is to contemn the Rules of all Order for where can we find it if not here I profess my Conscience is fully satisfied from this Text that there is one sort of Faith that must go before Baptism the Profession whereof the Minister must expect 2. You say The true reason why Christ bid his Disciples first teach and then baptize was because he was sending his Apostles forth among the Heathen to convert them to Christianity in which work we all know that preaching of the Word must go before the Administration of the Sacraments Pag. 20. Should say you the King of England send his Ministers into Foreign Plantations to convert the Indians to Christianity they ought not to be baptized before they are taught and instructed but when the Parents are proselyted and make a visible Profession of their Faith their Children may be baptized and afterwards instructed as the Children of the Jewish Proselytes were first circumcised and then taught for tho Abraham was first taught and then circumcised yet Isaac was first circumcised and then taught so that the sense of our Saviour is this teach such as are capable of teaching and baptize such as are capable of Baptism Answ I answer first how inconsistent is this with what just before you asserted Do you not plead for Faith in some sense to be in all such who by virtue of the Commission ought to be baptized and therefore pretend that Infants have Habitual Faith Faith in semine c. but now plead they may be capable of Baptism without Faith you also contradict what you before said about the order of words Do you not positively now confess by the order of the words in the Commission Teaching ought to go before Baptizing Sir 't is a sign of a very bad Cause that puts you thus to try your Wit and after all confound your self 2. I ask you how Abraham who God commanded to be Circumcised as a Seal of the Righteousness of that Faith HE had before circumcised could know he ought to circumcise his Son Isaac c. who had no such Faith had not God given him an express Command to do it Had it not been in the words of his Commission durst he think you have done it Be sure if he had he had sinned in doing that which God commanded him not So and in like manner since our Lord Jesus expresly in his Commission commanded none to be baptized but such who are first taught unless he had added as in Abraham's Case viz. when an Heathen is converted to the Faith and baptized you may baptize his Infants also how dare you add such Additions to Christ's Commission without his Authority and so make the World believe if you could our blessed Saviour gave forth an imperfect Commission to his Disciples which all Men must confess is the only Warrant and Rule of all Ministers to act by in the case of baptizing to the end of the World And doth he not say Add thou not to his Word lest he reprove thee and thou art found to be a Liar by fathering that on Christ which he never said nor intended Suppose the King should send you with a Commission into a remote Plantation and command you to act and do exactly according to the express words of the Commission not to add to it nor diminish from it upon pain of being cast out of his Favour and incur his Wrath and Curse durst you to do otherwise in any thing under pretence it was his meaning whereas he plainly and fully in his Commission expressed in the Affirmative how and what you should do in all Matters and things and forbad you to add thereto Read Rev. 22.18 For I testify unto every Man that heareth the words of the Prophecy of this Book If any Man shall add unto these things God shall add unto him all the Plagues that are written in this Book c. Who told you what you say is the sense of our Saviour Can any Man once think since the Commission of Christ is a pure Gospel-Commission and contains meer positive Laws and Rules no ways referring to nor depending on the Law or Command God gave to Abraham that what you say can be true and the Conclusions safe certain and warrantable May not another say with as good Authority that our Saviour commands his Disciples to baptize all Nations both Parents and Children too whether they will or not whether they believe or not whether Jews or Gentiles Turks or Pagans I wonder you are not afraid who take liberty after this sort to sport as it were and play with invert alter and add unto the sacred Commission of the jealous God and great King of Heaven and Earth 3. We will examine your Similitude of which you seem very full Suppose say you a Person Owner of a great Flock of Sheep should command his Shepherd to shear all his Sheep and give them an Ear-mark to know them and he leaves out all the Lambs which perhaps made up half the Fold unmark'd Can the Shepherd be suppos'd to have done his Duty Suppose he says the Lambs were very young and uncapable of shearing True says the Owner but were they not capable of marking Infants say you are not capable of teaching but are they not capable of Christ's Ear-mark Baptism by which Christ's Sheep are distinguished from the Devils Goats But according to your Principles Christ's Fold has no Lambs in it but all Sheep such a Fold as the World never yet heard of See Isa 40.11 Answ 1. I answer this is as
16. he lays down an Argument For if the first Fruit be Holy the Lump is also Holy and if the Root be Holy so are the Branches ver 16. By the Root I understand is meant Abraham Root and Father signifying here the same thing Abraham being the Root or Father as God represents him of all the Elect or of such who believe or the Root of all his true spiritual Seed 2. By the first Fruits may be meant Isaac Jacob and the holy and elect Patriarchs for they were given as the first Fruits to Abraham of that Covenant and free Promise of God and these were holy with a true spiritual and internal New-Covenant-Holiness 3. By the Lump he may mean the whole Body of the Elect or the spiritual Seed of Abraham from the time the first Fruits were given him until the Gospel-Days or whole Body of the true Israel of God who were holy as the Root and first Fruits were holy 4. By the Branches may be meant the true elect Seed that were living then in that present time as ver 5. and these were holy too even as all the rest both as the Root First-Fruits and whole Lump or Body were holy that is all the true spiritual Seed of Abraham were like himself viz. holy in a spiritual Sense And now observe he speaks of some Branches that were broken off these seemed to be Branches or the Children of Abraham and so they were according to the Flesh but were like those Branches in Christ who bear no Fruit and therefore taken away John 15.2 3 4. He alludes to the natural Seed of Abraham to whom he stood not as a spiritual Father or Root but as a natural and legal Father as they were a National Church and sprung from him and these Branches were all broken off viz. for rejecting Christ 1. Not broken off from the Election of Grace for to that they did not belong 2. Nor were they broken off of the Gospel-Church for they were never grafted into that But 3. broken off from being any more a Church or People in Covenant with God the whole old State and Constitution being gone and they not closing in with Christ in the Gospel-Dispensation Grace and Church-State are said to be broken off as a lost People because not replanted or implanted into Christ and the true Gospel-Covenant the old being gone quite removed and taken away they have now no Root to stand upon having lost their legal Priviledges as Abraham was their Father upon that foot of Account and they not appearing to be the true Branches or Seed of Abraham as he was the Father of all the elect Seed or of all that believe in Jesus Christ they must of necessity from hence be broken off from being the People of God or belonging to any Head or Root in a Covenant-Relation to God at all the Dispensation being changed old things being gone and all things being now become new But this new State Blessings Rites Church and Church-Priviledges they rejected and thus were some of the natural Branches broken off and the Gentiles who were wild by Nature that is never were in any visible Covenant-State with God nor in any Sense related to Abraham as a Root were grafted into the true Olive Jesus Christ and into the true Gospel-Church and so Partakers of the Sap and Fatness of the Root and of the Olive that is of the spiritual Blessings and Priviledges of Abraham and of the Covenant of Grace made with him and of the sweet Blessings and Priviledges of the Gospel-Church and this they receive and partake of as being first grafted by saving Faith in Christ and so united to his mystical Body But since there are a great Number of the old natural Branches that are beloved for their Father's sake that is for the sake of Abraham as the Root and Father of all the Elect Seed they shall in due time be grafted in again and so become a People visibly owned of God and in Covenant with him as all the true Seed now are and formerly were And if this be considered what doth this Text do to prove the natural Seed of Believers are in the Gospel-Covenant for if the natural Seed of Abraham can lay no claim nor have any Right to Gospel-Priviledges but are gone or broken off what ground is there for us to think that our natural Offspring as such should be taken in The Apostle speaks not of such Branches or of being Holy with an external federal Holiness but of such a Holiness as was in the Root viz. Abraham who believed in God and thus all his true spiritual Seed who are actually Branches and in Covenant being grafted into Christ by Faith are holy and also all the elect Seed of Abraham not yet called are decretively holy or in God's Sight so who calls things that are not as if they were they are all holy and beloved for their Father Abraham 's sake with whom the Covenant of Grace was made for himself and all his true spiritual Seed and 't is from this Argument the Apostle argues for the calling of the Jews and the grafting of them in again who belong to the Election of Grace They therefore who would make every believing Parent to be the Root to his natural Off-spring as Abraham was to his true spiritual Seed or Offspring or a common Head or Root of their natural Offspring as he was to his know not what they say or affirm for then there would be so many common Roots and Fathers like as Abraham was called a Root and Father and then also there would be a Knowledg still of Men after the Flesh which the Apostle Paul disclaims 2 Cor. 5.17 Moreover the Jews who were broken off are still the natural Seed of Abraham and if therefore this Holiness was an external relative federal Holiness they are still in that Sense holy as far forth as any Children of a believing Gentile can be said to be but this 't is evident is not that Holiness of which the Apostle speaks nor is there any such Holiness under the Gospel-Dispensation spoken of We shall come now to consider your other Proof for federal Holiness which is 1 Cor. 7.14 The unbelieving Wife is sanctified by the believing Husband c. else were your Children unclean but now are they holy Which Words say you are St. Paul's Answer to the Corinthians Scruple Whether such as had Heathen and Infidel Wives ought to put them away with their Children as in the Days of Ezra The Apostle resolves them that they ought not for saith he The unbelieving Wife is sanctified to the believing Husband how sanctified not in her Nature but in her Use say you so as that they might lawfully cohabit and converse together And for your Children they are holy not with an inherent internal personal Holiness for the holiest Man-child is born in Sin and by Nature a Child of Wrath but with an external relative federal Holiness
Bastardy the Holiness can be meant of no other than Legitimation Nor is this any more an unlikely sense sith Barstards were reckoned among unclean Persons Deut. 23.2 and the Apostle's Expression is allusive to the Jewish speaking and Estimation and why it should be thought strange that Holy should signify Legitimation I know not when as Mal. 2.51 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Seed of God is rendred by some Pedo-baptists a holy Seed we read it a godly Seed which were such Children you cannot deny born in lawful Marriage And that we are not alone touching this sense of the Words and Matter pray take the Testimony of divers Learned Men who yet held Infant-Baptism but found this Text remote to the business of proving it Jerom as I find him quoted by a Learned Man saith Because of God's Appointment Marriage is holy See Chameri § 50. Sic Ambrosium Thomam Anselmum exposuisse tunc Suarez appellat literalem sensum That Ambrose Thomas Anselm so expounded it and this Suarez calls the literal sense Melancthon in his Commentary upon this place saith thus Therefore Paul answers that the Marriages are not to be pulled asunder for their unlike Opinions of God if the impious Person do not cast away the other And for Comfort he adds as a reason the unbelieving Husband is sanctified by the believing Wife Meat is sanctified for that which is holy in use that is granted to Believers of God things prohibited under the Law as Swines Flesh and a Woman in her Pollution were called unclean The Connexion of the Argument is this If the use of Marriage should not please God your Children would be Bastards and so unclean but your Children are not Bastards therefore the use of Marriage pleaseth God and how Bastards were unclean in a peculiar matter the Law shews Deut. Thus far Melancthon Camerarius gives the same sense as Chamier observes Musculus in his Comment on the place confesseth that he had formerly abused this place against the Anabaptists Camera on the place saith For the unbelieving Husband hath been sanctified an unusual change of the Tense that is sanctified in the lawful use of Marriage for without this saith he it would be that their Children should be unclean that is infamous and not legitimate who so are holy that is during the Marriage are without all blot of Ignominy Erasmus upon the place saith thus Infants born of such Parents as one being a Christian the other not are legitimately holy for the Conversion of either Husband or Wife doth not dissolve the Marriage which was made when both were in Unbelief Nay I find a very learned Divine to affirm the Ancients expounded this place no otherwise None saith he that ever I met with expound it of federal Holiness till the Controversy of the Anabaptists in Germany arose And Sir since you are so ingenuous as to confess in Pag. 25. that the unbelieving Husband is sanctified in respect of Conjugal Relation to the Wife in a way of Marriage in which so far you agree with these learned Men and this being so how come you to assert 't is federal Holiness that is said to be in the Children What we say it appears is not a racking of the Scripture to maintain a private Opinion therefore what you speak is not true and tho the word holy refers here to what we affirm with others yet the Apostle speaks truly Tho 't is granted the Children of Heathens born in lawful Wedlock are no more Bastards than the Children of Christians for if the Marriage were made void it would render their Children to be unclean or base born And what tho the Greek word doth signify in so many places you mention spiritual Sanctification and Separation to God shew us where it signifies external relative federal Holiness in the New Testament Yet as one observes the word is not bound up to that sense as you seem to intimate for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for Castimoniam servo as Stephanus in his Thesaurus observes out of Demosthenes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where a Priest of Bacchus speaks thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am holy and pure from the Compâ—â—â— of Man and the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chaste to be chaste to make chaste Chastity coming from the same Root with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to reverence or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to admire as Grammarians conceive are used for Holiness very frequently both in Scripture and in all sorts of Greek Writers So that what you say as to the Signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy that it cannot be taken for legitimate is fully cleared and we justified from your unjust Accusation viz. that we wrested the word to favour our private Opinion neither are we out in our Logick as you infer but now the Inference may be that you are weak in your Greek And to conclude But if it doth signify holy as you say why might not the Children of such as the Apostle speaks of be said to be holy as well as the Infidel of unbelieving Wife is said to be sanctified what is the difference between Holy and sanctified CHAP. IV. Wherein the Argument for Infant-Baptism taken from the constant and universal Practice of the Church in all Ages which is Mr. Burkit 's last Argument is fully answered and Antiquity proved on our side YOur sixth and last Argument for Infant-Baptism is this viz. That which has been the constant and immemorial Practice of the Church of God in all Ages of the World is unquestionably an Ordinance of God and agreeable to his Will But Infants Initiation or the Admission of Infants into the Jewish Church by Circumcision and into the Christian Church by Baptism has been the immemorial Practice of the Universal Church from the Days of Abraham to this day Therefore it is undeniably an Ordinance of God and agreeable to his Will Answ 1. Though this Syllogism is not good I mean true in Form yet I shall pass that by and give you a full Answer But why do you confound things together I mean Initiation and Baptism as if no Children were initiated into the Jewish Church without Circumcision for 't is not so the Females were initiated without Circumcision or Baptism or any other external Rite so far as we read of But as to Infants being admitted Members of the Jewish Church we deny nor and all your Arguments from thence I have already answered your Business is to prove they were admitted into the Gospel-Church and that by Baptism The Church of Christ under the Gospel is more Spiritual than that under the Law I tell you again 't is not National not Members by Generation but by Regeneration not those born of the Flesh but those born of the Spirit And pray read what Reverend Dr. Owen hath said in his Catechism about Government p. 106. Our Lord Jesus Christ saith he