would hardly swadlow downe the tediousnesse of my discourse if I should take them all singly and shew what I own or reject of each of them It is better to set down the plaine sense together and make it goods and then he will discern how you have indeavoured to cloud an argument and wrangle against it when you cannot answer it I plainly expressed the Apostles argument to be fetched from the benefit which would not onely come to themselves but to their children by their beleeving in Christ and after added that the cleare strength of the Argument lay thus God hath now remembred his Covenant to Abraham in sending that blessed seed in whom hee promised to be the God of him and of his seed doe not you by your unbeliefe deprive your selves and your posterity of so excellent a gift In which passage you acknowledge I have hit the marke and given that very interpretation which you owne And whereas you adde as a further illustration that the promise is now fulfilled to them and their children according to Acts 3. 25. Ye are the children of the Prophets and of the Covenant which God made with our fathers c. I confesse that is true but not all that is meant and yet even that strengthens my Argument the Covenant which God made with their Fathers That hee would bee thâ— God of them and of their seed and they were the children or heires of that Covenant that look as God was the God of Abraham and his seed so he would be the God of them and of their seed if they did beleeve and were baptized and therefore he would not have them by their unbelief deprive themselves and their children of that priviledge this I then made my argument and this you saw well enough and therefore say that this expression doe not by your unbeliefe deprive your posterity of so excellent a gift hath a little relish of my interpretation of the promise concerning the naturall seed of beleevers But Sir why doe you call it a little relish it is the very scope of my Argument that look as God did when hee made the promise of grace in Christ to Abraham upon his beleeving and took also his posterity those that were borne of him into Covenant with him in the sense which I before alledged and not onely the naturall Jews but even among all Nations whoever became followers of Abrahams faith did inherit Abrahams promise That he would be the God of them and their seed and by vertue of that promise their children were taken into visible communion so this blessed seed in whom this promise was founded being now come would according as heretofore make it good to al whether Jewes or Gentiles that should beleeve in him This clause of the Covenant of grace and the interpretation of it viz. That it belongs to all believers and that by vertue of it their children are to be received into visible communion you often dispute against and sometimes say that it was a promise peculiar to Abraham at other times it was at the utmost to be extended no further then to Abraham Isaac and Jacob to have their posterity as born of them to belong to the visible Church though in this place where it was most proper you say little or nothing about it onely make wrangling exceptions against my interpretation but because it most pertinent to the businesse in hand I shall here take it into consideration and manifest that it was not a personall priviledge to Abraham no nor to Abraham Isaac and Jacob to have their posteâ—â—ty taken into Covenant by vertue of that promise I will be the God of thee and thy seed For first though Abraham was the father of the faithfull and so in some sense the root as you elsewhere call him yet the Covenant was made with him for his faiths sake and believers are his children and heires and partake of those priviledges and promises which were made to him and therefore look as Abrahams faith justified him before God gave him interest in the spirituall graces of the Covenant and none but himself yet it was so beneficiall and advantageous to his children that for his sake they should be accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom and houshold and partake of the externall priviledges of it and thereby be trained up under the discipline of it and so bee fitted for spirituall priviledges and graces which God doth ordinarily confer upon them who are thus trained up so shall it bee with them who become followers of Abrahams faith Secondly had it been a peculiar priviledge to Abrahams naturall seed Proselytes of other Nations could never by vertue of their becomming followers of Abrahams faith have brought their children into Covenant with them so as to have a visible Church-membership as wee know they did Thirdly and we know also that this promise of being the God of beleevers and their seed was frequently renewed many hundred yeers after Abraham Isaac and Jacob were dead and rotten as Deut. 30. 6. The Lord will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed c. so Esa 44. 2 3. Feare not O Jacob my servant and thou Jeshâ—run whom I have chosen I will poure my spirit upon thy seed and my blessing upon thine off-spring and they shall spring up as among the grasse c. So likewise Esay 59. 21 As for me this is my Covenant with them saith the Lord my Spirit that is upon thee and my words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth nor out of the mouth of thy seed nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed saith the Lord from henceforth and for ever and this last promise your selfe acknowledge page 54. to bee intended chiefly of the nation of the Jewes at their last calling in and whereas you use to elude these Texts by saying these things belong onely to the elect when they come to beleeve and reach not to any priviledge which is externall I reply by the same answer you might cut off the seed of Abraham Isaac and Jacob for to beleevers then as well as to beleevers now were these promises made and I shall desire you to thinke how by this Answer you will avoyd that which page 42. you call absurditie and trifling in Mr. Cotton For Instance God made this promise say you to Abraham Isaac and Jacob to bee the God of them and of their seed in all generations see how you will answer your owne objection if it bee understood universally to all his seed that is manifestly false all his seed had not God to be their God or if it be meant conditionally if they beleeve then the meaning must bee that God would bee the God of Abraham and his seed if they did beleeve and then it signifies no more then thus that God will bee the God of every beleever and then it is but trifling to adde to bee the God
the Covenant But from this you seeke to draw many absurdities and to shew wherein my comparison holds not as this tree is not cut downe as that was onely some branches broken off and that to make Abraham the root to bee bound with a chaine is unhandsome and that in this allufion I sometimes make Abraham the roote sometimes the Covenant the root c. all which are worthy of no answer nothing being held out in the allusion but what I now said neverthelesse were it pertinent to our controversie it might easily enough be shewed how in a sound sense the Covenant is the root upon which Abraham and all the rest of the branches grow and also how by vertue of the Covenant Abraham is also a root from which his seed grow yea and severall beleevers are roots from which their posteritie springs and how in one sound sense Abraham Isaac and Iacob and all visible beleevers make up this one tree this Olive and yet in another sense they are all but branches of this Olive Whereas I said in all this discourse the holinesse of the branches there spoke of is not meant of a personall inherent holinesse but an holinesse derived to them from their Ancestors a faederall holinesse Against this you except many things First Mr. Goodwin expounds it otherwise if Mr. Goodwin meane that there is no other holines which may make men esteemed so in facie dei according to Rom. 2. ult I concur with him but if he say there is no other holinesse or that the profession of holinesse may not make him passe as holy in facie visibilis Ecclesiae when I heare him say so as yet I never did I shall dissent from him though hee be my loving friend Secondly say you bere are divers things to be marked indeed but with an obeliske indeed Sir that brand is alwayes ready at your hand let us see whether you have set it justly or no in this place and whether your impartiall Reader will not take it off and set it upon your selfe I oppose say you personall inherent holinesse to derivative holinesse as inconsistent but Reader looke into my Sermon and see whether I did so or no I confidently deny this charge I onely shewed the meaning of the word in this place to bee of derivative holinesse common to the whole nation not excluding personall inherent holinesse in true beleevers among them and I say again the whole nation was called holy not personally inherent but federally and you acknowledge here a derivative holinesse from Abraham as a spirituall father yet I suppose you will not undertake to justifie that true inherent holinesse is derived from any but from our Lord Jesus Christ and his holy spirit Next say you this holinesse is derived not from any Ancesters but onely from Abraham But I beseech you in your next not onely to dictate this as in this booke you doe very often but cleare and prove it by some good arguments why it does not descend from other immediate parents who are beleevers as well as originally from Abraham for parents who are branches from Abraham their father are yet rootes to their children who spring from them Doe wee not read of the root of Iesse Esay 11 though hee was but a branch from Abraham might not every parent among the Jewes at least every beleeving parent apply that promise made to Abraham I will bee the God of thee and thy seed if you thinke hee may not disprove the Arguments which I have brought for it in answer to your sixt Section I demand further was not such a holinesse derived from Abraham to his naturall seed or posteritie where all Abrahams posteritie who are called the holy seed true beleevers and inwardly holy No say you other parents are not roots Abraham onely is an holy roote or at the most Abraham Isâ—ac and Jacob in whose names the Covenant runs To which I reply first this is to say and unsay Abraham onely is an holy roote yet Isaac and Iacob are holy roots too Secondly the Apostle names none of them at all but speakes of the fathers which includes all their Ancestors at least more then Abraham onely Thirdly how often did God as I shewed before renew that promise I will bee the God of thee and of thy seed after Abraham Isaac and Iacob were all dead Fourthly your self say the body of beleevers is compared to the Olive tree and each beleever to a branch and then sure Abraham Isaac and Iacob onely are not the root or tree which bare the branches but the body of beleevers is the tree and so by your owne grant it followes beleevers in one sense are the tree in another the branches Fiftly I adde that the body of beleevers who make this Olive tree and branches must necessarily be understood of visible professors and not restrained or limited to true beleevers onely otherwise the branches could not have been broken off as is aforesaid Next you step out of your way to reproach Mr. Thomas Goodwin who say you indeavored to inserre a kind of promise of deriving holinesse from beleevers to their posteritie out of the similitude of an Olive and its branches compared with Psal 128. 3. c. And then you vilifie him as a man who by spinning out similitudes and conjectures deludes his Auditory with such things rather then satisfie them with arguments what his discourse was you set not downe nor in what sense he alledged holinesse to be derived from beleeving parents to their posterity but why like Ishmael your sword should bee thus against every man I cannot tell as for Mr. Goodwin notwithstanding his difference from me in some points of Church-government I can doe no lesse then testifie that I know him to be a Learned godly Divine and an eminent Preacher of the Gospel of Christ and his worth not to be blasted by your scornfull speech and for the things you alledge against him he assures mee You have set downe his notions in your Booke otherwise then he preached them and that in due time hee intends to publish his Sermons and then the world shall see whether you have done him right or not Lastly to that which I asserted That the Infants both of Jewes and Gentiles for these outward dispensations are comprehended in their Parents the Infants of godly Parents according to the tenor of his mercy the Infants of the wicked according to the tenor of his justice you upon this demand whether I do not in this symbolize with Arminius who makes this the cause why the posterity of some people have not the gospel because their forefathers refused it and you bring in the learned Doctor Twisse and Moulin disputing against him in that point How faine would you say somewhat which might reproach this Argument But may not both these things be true that God shews mercy to whom he pleases and hardens whom he pleases and yet shews mercies to thousands
dicta interpretatio Script qu. 94. Athanasiuâ— gives testimony to Infant Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. qu. ad Antioch 114. P. 4. Athan. ad Antioch qu. 114. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ephiphan contr Cerinthianos Epiphanius owned the argument from Circumcision to Baptisme The questions put to the Baptizes disprove not Insant-Baptisme Paedag. Of old some defer'd their owne Baptisme as well as their Infants Vbi prius Euseb de vit Const lib 4. Vbi prius Aug. Confes 1. 11. Orat. 40. Sozom. 4. 38. Theod. 4. 14. Gen. 17. Constantines Bap. no Argument that Infants were not then baptized Nor Gregory Nazianzen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Socr. 4. 21. Soz. 6. 16. Greg. vita Orat. 40. Nor Chrysost Socr. hist 5. 2. Siz 8. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Orat. ad viduam juniorem Grotius not to be relâ—ed upon in this point Rivet Apol. provera pace Ecclesia contr votum Grotii Rivet exam animad Grotii Grotii votum pro pace Eccles ad articulum 9. P. 9. 10. The Councell of Neocaes not against baptism of Infants 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Con. 6. Con. Neocaesariensis Proles baptizari non solereâ— nisi propria vo untate et professiâ—ne P. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 10. The Greeke Church misreported by Grotius in this point Phot. patriarch Covel anno as some 845. as others 849. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tib. 1. de fide ca. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conc. Carth. ca. 14. Tert. de Bapt. c. 18. In Tertullians dayes Infants were baptized â—ert de Anima c. 13. Cyprians testimony vindicated P. 10. Cyprianus non novum aliquod decretum condens sed Ecclesiae fidem firmissimam servans c. Aug. Ep. 28. ad Hier. Vestigium infantis in primis parus sui diel us constituti mundum non dixisse Ath. de Sab. Circumcis Orat. 40. P. 11. Lib. 4. c. 22. contr Donat P. 12. P. 12. Augustine vindicated Soz. 7. 12. P. 14. Other ancient testimonies for Infant baptism Soz. 7. 19. Soz. 1. 17. P. 1 â— Augustines baptism no argument that Infants were not then baptized Aug. Câ—nf l. 1. c. 11. ille nondum erediderat Confess 9. 9. Possâ—d de vita Aug c. 1. Conf 4 3. Conf. 1. 11. Nor his sonne Adeodaâ—us Conf. 9. 6. Conf. 6 7. Conf. 7. 19. Nor Alipius Pag. 14. Fulgent de fide ad Petrum ca. 30. Pag. 15. Pag. 16. Chapter 23. Reply to Sect. 1. Answ Reply to Sect. 2. Answ Answ That the middle times between the Fathers and Luther were for Baptizing Infants Answ Vsher de successione cap. 6. Sect. 1â— 17. Cap. 8. Sect. 34. Cap. 10. Magdeburgâ—enâ— 12. Cap. 8 col 1â—06 Baltazzar Lidius Tom. 2. Pag. 285. c. History of the Waldenses lib. 1. cap. 3. p. 10. Lib. 1. cap 4. pag. 15. Lib. cap. 6. pag. 43. Tom. 3. Tit. 5. cap. 53. Vsher de Success cap. 7. Sect. 37. Berengarius cleared from Anabaptisme Waldenses Albigenses c. cleared from Anabaptisme Vsh ubi supr ca. 8. Sect. 34. Jos Vicecom Obser Eccl. Vol. Lib. 2. cap. 1. p. 103. To Sect. 3. To Sect. 4. Answ Vide Vossii Theses de Anabaptist Râ—asons against rebaptization of such as are rightly baptized Answ Act. 19. 5 6. vindicated from favoring rebaptiztion Vid. Vossii Theses de Baptismo Johan pag 402. c. To Sect. 5. Answ The old Nonconformists in Qu. Elizabeths days pleading against Episcopacy and Ceremonies il compared with the Anabaptists in Germany To Sect. 6. Answ To 1 2 Mr. Vines vindicated Almost all the Errors of the Germane Anabaptists lately drunke in in England Mr. Dury To 3. 4. 6. 7. To Sect. 7. Answ 2. Answ Sect. 8. To Sect. 9. To Sect. 10. Defence of the third part of Sermon Reply to Sect 1. Of the connexion betweene the Covenant and Seale The consequence of the argument made good Reply The consequence proved by Mr. Tombes owne principle Answ to Melchisedeck Job and â—et And to Infants under eight dayes old Women not capable of Circumcision Women circumcised in the men vindicated Circumcised not put for the major or nobler part Gal. 2. 8. Reply No warrant for women to eate the Passeover unlesse they were to bee esteemed circumcised Reply to Sect. 2. The Covenant of grace always one and the same The Covenant with Abraham no more mixt for substance then the Covenant with us Circumcision seaâ—ed the spirituall part of the Covenant Proselytes were Abrahams seed This is not to joyn with Arminius Mr. Bayne of of my judgement That civill justiciaties were called Abrahams seed Bayne in Ephes p. 138. cap. 1. 5. Mr. Tombes joynes with Servetus Mr. Blake vindicated Phil. 3. interpreted What meant by seed of the flesh Reply to Sect. 3. Infants taken into Covenant with their parents Reply The sence of this second proposition cleared Men may bee under the Covenant severall wayes some spiritually and some under the administration onely Great priviviledges belong to them who are under the externall Covenant Gen. 6. 1. Deut. 14. 1. Gal. 3. 26. Rom. 9 4. Rom. 3. 1. John 8. 17. Deut. 33. 4. Psal 147. 20. John 4. 22. An externall right to the Covenant proved Rom. 11. This proved from Mr. Tombes owne principles Mr. Tombes leaves all Infants of beleevers to be under the visible kingdom of the Devil actually Mr. Cotton viâ—dicated Tombesâ—â—deavours â—â—deavours to 〈◊〉 a sense upon this Proposition never intended by 〈◊〉 not owned by mee What the Sacrament seales absolutely and what conditionally How Christianity may bee called a birth-right Rom. 2. 〈◊〉 To Sect. 5. Comparison betweene Christs kingdom and other kingdoms vindicated Mr. Rutherford and Mr. Cotton reconciled Io Sect. 6. Vindicating Act. 2. 38. 39. as a proofe of Infants of beleevers to belong to the the Covenant of grace Mr. Tombes his method of answering Mr. Tombes his art in multiplying senses The pâ—ame sense scope of this argument opened and vindicated The promise given I will be thy God and the God of thy seed not peculiar to Abraham Isaac and Jacob proved by three Arguments Deut. 30. 6. Esa 44. 2 3. Esa 59. 21. These places vindicated Mr. Tombes his exceptions against this argument answered 1 Exception Answer 2 Exception Answ 3. Exception Answ To Sect. 7. Rom. 11. 6. c. vindicated Joh. 15. 2. proves the interpretation to be true Derivative and inherent holinesse not opsed Beleeving parents are roots to their children Mr. Goodwin Vindicated Children follow the Covenant condition of their parents Mr Tombes symbolizing with Arminius his expounding Rom. 11. To Sect. 8. 1 Cor. 7. vindicated Chamier often cited to no purpose And against his owne judgment Cham. Panstrat Cathol Tom. 4. lib. 3. ca. 10. Beza cited by Mr. Tombes contrary to his owne judgement Tertullian and Athanasius expound this Text for sederall holinesse Mr. Tombes his interpretation of this Text overthrowne by eight Arguments 1 Argument vindicated Deut. 23. 2. vindicated 1. Thess 4.
the visible Professors of any Church are to be accounted to belong to God either in respect of election from eternity or promise of grace or present state of in-being in Christ c. without a particular revelation because there is no declaration of God that the present visible Professors are indefinitely all or some either elected to life or are in the Covenant of grace in Christ either in respect of present in-being or future estate look by what distinction you will answer this for visible Professors who are growne men the same will serve for the Infants of beleevers In the next place you make a digression against an expression of Mr. Cottons which you thinke necessary to do because you fâ—â—de many are apt to swallow the dictates of such men as Mr. Cotton is without examination he affirmed the Covenant of grace is given to Christ and in Christ to every godly man Gen. 17. 7. and in every godly man to his seed God will have some of the seed of every godly man to stand before him for ever against this you except many things and according to your usuall course you frame many senses of the Covenants being given to every godly man and his seed some whereof are so absurd as no charitable man can imagine ever came in Mr. Cottons thoughts That every godly man should be to his seed as Christ to every godly man which in truth as you say would be little lesse then blasphemy But I shall give you this short Reply that I take Mr. Cottons meaning to be that looke as Abraham Isaac and Jacob and other godly Jewes were to their seed in respect of the Covenant that is every godly man to his seed now except onely in such things wherein those Patriarchs were types of Christ in all other things wherâ—in God promised to be the God of them and their seed godly parents may plead it as much for their seed 〈◊〉 as they could then and whatever inconvenience or absurdity you seem to fasten upon Mr. Cotton will equally reach to them also as for example suppose an Israelite should plead this promise for his seed you 'll demand if â—ee plead it to his seed universally that 's false and so of the rest of your inferences look what satisfying answer an Israelite would give you the same would Mr. Cotton give and at satisfyingly As for what you say concerning Abraham that by the seed of Abraham are meant onely elect and beleevers I have sufficiently answered to it before and shall have occasion to meet with it again in its due place therefore I now say no more of it but the chief thing you grate upon against M. Cotton is that expression in the close That God will have some of every godly mans seed stand before him for ever You aggravate this to the utmost as a bold dictate imposing on Gods counsel and Covenant the absurdity and falsity wherof you indeavour to manifest at large to which I answer in two or three words that supposing his meaning to be as you set it downe That it is in reference to election and everlasting life that every godly man shall have some of his seed infallibly saved I confesse the expression is not to be justified nor doe I thinke that that sense ever came into the mind of so learned and judicious a man as Mr. Cotton is for my part I think he onely alluded to that promise made to Jonadâ—â—s children Jer. 35. thaâ— God would alwayes beare a mercifull respect unto the posterity of his servants according to that promise Exod. 20. 5. I will shew mercy to thousands of them that love mee and keepe my commandements And that being his scope as I thinke it was you need not have kept such a stirre about it After your digression to meet with Mr. Cotton in stead of returning to my Sermon you wander further out of your way for after a short discourse of judging children to bee within the Covenant by opinion according to a rule of prudence or charity senses which I meddle not with and therfore need not stay the Reader in descanting upon them My rule of judging their condition being limited to the Rule of Gods revealed will in his word you then proceed in an indeavour wherein you doe but lose time and waste paper for many pages together endeavouring to confute what was never asserted by me viz. That the Covenant of saving grace is made to beleevers and their naturall seed that the Infants of beleevers are so within the Covenant of grace as to be elected and to have all the spirituall priviledges of the Covenant belonging to them this you would needs have to be my meaning and I almost suspect you would fasten this sense upon mee against your owne light for pag. 142. you doe as good as cleare mee of it where you say You suppose that I doe not hold that the Infants of beleevers indifferently have actually the thing signified by baptisme union with Christ adoption pardon of sinne regeneration c. So that in all this discourse you doe but luctari cum larvis according to your owne expression pag. 45. my plain meaning was as is before expressed nor doe any of the expressions used by mee and here brought by you as Arguments to prove this to be my meaning hold forth any such thing as they are within the Covenant of grace belonging to Christs body kingdome houshold therefore are to partake of the seale True as visible professors are quà visible Againe they are to bee accounted to belong to him as well as their parents True as well as their parents doe by a visible profession Againe they are made free according to Abrahams copy True according to the promise made to Abraham I will bee a God to thee and thy seed that looke as Abraham and his seed the Proselytes and their seed upon their visible owning of God and his Covenant had this visible priviledge for their posterity that they should be accounted to belong to Gods kingdom and houshold with their parents so it is here One Argument more you bring beside laying of my words together to prove that this must needs bee my sense because you doubt not but my meaning is agreeable to the Directory which holds forth That the promises are made to beleevers and their seed and directs Ministers to pray That God would make Baptisme to the Infant a seale of adoption regeneration and eternall life And you conclude that if there be not a promise of these saving graces to Infants in vaine are they baptized and the seale is put to a blank To which I reply my meaning is indeed according to the sense of the Directory and according to that direction I doe pray that God would make baptisme to bee a seale to the Infant of adoption and the rest of the saving graces of the Covenant yet I utterly deny you consequence that unlesse there bee absolute promises of
Circumcision was the seal of the Covenant of Grace Gen. 17. so Baptisme it being the nature of every Sacrament Secondly Circumcision was the way of entrance and admittance into the Church during the time of that administration so is Baptisme during the time of this administration Matth. 28. Acts 2. and throughout the whole Story of the Acts Circumcision was the distinguishing badge between them who were Gods people and the rest of the world so is Baptisme now all who are not belonging to the Church the solemn way of entrance whereinto is acknowledged to be by Baptisme are said to bee without 1 Cor. 5. 12. Ctrcumcision was to be but once administred nor Baptisme any oftner as I have largely proved before in answer to your 4 Sect. Part 4. None might eate the Passeover till they were circumcised Exod. 12. nor of any to bee admitted to the Lords Supper till they be baptized as appears Acts 2. 41 42. And throughout the whole Story of the New Testament all examples are for it not one against it and the reason is plaine because none might partake of the Lords Supper but such as were in visible Communion and your selfe know and grant that Baptisme is the doore and entrance of our solemne admittance into visible communion wee are by Baptisme say you according to Christs institution exhibited members of Christ and his Church Exercit. p. 30. These parallels you see are made by the Spirit of God and your exceptions against the comparisons between them or rather your adding of more comparisons similitudes and dissimilitudes between them by them to destroy these are such as arise from the diverse administration of the Covenant and do indeed manifest that they belong to severall administrations but doe not prove that they had not the same general state signification and use as Sacraments which seale the same thing in their diverse administrations Christ to come and Christ already come is the cause of difference of administration and so of Ordinances but hinders not the succession of one ordinance into the place of another and therefore all those differences hinder not the inference of the one from the other As for your exceptions That Circumcision did confirme the promise made to Abrahams naturall posteritie concerning their multiplying bringing out of Egypt the yoake of the Law of Moses setling in Canaan c. I answer if this were granted it hurts not me these things concerning the manner of administration of the Covenant Secondly how prove you this which you say Thirdly did circumcision confirme these things to all Abrahams naturall posteritie was the posteritie of Ismael and Esau to come out of Egypt possesse Canaan â—ee yoaked with the Law Fourthly what is the sense of these words Circumcision confirmed the yoake of the Law it was indeed a part of the yoake and obliged a person to it Secondly to that of womens being not circumcised and children under eight dayes old I have at large spoke to them in the first Section of this third part Thirdly the catechumini though they were members yet they were not received into visible and Sacramentall communion of the Lords Supper till baptized the case of the Israelites travelling in the wildernesse was an extraordinary one Fourthly for that which you except against Circumcision being a distinguishing badge because others were Gods servants who had not this badge I answer that of Melchisedeck Lot c. was answered before beside may not a livery bee a distinguishing mark of such a mans servant and yet haply every servant not under the livery the Sabbath was a signe to Gods people yet it may bee you hold that all Gods people till Moses did not keepe a Sabbath Fiftly and for what you adde that you make question whether an unbaptized person might not eate the Lords Supper though you confesse you finde no example of it and that in 1 Cor. 10. 2. 3. 4. and 1 Cor. 12. 13. Baptizing iâ— put before eating and drinking I reply this I must number among your freakes and out-leaps and is a spice of your itch after singular opinions and inconsistent even with your own grant that Baptisme is the way and manner of solemne admission into the Church and that nothing iâ— to bee done about the Sacraments whereof we have not either institution or example and yet here for oppositions sake you will allow men to come to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper though unbaptized and I thinke it never yet was a question in the Church whether an unbaptized person might receive the Lords Supper but say you these and a hundred morâ— cannot make â—â— other then a humane invention if the holy Ghost doe not shew that they agree in this particular of Baptizing as well as Circumcising of Infants I answer but when these Arguments and parallels made by God himselfe are added to the parity of Jewes and Christian Infants in being comprehended with their Parents in the Covenant which is to be sealed it 's a vertuall warrant it 's not meere analogy we reason from for wee have a command to Baptize and wee have the competency of infants to receive baptisme sufficiently proved elsewhere your selfe grant right to Baptisme arises from the present state of a person and therefore wee apply this seale which succeeds that seale to our Infants which succeed their Infants in the priviledge of being faederati with their Parents there being not the least hint in the word that they should be left out To slurre this Argument from Circumcision to Baptisme you frame a large and needlesse comparison between the Priests of old under the Jewish administration and the Ministers of the Gospel now and you demand are Ministers therefore Priests and shew how many absurdities and dangerous consequences will follow if wee give way to such kind of comparisons hence the Papists have pleaded for an universall Bishop and the Prelates for superioritie of Ministers A short answer will serve all this you demand whether therefore Ministers be Priests and so make simile to be idem against all sense and reason as if I had gone about to prove Baptisme to be Circumcision Secondly wee onely apply things set up by God himselfe and make the parallell as God hath made it when any can prove that God hath set up an universal Bishop or appointed superioritie of Ministers one above another and hath made such parallels between them as you speake of let them plead those comparisons and spare not they had in their ministery many things which were typicall of Christ which we have nothing to do with but in other things where the Scripture hath made a comparison wee may doe it safely and may plead from the one to the other as that they must have a call to their office so must wee they that serve the altar must live upon the Altar so they who preach the Gospell are to live upon the Gospel they must bee pure who barâ— the vessels
saving grace to Infants the Seale is set to a blank for give mee leave but to put the same case first for the Infants of the Jewes was the seale put to a blanke with them or had they all promises of saving graces Secondly let mee put the same case in growne men who make an externall visible profession and thereupon are admitted to baptisme can any man say that all the saving graces of the Covenant or the spirituall part of it is promised to all visible professors is it not abundantly knowne that in all ages even in the best times even in the Apostles times multitudes were baptized to whom God yet never gave saving graces and therefore never promised them for had hee made a promise hee would have performed it But I shall desire you a little to consider the nature of a Sacrament in what sense it is a seale and then you neede stumble at this no longer these three things are necessarily to be distinguished first the truth of the thing signified in a Sacrament and secondly my interest in that thing And thirdly my obligation to doe what is required in or by that Sacrament I say therefore that in every Sacrament the truth of the Covenant in it selfe and all the promises of it are sealed to be Yea and Amen Jesus Christ became a Minister of the circumcision to confirme the promises made unto the Fathers so to every one who is admitted to partake of Baptisme according to the rule which God hath given to his Church to administer that Sacrament there is sealed the truth of all the promises of the Gospel that they are all true in Christ and that whoever partakes of Christ shall partake of all these saving promises this is sealed absolutely in Baptisme but as to the second which is interesse meum or the receivers interest in that spirituall part of the Covenant that is sealed to no receiver absolutely but conditionally in this particular all Sacraments are but signa conditionalia conditionall seales sealing the spirituall part of the Covenant to the receiver upon condition that hee performe the spirituall condition of the Covenant thus our Divines use to answer the Papists thus Doctor Ames answers to Bellarmine when Bellarmine disputing against our doctrines that Sacraments are seales alledges then they are falsely applyed ostentimes hee answers to Bellarmine Sacraments are conditionall Seales and therefore not seales to us but upon condition Now for the third thing the obligation which is put upon the receiver a bond or the for him to performe who is admitted to receive the Sacrament this third I say is also absolute all Circumcised and Baptized persons did or doe stand absolutely ingaged to performe the conditions required on their part and therefore all circumcised persons were by the circumcision oblieged to keepe the Law that is that legall and typicall administration of the Covenant which was then in force and Infants among the rest were bound to this though they had no understanding of the Covenant or that administration of the Covenant when this Seale was administred to them Now then since in Baptisme there is first an absolute Seale of the truth of the Covenant of grace in it selfe a conditionall seale of the receivers interest in the Covenant and an absolute obligation upon the receiver to make good the Covenant on his part is there any reason that you should say that the seale is put to a blank where the spirituall part or saving grace is not partaked of What you further say here that by Abraham who is the father of the faithfull is meant Abrahams person and not every beleever that it was a personall priviledge to Abraham and not a common priviledge to beleevers as beleevers which thing you repeate very often it shall bee considered in a more proper place So that you having thus wholly mistaken my sense and undertaken to dispute against a sense which I never owned I may therefore passe over your six arguments which you bring to confute this sense which you have set downe I joyne with you that it is an errour to say that all Infants of beleevers indefinitely are under the saving graces of the Covenant for although I finde abundance of promises in the Scripture of Gods giving saving graces unto the posteritie of his people and that experience â—eacheth us that God uses to continue his Church in their posteritie and that Gods election lies more among their seed then among others yet neither to Jew nor Gentile was the Covenant so made at any time that the spirituall part and grace of the Covenant should bee conferred upon them all it is sufficient to mee that they may have a visible standing in the Church partake of the outward priviledges of the Church and bee trained up under that discipline or administration of the Covenant which God uses to make effectuall to salvation in the meane time all of them to bee visible members as well as their parents and some of them invisible as well as some of their parents And therefore although in some of your fix reasons there are divers expressions which I cannot swallow yet I shall not here stay upon them but examine them when you bring them elsewhere to dispute against mee as here you doe not onely give mee leave to touch upon the last of your fix arguments because in some sense it militates against my Thesis Is this were true say you that the Covenant of grace is a birthright priviledge then the children of beleevers are the children of grace by nature then Christians are borne Christians not made Christians if the child of a Christian be borne a Christian as the child of a Turke is borne a Turke and if so how are they borne the children of wrath as well as others I answer According to the sense which I owne I maintaine this assertion to bee true that the child of a Christian is borne a Christian it is his birthright to bee so esteemed I meane to bee reputed within the Covenant of grace or a member of the visible Church our I am sure it was so the child of a Iew was borne a Iew and it was his birthright to bee an Israelite a visible member of the Church of Israel and the Apostle Paul stuck not to use the word Iewes by nature Gal. 2. 15. We who are Iewes by nature and not 〈◊〉 of the â—â—â—tiles â—ee there opposes the naturall priviledge of the members of the Church to the condition of the heathens and Rom. 11. hee calls the whole nation of the Iewes the naturall branches of the Olive tree because they were the visible Church of God Will you say of them also how were they then the children of wrath by nature I answer doe but consider the Apostles distinction Rom. 2. last betwixt a Jew in propatulo in facievisibilis ecclesiae a Jew without and a Jew in abscondito a Jew within and your objection is answered in the first
with in our visible Church are baptized if their forefathers have been found in the faith but others will deny it and you cite Mr. Cotton in the Margin whâ— sayes that if hath the nearest parents bee excommunicated the child is not to bee baptized because the parents are to us as heathenâ— and thâ—â— say you Paedobaptists as well as Anabaptists like wates of the Sea beat one against another To which I answer This peculiar controversie betwixt some Paedobaptists by 〈◊〉 right the children are to bee baptized whether by right of their nearest parents only or by the right of their remoter forefathers who have been sound in the faith is very little helpefull to your cause nor is it any very great controversie betwixt those parties whom you mention for Mr. Cotton in the very words cited doth almost if not altogether reconcile it while hee saith when the nearest parents are excommunicate it may bee considered whether the child may not bee baptized either if the Grandfather or Grandmother make profession or in the right of the Houshold Governour who promises to educate the child in the faith 〈◊〉 by proportion of the Law may bee gathered from Gen. 17. 12 13. Here is little or no beating of one wave against another but both of them beating Anabaptists and I wish that your answer did no more beace against the very reason of the holy Ghost Gen. 17. 7. who makes this his Argument why hee would have the male children circumcised and thereby reckoned to bee in Covenant with him because their parents are in Covenant with him this in mee you call a carnall imagination take heed you dash not against the Lord Jehovah himselfe Lastly whereas I adde thus iâ— wâ—â— in the time of the Iewes both Jewes and Proselytes they and their children came thiâ— Covenant together and when God rejected the parents out of the Covenant the children were cast out with them To this you answer indeed when parâ—nts were taken into Covenant their children were circumcised with them but whether this make any thing for baptizing of Infants you shall conâ—ider in duâ— place and there God willing I shall meet with you But for the second thing that when the parents were cast out of Covenant the Children were cast out with them this say you is not true parents might bee Idolaters Apostates c. yet their children were to bee circumcised I answer first Is it not evident in the Jewes at this day that they and their children are cast out together and I adde if you would shew the falsitie of it you should have given some instance not of parents who remaine Gods people in externall profession not having received a Bill of divorcement though their lives might possibly bee very wicked but of some who were cast off from being visible professors and yet their Infants remaine in the visible societie of the Church or of some who were visibly thus taken in and their Infants left out but instead of this you still goe on in your wonted equivocation of the word Covenant of grace taking it onely of the Covenant of saving grace not including the externall way of administration with it Now God willing I shall try what strength there is in your exceptions against those Texts I brought to prove that Infants of Beleevers do belong to the Covenant now as well as the Infants of Jewes did under the former administration The first whereof was taken out of Acts 2. 38. 39. where Peter exhorting his hearers to beleeve and bee baptized used this as an Argument taken from the benefit which should come to their posteritie The promise is made to you and to your children c. The first branch of your answer is according to your usuall method to throw dirt in the face of an Argument which pinches you sleighting and scorning that which you know not how to answer and then to frame severall senses and raise a dust about it You complaine how irkesome it is to Readers and Answerers to finde them who alleadge â— Text to paraphrase upon it but show not how they conclude from it It is harder for you to finde your enemy then to vanquish him and you wish that I would first distinctly expound and then frame my arguments out of the Text. I answer I hardly can tell whether it were best to smile at or pity this grievous trouble you are put to that your patience should bee thus compelled deverare taedium it seemes you expected I should make syllogismes in moode and figure in a Sermon ad populum if you did not I wonder why you should bee thus troubled since as plainely as I could I expressed the meaning of the Text I first shewed where the strength of the Argument lay viz. That not onely themselves upon their faith and Baptisme should receive such an Invaluable benefit but their children should also as under the former administration they were bee taken into a better administration the Covenant being now exhibited in the best and fullest manner and all they whether neere or farre off who would owne this should themselves and their children with them bee under this best Covenant as formerly they were when the Covenant was more darke And in the progresse of my discourse I both proved this to bee the meaning and answered the exceptions to the contrary Next follows your severall senses You doubt whether I fetch children in under the first part I will be thy God or whether under the second I will be the God of thy seed Or whether I meane is of saving graces or Church-priviledges One while you doubt whether my sense be that God will be the God of their children if they obey his call then you rather guesse it That if the Parents obey his call bee will be the God of them and their children though the children doe not obey his call Yea further because here are not yet senses enough you proceed and say If by the promise to them and their children be meant of outward Church-priviledges then the sense must bee If you will beleeve repent and be baptized then you and your children shall be baptized Yet another sense you make out of that which I spake at the by of Zacheus Luke 19. that salvation came to his house upon his beleeving that thence may be gathered That the meaning is a mans whole houshold may be saved barely by his beleeving and not content with all these senses you step out of your way to bring in Mr. Goodwins interpretation of Zacheus that he meant it of the whole houshold and that thence he collected that an household was Ecclesia prima which you confute and then you set down your own sense of salvation comming to Zacheus his house that by Zacheus his house is meanâ— onely Zacheus himself What multiplicity of imaginary senses and consequences of senses are here poured out on an heape could the â—arest Chymick have extracted any more The Reader
before you bring in Chamier nothing to the purpose I answer it is not from a future event but from a positive reall truth if Pauls reason bee framed thus the children which beleevers beget upon their Infidell yoke-fellowes are a holy seed therefore beleevers have a sanctifyed use of their Infidell husbands or wives had this been a reasoning from a future contingent As for what you here cite out of Chamier I answer onely this I perswade my selfe you are by this time ashamed of your impertinent quotation I assure my selfe if you bee not your friends are Thirdly say you sanctification is here not ascribed to God aâ— selecting some from others to such an use but is common to all unbeleeving husbands in respect of their wives and comes from that common relation not speciall designation I answer this Argument is a plaine setting downe the question in controversie as an Argument to prove it selfe and I have already proved the contrary that it is a priviledge not common to all who are married but peculiar to beleevers Fourthly say you according to this exposition the words following could not be true else were your children uncleane but now they are holy because in this forme of reasoning this proposition is included their children could not bee holy without that sanctification which say you is false because children may bee in Covenant and bee regenerated though their parents had never been thus sanctified the one to the other the children of Infidel parents may bee sanctified I reply not while they are Infants they are not by any birth priviledge to bee accompted as belonging to the Church of Christ which is the onely thing about which wee are disputing no man ever went about to prove out of this Text that none can ever bee converted whose parents are not sanctified the one unto the other Next after another impertinent bringing in of Chamier you reason thus take it in my sense and it is no satisfactory reason you may live together for you may beget a holy seed I answer this is the same with your second Argument answered before and wherein I pray you lies the weakenesse of it you may live together and have a holy use of your unbeleeving yoke-fellowes for God esteemes the seed of such to bee an holy seed as truely as if both were beleevers is this a slight or unsatisfying answer nay I adde further had the Apostle gone about to prove that a beleeving wife and a beleeving husband have not onely a lawfull enjoyment one of another as heathens have but a sanctified as they have of other creatures because else their children were uncleane but now they are holy all your exceptions would lie as strong against this last as against the former for you might have said this reaches onely those that are of ageâ— secondly this depends upon a future contingent thirdly this depends upon their common relation fourthly and children may be holy that is afterward regenerate though this be denyed let the Reader consider of it You goe on and say that in your sense the reason is plaine and satisfactory let them live together though one bee a beleever the other an unbeleever for notwithstanding their difference in Religion they are husband and wife marriage being honorable among all and the bed undefiled I reply but this had been no satisfaction to their scruple their doubt was not whether their marriage were lawfull while they were heathens but whether now their conscience would not bee defiled in remaining joyned to Idolaters and the Apostles resolution must remove that which your sense doth not you granted they doubted not the legitimation of their children and therefore your sense could not have removed the scruple as is above shewed And whereas you adde the like resolution hee gives verse the 17. concerning circumcised and uncircumcised servants they might still continue with their master their Christian calling did not dissolve those relations I answer in one word this like hath no likenesse at all in it there is no parallel betwixt these two cases hee speakes not one word about beleeving servants continuing with unbeleeving masters but of servants in generall whether their masters were beleevers or unbeleevers hee tells them that they might continue servants though they were Christs free men yet if they can fairely obtaine their freedome let them choose that rather One Argument more you bring against this interpretation if the sanctification were meant of matrimoniall sanctification and the uncleannesse of federall uncleannesse so as to exclude them out of the Covenant whether of saving graces or Church-priviledges then the proposition was most fâ—lse because children of parents not matrimonially sanctified one to the other were within the Covenant as Pharez Jepha and others I answer first I desire the reader to take notice that you take the Covenant here in this place as I doe for Church-priviledges Secondly indeed if sanctification bee taken for matrimoniall sanctification or lawfulnesse of wedlock and uncleannesse of federall sanctification the proposition may bee granted to bee false and let them who so take it undertake the defence of it if they can but let it bee meant of that other sanctification which I have justified the proposition is most true I say againe all the children of those parents the one whereof is an unbeleever are uncleane that is federally uncleane excluded out of the Covenant in regard of Church priviledges at least if not of saving graces which is a secret left to God unlesse the one bee sanctified in the other this Argument I answered in my Sermon and framed it thus that holinesse is here meant which could not bee unlesse one of the Parents were sanctified to the other but federall holinesse of Children may bee where Parents are not sanctified one in or to the other as in Bastardy Davids child by Bathsheba c. in which case the children were federally holy and yet the barlot not sanctified in or to the Adulterer or fornicator though a beleever my answer was that the Apostles scope in this Argument is to shew that the children borne of an unbeleever would not bee holy unlesse the other Parent could remove that barre but hath no force of an Argument where both the Parents are beleevers which was the case of the Jewes the case of Hagar Bathsheba c. All the reply you make to it page the 80. is to bestow a few scoffes upon it that my answer is to deny the conclusion that I shew no fault either in the matter or the forme of the Argument that the scope which I mention is but a meere figment that I doe as good as say that the objector can make no Argument out of it and that therefore I need make no answer And that in one place I grant the minor then the major and thus you most gallantly vapour upon me I reply were it not that some Readers are prone to