the children also So of all collectively is that spoken not onely that God that day avouched them to bee his people Deut. 26. 18. both parents and children as also Deut. 30. 16. and 29. but thou hast avouched the Lord to bee thy God Vers 17. thou collective Israel yet it was acted but by the growne part in their own in their childrens stead Abrahams seed is either taken for the head and principall as was Christ and so rather intended Gen. 12. 3. and 22. 18. or for the head and body together even Christ mysticall so Gen. 22. 15. Thy seed shall possesse the gates of thine enemies and so Gal. 3. 16. Jew and Gentile but one seed with Christ the head of the Church Again Abrahams seed is either taken collectively or distributively collectively either his seed by propagation or proportion In the former sense the Jewes in their generations were the seed mentioned Gen. 17. 7. that is parents and children for they are seed in their generations seed by proportion were the Proselytes of old in their generations and visible inchurched beleevers in their generations scil parents and children together And both againe are considered specifically or individually specifically so some of that sort of parents and growne persons and some of that sort of children are as well internally and savingly in the covenant as externally albeit many individuall persons of both sorts are onely externally thus Deut. 29. 14. with him that is here and with him that is not here him not them as noting a collection yea a certaine species or sort of persons growne or babes and of babes borne or unborne according to a different respect of Gods making his covenant with them So in Gen. 17. to thy seed indefinitely God absolutely covenanting thus as Vers 7. with them in their species and sorts conditionally in respect of the individuall persons of each sort Or more briefly the seed of Abraham are either his choyce seed in speciall or his Church seed indefinitely wee consider herein the later and not so much the former SECT II. 1. COnclusion that Covenant Gen. 17. 7. was a Covenant of grace and the same in nature with that Covenant of grace now held forth to us Neither of the branches of this conclusion I think are denyed by the more judicious of our opposites albebeit both have been by some of the more vulgar sort making that covenant in Gen. 17. to bee a Covenant of workes c. that it was a Covenant of grace may appeare by the qualitie of the persons betwixt whom the covenant is made scil not God as a Creator men as innocent as in that covenant of works made with Adam but God as gratious justifying ungodly persons in the sense of the Law or such as cannot become legally godly perfect in themselves or workers covenanting with such like non-workers Rom. 4. 1 2 3 4 5. sâ—il God and Abraham yea God and Isaac yea God and the spirituall seed of Abraham to whom with him the promises indefinitely were made and so this also Gal. 3. 16. 2 By the matter promised on Gods part scil I will bee a God to thee and to thy seed holding forth more then any legall covenant as 1. to tender and give to them his ordinances according as they should bee capable of them as their peculiar priviledge by right of Covenant hence these two coupled Lev. 26. 11 12. Rev. 21. 3. I will bee a God to them I will set my tabernacle amongst them hence any without these or any externall right to them are according to men said to bee without God in the world Eph. 2. 11 12 13. 2 That hee will dwell amongst them and manifest his speciall presence with and in his Ordinances and providences among them hence being a God to any and Gods dwelling with them are coupled together Exod. 29. 45. Lev. 26. 11 12 Rev. 21. 3. 3 That hee will tender them deliverances as their federall right and bee really forward to give such deliverances from all sorts of miseries and from the causes of the same yea actually to worke such deliverances so far as is meet and sutable to their present conditions hence God his being a God to any and his removing sad mournfull thoughts from any are joyned Revel 21. 4. see Levit. 26. 41. 42. 45. Deliverances from common providences are common to all even Pagans but not such as spring from the vertue of the Covenant Zach. 9. 11. 4 so as to give to such an externall covenant right at least as to temporall blessings hence giving Canaan and his being a God to them joyned Gen. 17. 5. 7. 8. see Psal 111. 5. so to spirituall mercies as justification Jer. 31. 33. 51. Adoption 2 Cor. 6. 16. 18. also owning after death Exod. 3. 6. compared with Luke 20. 37 38. and glory after all hence as to the former so to this is joyned God his being a God to any Heb. 11. 6. All this is included as by vertue of Gods covenant offered to such as hee is a God to yea and as that which according to men and as men are in charitie to judge is with all the visible right of such Albeit the former two senses suffice to the visible administration of the covenant as their right in that God doth hold forth that hee is a God to such in covenant to whom hee giveth his ordinances and with whom hee vouchsafeth his presence therein as their externall covenant right 3. By the condition propounded and promised to adult Abraham with whom God was now in this solemne wise to enter into this Covenant not with him alone but with his scil the exercise of faith and Evangelicall uprightnesse or perfection Walke before mee and bee upright or perfect Vers 2. And I will make my Covenant between mee and thee Vers 4. as for mee behold my covenant is with thee c. this is my part of the covenant that was thine and Vers 7. I will establish my covenant betweene mee and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations c. Now that the same covenant is to us since Christs ascension appeares by the former in that it being the covenant of grace it is an everlasting covenant hence Gen. 17. 3. and Heb. 13. 20. hence too when God would expresse the matter of his Covenant since Christs incarnation hee useth and annexeth the old phrase and forme of promise I will be a God to such or such 2 Corin. 6. 18. Heb. 8. 10. Jer. 31. 1. spoken in reference to our times So when speaking of the Jewes and their children which hereafter are to come into Church estate actually he useth the same phrase Ezek. 37. 25. 27. compared Hence the same language in mentioning new Jerusalems condition priviledge I will be a God to them I will set my tabernacle among them Revel 21. 3. The Covenant then of the Gospell hath outward priviledges of Gods tabernacle annexed as well as Abrahams Covenant
forme of the Church giving Church being to persons therein interested nor is it likely that these children were other then such being either proselytes children joyned to the Jewish Church or children of Jewes either of them formerly circumcised and in facie ecclesiae of the Church the Apostles which used to bee questioning any thing obscure which they understood not or seemed to them strange would in likelihood have inquired after satisfaction therein of Christ as their manner was if it had not been very cleare convincing approved received doctrine which Christ urged as his reason of reproofe of their act in hindring the little ones approach to him hee which himselfe forbad them Matth. 10. to goe into the way of the Gentiles no not into Samaria and when himselfe tooke up the Gentile Canaanite in such sort at first albeit she a beleever Matth. 15. 22. if these had beene other then visible beleeving inchurched persons yea though Gentiles yet inchurched proselytes which brought these children hee would not have so roundly and sharpely taken up his Disciples for assaying to hinder them from him when the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. 14. speaketh thus to the Church and not to the citie as such which writ to him and to whom hee writ this back againe hee saith else their children as appropriating externall adoption as well as formerly to others of that sort Rom. 9. 1 2 3 4. they were the children of that Spouse of Christ 2 Cor. 11. 2. 3. as those were formerly of that Church Ezek. 16. 20 21. she brought forth other children by the ministry Psal 87. 5. albeit not so many as now and hereafter Esa 54. 5. but that way also did the Church beare children to the Lord. And are purer Gentiles Churches wombes in that respect shut up or doth the Lord lesse affect communion with his Church in that expression of his love now then hee did to the Church of old surely no the Corinthian members as a Church body had their Church children and seed also the Apostle taketh order with the women 1 Cor. 14. Let your women keepe silence in the Churches but why your what because they were the members wives onely no verily since some such were Pagans and without the Church and hee protesteth against any Church dealing with such 1 Cor. 5. end what have wee to doe with them from any Church care or respect but rather your women as being of the Church and so here not your children holy scil barely of your members in a common naturall way but yours in a Church relation rather And let the Apostles division bee further attended 1 Cor. 5. placing all persons as either within or without the visible Church For if his division be regular as who will say otherwise of the wisest dictates of the holy Ghost then these membra dividentia take up the whole division and there is no middle or neutrall estate actually of persons And albeit the persons chiefly intended bee adult persons yet it must hold as well of others or else it is not a compleat division So then the little ones which are borne of inchurched persons they are either actually within the Church or actually without at present onely some possibilities as some suppose of their being actuall members afterward at most but at present their actuall estate must bee the one or the other if actually within the Church I have what I seeke if onely potentially such as may come in but yet actually without 1. then the children of the Church in primitive times were such as the Apostles as extraordinary and now Elders as ordinary officers in the Church were not nor are to take any speciall Church care of since the tie of that Church care as such dependeth upon covenant and Church relation either extraordinary as that of the Apostles to all the Churches or ordinary as that of the officers of this or that Church 2. Then Churches and their officers are not to deale with any such children more then with pagans in any Church way of instruction or admonition when growne up 3. Then are such so farre forth to bee left as persons without actually to the more immediate judgement of God what have wee to doe with such God judgeth them and the phrase of Gods judging them how sad a case it noteth see Heb. 3. 4. and 10. 29 30 31. 4. Then such children being actually without they are actually and at present amongst the number of such persons of whom is little hope as Marke 4. 11 12. to them without if hardned persons in parables so Revel 22. without are dogs The persons left out of Church fellowship by the new Jerusalem are of the worst sort â—…vel 22. 15. 5. Then the Jewish Church is supposed to have a larger share in the charitie of God and his people so that their children in relation to Church estate are called and counted God and his Churches children purer Gentile Churches have no such charitie allowed towards the members children which absurdities if any will swallow let them enjoy their conceipts SECT II. ANd thus farre of the dispensing kingdome of God as it seemes to bee included and intended in the first expression Of such is the kingdome of God which may serve to answer the scruples of some as if such an assertion of children of beleevers to bee of Gods kingdome should crosse the course of providence many proving wicked For this hinders not but they belong to the visible Church no more then Christs assertion of all the Jewes to be the children of the kingdome of heaven into which the Gentiles from all parts should come after the rejection of the Jews Matth. 8. 11 12. nor is this any more crosse to Rom. 9. 6 7 8. then that is yea suppose the Kingdome of heaven bee taken for that of glory yet in that covenant and Church estate is theirs so far also is glory theirs scil in foro ecclesiae And wee have before proved that Christ spake this as man not meerely as God as hee said before of the Jewes Matth. 8. 11 12. and after this spake to like purpose Matth. 21. 43. they were as externally adopted Rom. 9. 4. externally inrighted to that promise of glory the promises indefinitely being thus far theirs that promised heritage being thus far theirs If they had not Gods kingdome in respect of this estating of theirs in it and right to it how came they to have it taken from them was not that in respect of any externall Church right actually theirs unto or to the dispensation of the covenant holding the same forth they were all heires albeit under tutors Gal. 4. 1 2 3. but to mee the former sense is rather most unquestionable that of such is the kingdome of God or of heaven scil the visible Church as before was proved and this may also satisfie that which is objected that hee might speake this in reference to the future that is that they were elect ones and should
Gentile partake in common with them in shewes and semblances nay in realities in the very fatnesse of the Olive of which they partooke else it was not a partaking in common as both partooke also in common in the root Ibid. scil Abraham Isaac and Jacob not as naturall fathers for so Abraham Isaac and Jacob albeit they were naturall fathers unto the Jewes yet not in any respect naturall fathers unto the Gentiles but rather as they were Church fathers if they had not beene Church fathers to the Jewes as well as to the Gentiles how did Jew and Gentile partake in common in them as a root and what common Church fathers were Abraham Isaac and Jacob those fathers vers 28. of the invisible Church nay verily but of the visible of which even the the refuse Jewes sometimes were Which may bee a second argument that the Olive tree of which Abraham as some say and yeeld or Abraham Isaac and Iacob as others where the roote is considered here under the adjunct of the visible and not of that of the invisible Church and so it 's plainely ly verified that Jewes and Gentiles were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 partakers in common in the root and fatnesse of the Olive Rom. 11. 17. A third reason thereof is in that the Olive here intended is that whose fatnesse it is that is communicated to the branches yea to such branches as were broken off as were many refuse Jewes or might bee broken off as sundry of the Gentiles which came in their stead might bee whence that vers 21. yea ver 22. otherwise thou shalt bee cut off and so many have beene witnesses that Apostate Churches of Asia and other Churches Now saving graces peculiar to the elect flow not from any company of men no not from the invisible Church nor is it theirs but Christs to convey and communicate they cannot spare that oyle for others Matth. 25. 9. but the ordinances and they are the Churches properly and such as from the Church are derived and communicated to others whether elect or reprobate that are members of her Yea but what Church is that which holdeth forth and dispenseth Church ordinances to others not the invisible Church all the members being homogeneall the invisible Church properly hath not officers if you suppose officers you must suppose some calling others called and then they cease to bee meerely invisible for in this act they become visible now a Church without officers cannot administer all Church ordinances not communicate that Church fatnesse of the seales so then the Olive Church communicating all Church fatnesse indefinitely and so the seales too must bee the visible not the invisible Church Besides since no Olive or Church fatnesse is to bee had but in and from the Church no Church ordinances ordinarily to be dispensed but in and from the Church if the Olive here bee supposed to bee the invisible not the visible Church no ordinary communication of Church ordinances to any is possibly to bee had since the invisible Church being a Church onely of elect and savingly called persons and no hypocrites or reprobates being in or of that Church whither shall any repaire for Church ordinances there being no Church in the world dispensing ordinances by ordinary officers which alone can now dispense them in a Church way that consists onely of elect ones but there are some chaffe and tares and trash and vessels of dishonour in it Matth. 3. and 13. 2 Tim. 2. yea that Church being invisible as such is not obvious to the sense of any which being brought to the faith would desire to bee joyned to this Olive thereby to partake of it's fatnesse hee cannot see where nor what that Church is for it is invisible this will drive us all to become Seekers not till new Apostles come as some fondly imagine but perpetually yea hopelesly Fourthly it 's not denied by such as oppose us herein that the Jewes had this priviledge to bee reckoned in the outward administration of the covenant of grace as branches of the Olive by birth by virtue of Gods appointment which cannot bee true but in reference to the visible Church C.B. Object 6. You will hereby set up a Catholique visible Church Answ If that should follow hence touching a Catholique Church as noting Aliquid integraliter universale as eum dicimus orbis universus which is not really distinct from all the particular Churches in the world considered in one this universall integrum the Church albeit not visible at once to any ones eyes yet in its parts it is visible both divisim in its particular visible members as also conjunctim in visible congregations Ames medul Theolog. lib. 1. cap. 31 32. CHAP. III. Sect. I. Touching the Explication of Matth. 28. 19 20. and Marke 16. according to our opposites HAving laid downe such conclusions as make way let us now addresse our selves to some further considerations of Pedobaptisme it self according as other Scripture grounds hold it forth And first because Matth. 28. is much controverted let us try whether it make more for us then against us therein and withall take in the consideration of Marke 16. 16. which our opposites pleno uno ore cry up as quite overthrowing our doctrine of Pedobaptisme And herein I am content that they should speake First Mr. Blackwood maketh the commission to be even for the very order of the words so exact that Ministers as commissioners must stick to them and giveth reasons to prove the very order of the words to bee morall in both places and brings Mark. 16. for his proofe that without all distinction of Churches gathering or gathered thus it must bee beleeving in Christ must proceed baptisme this hee maketh his second argument and the same also his fourth onely varying the words a little but the proofe is Mark 16. 16. to which Acts 8. 12. 37. is added for proofe from which proofes also of Act. 8. 12 c. he rayseth his sixth argument so that all those three arguments together also with his eighth and last they all turne upon one hinge and have all one bottome A. R. hee also explaineth the same in the same way applying Marke 16. as an explication of Matth. 28. the Scriptures saith he hold forth that Disciples that is beleevers onely should bee baptized so Mr. B. upon Marke 16. onely beleevers are to bee baptized and unbeleevers by that affirmation are forbidden And further to prove the same the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 28. is urged by Hen. Den A. R. and Mr. B. as in reference to Disciples not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in reference to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the nations Besides in that Christ added teaching them as if the persons to bee baptized are presently to bee taught and so not Infants And that also preaching is to goe before baptisme upon the same ground And as by that plaine and well grounded treatise is added that baptizing into the name of the
capable to attend hence the baptisme of John is the doctrine thereof hence the doctrine of baptisme Heb. 6. 1 2. but specially holding forth what they may expect from God so Deut. 10. 16. and Jer. 4. circumcision called upon them for heart circumcision as capable of improving it and incourageth them what to expect especially that way from God Deut. 30. 6. Ezek. 36. 25 26 27 28 c. As for what C. B. addeth touching the rule of baptizing from Act. 2. 38 39. albeit the place hath had its distinct consideration yet I shall here adde a word of answer to this which is C. B. his third argument that if this bee a rule then none are to bee baptized but such as truely repent For to no seeming and visible repentance did Peter then exhort them but to true and saving repentance all will grant and then unlesse wee know mens hearts and principles their confession of sinnes cannot satisfie us when wee are to baptize them as being doubtfull and not certaine that the rule is fulfilled in that our act and wee must either doe things doubtfully and adventure to transgresse rule yea oft breake rule as by this argument John did Matth. 3. 11 12. and Philip Acts 8. Yea but they professed it suppose they did that was not that which Peter saith make confession of or professe your repentance and bee baptized but repent and be baptized therefore if that be laid downe as the rule by which men must or else must not be baptized hee that is baptized otherwise hee was never regularly baptized as possibly it 's the case of many in your churches That which John Spilsbury hath this way I find not in the rest hee maketh use of John 3. 5. as a repeale of the Law of circumcising of Infants and as the new law of admission c. but if that washing of water bee meant of baptisme it will then bee of as absolute necessitie to bee externally baptized as to bee regenerate both if spoken of two severall things being made as one in point of necessitie nor let any say that ordinarily it is so that none else are saved For Christs serious speaking yea protesting shewes hee intends more yea more then a supposed neglect or contempt of baptisme but simply thus verily verily unlesse c. according to vers 3. he had to like effect spoken and taking the kingdome here for a particular visible Church not that of glory which hath no ordinances 1 Cor. 15. 24. and 13. 8 9 10. how stands this with his principles that a man first bee discipled and inchurched ere baptized when as rather hee must bee from this ground first washed with water or baptized ere hee can bee in yea so much as see a visible Church and so baptisme is rather the forme of the Church then the covenant of grace as I. B. elsewhere affirmeth and reason suggesteth a Church first to bee ere Church seales to bee administred to or by it nor need this bee urged in this sense upon Nicodemus as the way of his entrance into Gods kingdome of a true visible Church For of such a Church was hee already a member even of the Jewes Church yea if thus meant then not onely unregenerate persons should not bee of visible Churches but it is not possible that they can get into them for Christ saith verily and unlesse c. hee cannot no hee should not or ordinarily hee doth not enter into the kingdome of God As for what was said of preaching the Gospel to goe before baptisme wee hold it wee preach it the doctrine of the covenant is first opened and then sealed wee hold forth to parents that Gospel covenant of Abraham as to them and their children and the Apostles did as much Acts 2. 38 39. Rom. 10. 6 7 8. they preaching the Gospel wherein all sorts of nationall creatures were concerned they held forth that of Gods mind of grace to that species of Infants of Gospelled Gentiles and so by the Gospel they as well as the other sort of adult Gentiles came to partake of the promise in the initiatory seale at least Ephes 3. 6. and what Gospel they held out in the audible word preached that they sealed by the visible word of baptisme Fiftly to that straine touching the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as not in reference to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of the masculine gender and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the neuter if C. B. A. L. and Hen. Den had searched Scriptures they would have found this enallage or change of gender very frequent Rev. 2. 26 27. and 19. 15. it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 see Acts 15. 17. and 26. 17. see more of the like Acts 21. 25. Ephes 2. 11. and 4. 17. masculines joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and I would aske A. R. and the rest whether when it 's said in the neuter gender before him shall bee gathered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all nations with the masculine annexed and hee shall separate them one from another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reference to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if not then it seemes some nations shall bee gathered at the last day which shall not bee separated one from the other if it have reference to it then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them in the masculine here in Matth. 28. may very well have reference to the nations albeit in the neuter gender Sixtly to that argument raised hence from what is added teaching them that is presently teaching them c. so not Infants it is not cogent As much is said in effect of Abraham presently after hee had circumcised the males in his house and before Isaac was borne and circumcised that hee would command his children and his houshold after him and they shall keepe the way of the Lord yet none will conclude that therefore no children of his houshold servants were already circumcised and that Isaac and others should not bee circumcised in that Abraham will take this course with all of his family Are the baptized Gentiles to bee taught the commands of God that they may doe them so are the proselyted persons circumcised and others also circumcised to bee also taught Yea Infants circumcised notwithstanding that part of Gods counsell touching such teaching yea but Infants circumcised were not capable of teaching true nor are ours which are baptized yet both to bee taught and so are and were according as capable thereof and the Text in Matth. 28. 19. evinceth that it is not a present teaching them that are there mentioned simply but secundum quid scil according as the baptized persons were capable of being taught otherwise it must bee concluded that they were presently to bee all and each of them taught the whole mind of Christ and then it will follow that that could presently be done by the dispensers of the word which is impossible and likewise
and this be the common enforcing reason to both it must hold as well in either of them considered apart as in both of them joyntly taken And I would know if the Apostle had from such a ground of the promise urged one already baptized to repent onely had it not beene sufficient or suppose hee had to deale with one that in his judgement had repented already urging him onely to bee baptized because the promise belonged to him had not this been of sufficient force thereunto no rationall person I thinke will deny it The minor will appeare by declaring the groundwork upon which the Apostle urged them to bee baptized Now this was the onely ground upon which Peter urged them as to the former dutie of repenting so to the later of being baptized For the promise is or belongs to you scil the promise of grace of remission of sinnes c. as before was cleared Yea but repentance is called so too from them on this ground and that Infants are not capable of To this wee have formerly answered why it was meete to require as we doe some testimony of repentance in offensive members of a corrupt Church albeit a true visible Church as was that of the Jewes if they will bee fixed members of purer Churches as was that Church of Christians vers 41. and as members thereof partake of the seales yet wee doe not expect the same of their children too under no such actuall scandall but baptize them in their confessing parents right also Besides it appeareth before that it was a sufficient ground on which to urge the baptisme of such or such a person as considered in it selfe apart Now that the groundworke scil interest externall at least was that interest of those persons not yet savingly wrought upon in the promise of grace that appertaineth to such Infants of inchurched and externally covenant parents it appeareth in this very Scripture the persons spoken to were members of that true visible Church of the Jewes visibly in the covenant as wee proved the persons spoken of also were their owne naturall children as was likewise proved and of them also Peter avoweth even after Christs ascension and in reference to participation in the seale of baptisme in a Church of Christians That the promise is to your children so that the conclusion followeth that the baptisme of such children is virtually called upon as well as of adult persons SECT VII Object YEa but the Jewes children were not then baptized Acts 2. Answ It 's more then such as so speake can prove from the Text. No will some say but it is not For they that gladly received the word saith the Text were baptized vers 41. And they continued in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship and breaking of bread and prayers vers 42. and 44. All that beleeved had all things common 44. and sold their possessions c. vers 45. and continued daily in the Temple c. vers 46. which are not appliable to Infants And what then therefore other things there mentioned were not so too non sequitur what more usuall in Scripture then to speake of things in a collective way of persons which are not all and each of them appliable to all and each particular person of that company but by a Synecdoche some things are spoken of the whole wholly but others are onely appliable to some parts of that whole It 's said in this place all that beleeved were together and had all thing common and sold their possessions vers 44 45. will any take this of the whole company in all the parts of it all were not capable of such an act applied to all as not all having possessions to sell for some were in need rather of supply from others vers 45. It is therefore a Synecdoche so in the other so all are said to continue in the Apostles doctrine and prayers c. as before this Infants were not capable of and therein it is as in the other Synecdochicall for of other things mentioned they were capable and they were appliable to them they had things in common too and had supplies of clothing or food c. according to their need unlesse any will say that these persons spoken of had no children needing such supplies as well as themselves or else if they had yet their needs were not supplied so when they all eate their meate in severall houses c. what were the children shut out of doores if they had any or had none of those families any children in them Suppose they could not eate meate with such singlenesse of heart yet were they not of them that did eate their meate and were refreshed with them there were doubtlesse some hypocrites in heart amongst them and they could not eate with them with a single heart but were rather spots in their feasts of charitie as Judes phrase is Jude 12. yet by a Synecdoche all did eate with heart singlenesse in that some which were capable of the act doing did so among them all added were such as should bee saved too by a Synecdoche and in a Church sense yea their Infants some of them were such really and all of them in an externall and ecclesiasticall respect of covenant and Church interest they were capable of that adjunct albeit not of some others so were they capable of being added to the visible Church of Christians as they were of that true visible Church of the Jewes before And as all the Infants of covenant and inchurched Parents which stand right in the Church are also in that right inchoatively members of that Church albeit not perfectly And inchoative actuall membership of a true visible Church doth externally inright to the initiatory Church and Covenant seale of baptisme of which two these members children were enrighted as well as others then present And for further clearing of this way of application of some common acts to an assembly where are children which are not appliable to the whole company wholly see Acts 21. 5. bringing on the Apostle and his company is appliable to all those of Ephesus men women and children but that act of praying not so properly appliable to the little ones but rather to the growne persons present Weeping and swearing is applyed to the whole company assembled whereof many were children Ezra 10. 1. 5. compared yet proper to the growne part albeit the other of being assembled before the house of God c. were common as that sinne confessed on the behalfe of the whole assembly vers 2. was understood of the whole figuratively In respect of that part of the assembly which had so sinned which were not the children as is evident no nor all the growne ones but some onely amongst them as vers 18. 23 24 25. declare so Deut. 31. 11 12. men women and children must bee all gathered to have the Law read in their hearing that they may heare and learne and feare the Lord and observe all the words
upon calling and so to their children upon calling and no otherwise of which hee gave a reason before that by the promise to the children was not meant the seed after the flesh the Copie of beleevers being not larger then that of Abraham was in respect of the eternall Covenant which belonged not to his seed after the flesh but after the spirit which hee expounds to bee such as Mark 3. 32. and Mark 16. 16. scil that obey the words of Christ that beleeve and are baptized To like purpose A. R. in his second part hath the same scil that the promise is equally made to them and to their children and to them that are afarre off But those that are afarre off are not in the Covenant by the promise untill they beleeve therefore neither those children which hee further confirmeth that if then they were in Covenant thou had they been also of the Church of the Gospel But that they were not of For it 's said afterwards vers 41. that they were added to the Church as many as beleeved and therefore were not of it before C. B. hath divers sences of it Expounding children to bee men by Mark. 10. 44. John 8. 39. Gal. 4. 19. But the meaning hee makes to be no other promise then of remission of sinnes as the onely salve of guiltie consciences hee maketh it not as others to bee the promise of the Messiah nor as A. R c. in his booke expoundeth the promise it selfe to be meant of that promise cited by Peter as then fulfilled which is mentioned Joel 2. scil of the gifts of the holy Ghost But C. B. maketh it not a promise but a proffer of a promise to persons not actually converted vers 37 38 39 40. And if there were any promise yet being of remission of sinnes it was not to their children since many godly persons children prove wicked and so God must either fall from his promise or they from Grace And that this promise was no more to them that were pricked in their hearts then to those afarre off whether from them as Gentiles or from the promise as unregenerate persons even as many as the Lord our God shall call And in this particular Mr. B. jumpeth with some others mentioned as hee did in that that this was spoken to comfort guiltie consciences cast down Matth. 27. 25. as well in regard of that bloody wish against their children as in respect of other bloody acts against Christ In these different apprehensions it 's hard to reconcile persons either to others of their judgement or else to themselves SECT III. COme wee then to the first opinion touching the words First the promise is to you that is it is fulfilled to you accordingly as made to Abraham for sending of Christ c. here wants Scripture proofe to make this sense of the promise is to you i. e. is fulfilled to you nor yet doth that in Act. 3. 25 26. yee are the children of the promise c. prove this sense Secondly it is sending of Christ or of Christ sent But let it bee considered 1. That the Apostle doth not say the pâ—omise was to you as in reference to the time of making it to the fathers with respect unto them or in reference to Christ who was not now to come but already come as the Apostle proveth from ver 3. to 37. nor is it the use of the Scripture when mentioning promises as fulfilled to expresse it thus in the present tense the promise is to you or to such and such but rather to annex some expression that way which evinceth the same for which let Rom. 15. 8. 1 Joh. 2. 25. Eph. 3. 6. Nehe. 9. 8. 23. 2 Chron. 6. 15. 1 King 8. 56. Act. 2. 16 17. 33. and 13. 32 33. Josh 21. 45. and 23. 14. Matth. 1. 22 23. and 21. 4. Luk. 1. 54 55. 68 69. and Psal 111. 9. Rom. 11. 26 27. be considered 2. They knew already to their cost that Christ indeed was sent amongst them and to bee that Jesus or Saviour of his people from their sinnes Act. 22. 36 37. compared with Matth. 1. 21. And this was cold comfort to them to tell them of that which wounded them unlesse there bee withall some promise annexed and supposed in his being come The promise meerely of Christs comming could not comfort them unlesse also in and by Christ come in the flesh there bee some promise made to them touching the removall of those burdens of guilt which lay upon them 3. The blessing principally propounded to them for their reviving healing succour and support it was not Christs sending nor his being sent but remission of sinnes vers 38. wherefore unlesse the Apostle argue impertinently this may not be excluded but must bee one principall thing intended 4. It is that promise to which Baptisme the seale is annexed now the seale is ever to the Covenant which is not barely to Christs being sent in the flesh but to the benefits contained in promises by his comming The third thing they say it is to those of the dispersion those of the ten Tribes as others have expressed it and why not also of the Gentiles as well since spoken indefinitely of all that were afarre of which the Scripture expresly applyeth to the Gentiles Ephes 2. 11 12. Suppose those other Jewes were as the Gentiles not a people actually in Covenant with God so much as externally as being long divorced from God and his Covenant and Church-liberties yet the Gentiles in the maine of their outlawry condition were as one with them Yea but the conversion of the Gentiles was not yet revealed till Act. 10. in that vision What had not Christ before this Sermon of Peters declared his mind to all his Apostles touching the discipling and In-churching of the Gentiles onely they knew not whether it might be by joyning them first by way of addition as proselytes to the Jewes rather then by gathering them into other distinct Churches 4. It 's affirmed that this promised sending of Christ was to them their children and those afarre off as many as our God should call that they may bee turned from their iniquitie and bee baptized for remission of sinnes and yet also that the promise what ever it bee supposed to bee was to them all with that limitation that they repent or that they be called What is it to as many as the Lord shall call or convert or cause to repent and yet is it that they may bee turned from their iniquitie is it to persons called and yet also to uncalled persons is it to them that they may bee called yet the persons to whom the promise is are as many as are supposed to bee called how can these two bee right yea it 's said it is to them all upon condition that they be called and yet also that it is to them that they may be called Why if it be to them that by Christ they may
9. 4. To whom belongs the adoption and the promises comprehending Gen. 17. 7. Jer. 31. 33 34. holdeth forth no bare offer thereof but at least an externall interest therein And C. B. who maketh the promise to bee the offer of it to them their children and those afar off as many as the Lord shall call will not easily reconcile himselfe to others of his mind denying that the Scripture hath to doe with children that way in that they understand not And how then is the offer of the promise at present the promise is to your children unto those children many of which were but Infants Besides those afarre off from them as were the Gentiles how was the promise to them then in the offer thereof when as yet it was not offered to them untill afterwards that the Jews came to reject the same Act. 13. 46 47. unlesse in respect of some few sprinklings and first fruits which yet was after this also Act. 8. 10. Or if he doe stretch it to the future with others scil that it is to them upon that limitation that they be called namely effectually surely he will not say that the promise i. e. the meere offer thereof is to beleevers Now to come to that wherein A. R. and Hen. Den and others doe center scil That it was no otherwise to the Jewes then to those afar off and so and no otherwise to their children or as A. R. phraseth it it was equally to all three sorts scil when they beleeve then they are in the Covenant c. But why are all made equall herein Act. 3. 25 26. even as it is expounded by our opposites will give the Jewes the prioritie the Text is expresse and to you first c. all are not then equall therein The Gentiles come not in but by occasion of the Jewes casting out and then they considered as in Olive or Church-estate partake of no other Church fatnesse for substance then did their predecessors the Jewes Rom. 11. 12. 15. 17. no other kingdome for the nature of it and in the essentialls of the externall right and administration of the royall Covenant to the Gentile successor then was to the Jewish predecessor Matth. 8. 11. 12. and 21. 43. In a sense then the Jewes are preferred and not made equall albeit in another respect of essentiall samenesse of Covenant priviledges wee have now proved and yeelded them to bee equall yet so as it maketh against A. R. and others more of which anon SEâ—T VI. BUt A. R. I suppose forgets himselfe when he maketh the sole condition of the promise to bee equally to Jew and Gentile scil beleeving meaning saving-beleeving For hee expounds this Text Act. 2. 38 39. to bee the promise mentioned in Joel 2. of powring out the extraordinary gifts of the spirit upon them Now doth A. R. suppose the same reason of pouring out such gifts on the Gentiles to bee called to the worlds end as was in those first times of planting the Gospell or would hee have all beleevers now expect such extraordinary gifts as having according to his exposition this place and promise for it I suppose not why then doth hee make them all equall And if effectuall calling bee the onely condition of obtaining these promised gifts those that cast out devills in Christs name c. might have had something more to say they plead Matth. 7. 31. But why doth any speake so exclusively when expresse mention is made of remission of sinnes Act. 2. 38. in confirmation also whereof the promise is partly occasioned vers 39. And for further discovery of this mistaken exposition let it bee considered 1 That the very confessed occasion of this here spoken to these heart-pierced Jewes was the guilt of hainous sinnes and of that cursed wish Matth. 27. 25. They were not troubled for want of such extraordinary gifts and to tell them of such gifts was both impertinent and unsatisfactory and it could minister but little comfort to sin-sick soules to promise them such gifts which they might have and yet die in their sinnes Matth. 7. 23. 2 As the maine thing propounded Act. 2. scil of remission of sinnes is not so much as named Joel 2. so neither is that in Joel set downe in this order I will poure out my spirit upon you and upon your children or thus you and your sonnes and daughters onely shall prophesie 3. The subjects instanced in Joel 2. are not reducible to the notions as here mentioned you and your children your sonnes and daughters might fall under the notion of you and your children but not your old men and servants It were absurd to explaine your children that is your old men as if they were these hearers children And thus much to that wherein A. R. is singular SECT VII AS for that wherein hee joyneth with the rest that the children are put in the same skale with those afar off c. The promise is to them all upon condition of effectuall calling True it is that the phrase The promise is to you and is to your children and is to those afarre off c. is the same but non sequitur that ergo it is to them all alike and in the same sense It is at present to them all that is evident by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the present tense but not alike to all The notion of the other as persons afarre off intimateth that these Jewes and their children were not all accounted afarre off too scil strangers from actuall externall interests in the Covenants of promise and commonwealth of Israel or the visible politicall Church Ephes 2. 11 12 13. but rather nigh in that sense and yet the promise is to them afar off intentionally and quoad deum even whilst afarre off and uncalled but to the other the Jewes and their children the promise is to them actually and quoad hominem To all Pauls kindred Infants or elder Jewes belonged the adoption and the promises indefinitely Rom. 9. 1 2 3 4. nor is it unusuall in Scripture to expresse covenant grace made over as in present to divers persons some whereof are future and to come others are in present existence and view Deut. 29. 14 15. neither with you doe I make this Covenant but with him which standeth here this day scil the Jew and Proselyte and the little ones present and with him that is not here this day scil with the persons unborne comming of you or of the Proselyte The phrase is alike to them which were actually existent in Church estate and humane being and to others which were not so with both doe I at present make my Covenant c. In the one it is verified actually and quoad homines in the other intentionally and quoad deum And this promise here mentioned Act. 2. 38 39. containing in it remission of sinnes and so the righteousnesse of faith on which faith pitcheth Rom. 4. 7 8. with 11. what was it other then
of grace albeit invested with Church-covenant as appeares in that vers 60. that God for that his covenant sake considered as his will deale so gratiously with them after all their provocations as vers 62 63. Albeit hee did not thus properly for the sake of that investure of his covenant annexed scil Thy covenant the Churches covenant abstractively considered vers 61. see more Ezek. 36. from vers 17. to the Chapters end There is an externall being in the covenant of grace as there is an externall being in Christ John 15. 2. and partaking of Christ hence that of Heb. 13. 14. An externall belonging to Christ hence those Jewish refusers to beleeve in Christ yet called his owne John 1. 11. As there is an externall being called Matth. 22. 14. an externall being sanctified by the blood of the Covenant Heb. 10. 29. an externall being purged from sinne 2 Pet. 1. 9. an externall being purchased by Christ 2 Pet. 2. 1. an externall Saintship Deut. 33. 3. And therefore both are joyned being Saints and making a Covenant with God Psal 50. 5. and such as had Gods covenant made with them to glory of verse 16. yet what persons many of them were that Psalme doth declare There are those invisible Churches which are as Isaac was children of the promise Gal. 3. 28. children of the Gospel Church verse 31. and 26. this must bee verified in all the members of the Galatian Churches unto whom Paul wrote that Epistle Gal. 1. 2. for hee spake this of them all Jerusalem which is the mother of us all verse 26 27 28. compared They then were all such either effectually and savingly And then there were some particular visible Churches in which were no hypocrites Contrary to the very scope of the parable of the Tares and Net and Virgins and Wedding and varietie of vessels in the Church visible as an house of God 1 Tim. 3. 15. compared with 2 Tim. 2. 20. Yea then there should bee a possibilitie that such as are savingly interessed in the covenant of grace should end in the flesh Gal. 3. 3. suffer many things in vaine verse 4. have Apostolicall labour bestowed on them in vaine Gal. 4. 11. fall from grace and have no profit to salvation by Christ Gal. 5. 2. 4. for if there were not a possibilitie of some such members and cases to bee found in the Galatian Churches why doth the Apostle speake such things as there are mentioned but there is no possibilitie of fatall seducing the elect one savingly interested in the covenant and Church 2 Tim. 2. 16. 19 20. 1 John 2. 19. Matth. 24. 24. So then it must needs follow that according to God some were such indeed but externally and according to men all were children of the promise In which sense the promise of grace and glory may bee to one as ones legacy or portion externally and according to men of the saving good whereof it is possible one may fall short Heb. 4. 1. 4. When Antipaedobaptists admit any to the seales of Church and covenant fellowship is it not possible that some false brethren may creepe in unawares Jude 4. some wolves enter in and of their owne selves some turne seducers Act. 20. 29 30. can it be otherwise but that in visible Churches with us or them there will bee some unapproved ones to God 1 Cor. 11. 18 19. yet you admit them to the fellowship of covenant but without ground unlesse to them they are in covenant Will you ordinarily put seales to blankes and the seale must follow the covenant Gen. 17. 7. 9 10 11. 13. Acts 2. 38 39. 1 Cor. 11. 25. You will surely say they appeared to us to bee in the covenant of grace wee judged them to bee in it else wee had not admitted them So then according to your selves persons may bee externally and quoad homines in the Covenant of grace which are not savingly so I plead for no more wee are then thus farre agreed I yeeld no more advantage to Arminius nor undermine perseverance in grace nor the Polemicall doctrine of our choyse Divines more then you doe nor then Amesius Chamier Luther Calvin Beza and then your owne Tertullian as you count him doth who in his booke De Anima Chap. 21 22. urgeth that Text 1 Cor. 7. 14. for a peculiar cleannesse of beleevers children by priviledge of seed as the rest which I have named to whom Pareus Peter Martyr Bucer Melancton Mr. Philpot besides many others might bee added who pleading for Infants baptisme urge it from their interest in the Covenant As many of the ancients Cyprian Gregory Nazianzen Jerome Austine and others which plead for Paedobaptisme from the argument of circumcision must need implicitly if not expresly maintaine Infants Covenant estate to which the baptisme of the one as the circumcision of the other was ex natura rei a sacramentall signe Gen. 17. 11. And yet they held not that all such were infallibly saved and therefore must maintaine with mee an externall inbeing of some in covenant which possibly may never be saved But leaving humane authorities to returne to Scripture proofe of this third conclusion let our opposites consider of Gods breaking that gratious Covenant which hee had made with his people of old which was as his staffe of beautie Zach. 11 10 whether it can be verified of a legall covenant of workes and not rather of his covenant of grace in respect at least of the externall administration thereof amongst them as verse 9. and their externall right in that his covenant And whence else is there any supposall of some interested in that same covenant of God wherein the upright are faithfull stable and perminent but others are false treacherous and apostatising Psal 44. 17. Dan. 11. 30 31 32 33. If they were never in this holy covenant how came they to forsake it to deale falsely in it or was this Covenant wherein they together with those true beleevers were interested in communion other then the covenant of grace If it were not that from Sion was it that from mount Sinai which are the Apostles membra dividentia of the covenant Gal. 4. 24. If so then beleevers which as beleevers must necessarily be in the free covenant of life and grace yet also at the same time are under a contrary covenant of bondage and death and curse if this covenant in which they were with true beleevers were a covenant of grace as is evident then were hypocrites externally in it for internally and efficaciously they were not and whence else were they charged with breaking the everlasting covenant catâ—exochen if they were never in that bond And if in it it was but externally else had they never so fatally broken this covenant which is thus plainely described by the old periphrasis of Abrahams covenant Gen. 17. 7. 13. and whence also are some charged with not beleeving the faith or ingaged truth the covenant of God Rom. 7. 3. if it were not plighted with
If this therfore bee not the rule of Church administration of the Initiatory injoyned seale of the Covenant then the other of visibility of interest is that which wee must goe by therein Which may suffice for answer to what A. R. suggested to the contrary And I say visibility of the parties interest in the Covenant I say not meere visibilitie of faith or repentance The Initiatory seale is not primarily and properly the seale of mans faith or repentance or obedience but of Gods Covenant rather the seale is to the covenant even Abrahams Circumcision was not primarily a seale to his faith of righteousnesse but to the righteousnesse of faith exhibited and offered in the covenant yea to the Covenant it selfe or promise which hee had beleeved unto righteousnesse hence the covenant of grace is called the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 10. 6 7 8. The righteousnesse of faith speaketh on this wise verse 8. and it 's called the word of faith hence albeit Abraham must walke before God who is now about to enlarge the Covenant to his as well as to make it to him in a Church reference Gen. 17. 1. c. yet the Initiatory seale in his as well as in their flesh is Gods Covenant verse 13. or a Sacramentall signe firstly and expresly of Gods Covenant Verse 11. and 7. compared albeit it implicitly oblige him and them to other duties formerly mentioned Hence Act. 2. 38 39. the seale of baptisme is put to the promise as the choyse matter and foundation in view and as that was a ground of repentance it selfe Repent and bee baptized for the promise is to you Not for you have repented as if that were the thing to bee firstly sealed by baptisme but the promise rather and when wee speake of visibilitie of Covenant right as such a rule to goe by wee exclude not the lowest and least degree of visibilitie since degrees doe not vary the species of any thing if we propound a higher degree where shall wee stay and pitch Why not a higher degree as well as that wee must looke to it that not the least of Gods Covenant little ones bee left out unfolded in the Church visible Wee were better seeme to bee remisse in respect of Church care of 99. which are but seemingly just ones then neglect any and leave out any which possibly is savingly as well as seemingly of the flock of the covenant Church the least of Gods visible family or Church must have their portion as of the family if Ministers bee faithful in their office the least visible measure of grace must occasion our judgement of charitie to judge them gratious so the least degree of visibilitie of covenant right may challenge the like charitie not in word and in tongue but in deed and act of expression Wee put a difference betwixt those in Heb. 6. 4. and Infants in degrees of visibilitie of this right but in the nature of the visibilitie wee say they are all one all are visibly in covenant albeit that visibilitie in point of degree bee not in all equall God putteth a difference in point of degree of faith in justifyed persons but in his act of justifying of persons hee puts no difference the least sparke in Flax is enough that way For if it were more it would flame as well as make a smoake and yet if but so much it 's not sleighted by the Lord. I might apply the same in point of degrees of visibilitie of Covenant right in reference to the Churches act of approbation It 's a higher degree indeed of visibility of interest in the Covenant to make personall profession and confession of faith in the Covenant as it is in Adultis then to have onely the visible testimony of God in his word of Covenant expressing his mind of grace touching the seed of Abraham to bee a God to them And to adde theâ—…â—…sible testimony of his providence that these children are of thâ—… race and parentage to which also Abraham and other inchurched parents by visible owning of the covenant in the Latitude upon the termes of it and as now Christian Parents doe make profession of their parentall faith in the Covenant as made to them and their children and this profession of theirs may not bee possibly sincere yet it 's visibly a federall confession and such an avouching of God to bee their Covenant God as taketh in their children as that did Deut. 26. 17. and that Deut. 29. 10 11 12 c. And this is to the Church a degree of their childrens visibilitie of covenant right and Church right albeit not so high as the former and not varying the species of visibilitie it sufficeth not to vary the species of Church admission to fellowship of the initiatory Church-seale Judgement of charitie reacheth further then to judge of persons estates by their own personall words or workes Charitie beleeveth all things in way of testimony if they give any testimony as that of God who testifyeth more absolutely for that species of beleevers children that they are such as hee doth covenant to bee a God to them And the parents testifie alsâ— for them in the profession of their faith in that covenant of God for their seed The Churches also owne them as visibly such leaving secrets to God which particular Infant is not the elect seed principally intended here charitie as it beleeveth all things witnessed so it hopeth all things of the particular persons which are themselves dumbe but are included in the testimony of others mouths opened for them nothing being of counter-force to the contrary touching this point of visibilitie of their covenant and Church interest And I the more wonder that any which confesse that it 's not to be denyed that God would have Infants of beleevers in some sense to bee accounted his to belong to his Church and family and not to the devills as true in facie ecclesiâ—… visibilis c. yet doe oppose us in this particular now in question SECT VI. Conclus 5. THat Christ is in Scripture considered as head of the visible Church in which are many members of Christ the head in that respect which prove unsound as well as in other respects hee is considered as head of the visible Church wherein are none but elect ones And when Gal. 3. 16. it 's said to Abraham and to his seed which is Christ were the promises made it 's not meant of Christ personall as if the promises as that of pardon of sinne c. were made to Christ personally considered or the promises were first made to Abraham and unto Christ personall as the Text hath it Promises were made to Abraham and to his seed Christ Nay Christ personally considered is rather Abrahams seed not to but in which the promises are confirmed Gal. 3. 17. with 16. But rather of Christ with his body the Church whether of Gentiles or Jewes Gal. 3. 14. which though many personally yet make but one seed and
meane it of effectuall calling he if invisible Church fellowship will come under that absurditie too unlesse hee could wholly exclude hypocrites from visible Churches or suppose such a Church where neither are nor can come any false brethren If hee intendeth it of externall calling so visible beleevers and in churched parents Infants are with and in their parents call to the externall fellowship of Church-covenant implicitely called with them As before they were a farre off together from covenant and Church so now are they made nigh together thâ—s farre Of the like nature is that imaginary absurditie of entailing grace to generation not to regeneration or of upholding a nationall Church hee knowes wee in New-England which hold the one yet doe not maintaine the other in the usuall sense of a nationall Church And this which hath been here said also may answer that of I. S. that Infants have not union with Christ as not having faith and therefore may not have any communion in Church-ordinances if hee intend it of saving faith his sequele is weake since many which doe not savingly beleeve are in respect of their in-being in the visible Church to which also Christ is head in Christ as the head of that body in which they are visible members whence also that John 15. 2. But to speake to the proposition it selfe I say Infants without actuall faith are of Christs body the Church of which more afterwards and so in Christ as the head of the visible Church Their parents professed application of the covenant with reference to them as well as to themselves they are together with themselves Ecclesiastically one with Christ as the head of the visible Church SECT VII Conclus 6. THat the body of the Jewish Church to old was under the covenant of grace as invested with Church covenant in respect of externall interest therein It was not as some say that they onely had a covenant of grace among them which was made to some choyce ones among them but that which was made with and dispensed to the body of the Jewes was a covenant of works and not of grace for the contrary appeareth 1. In that the covenant was made with Abraham Isaac and Iacob in reference to their whole seed at least in respect of externall and ecclesiasticall right as before wee proved And hence God appointed them all to receive the visible seale thereof see Gen. 17. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13. and 26. 3 4 5. and 28. 12 13 14. either then these covenant fathers receiving the covenant in reference to their children had a contrary covenant of life and death grace and works made with them and so at one and the same time were externally under the blessing and curse of God and so were not one root to their seed nor first fruits of one sort but as their branches and lumpe in the body of them are supposed to have the covenant of workes dispensed to them so are they to them as a legall root and first-fruits of that sort yet sundry of the branches being elect ones to them they are an Evangelicall roote and first-fruits of another sort contrary to that letter of the Text Rom. 11. 16. or if not both then either receiving a covenant of workes alone in reference to them all elected or not or it must be granted that they received the covenant of grace with Ecclesiasticall respect to them all 2. The very substance of the covenant made and enjoyned to be sealed upon all the children of those fathers Acts 7. 8. with Gen. 17. 7 8 9 10. was as hath been proved not a Legall but an Evangelicall covenant It was not Doe this and live or else bee accursed Gal. 3. 10 11 12. but I will bee a God to thy seed not to Isaac of Abraham alone nor to Jacob of Isaac alone in that Church-right and way but to thy seede in their generations It was their covenant-right to have the Tabernacle of God or Ordinances as their priviledge yea and his presence therein Hence that Exod. 40. 34 35. 38. and Num. 6. 6. 9. and Levit. 9. 14. hence that filling of their Temple with smoak with the glory of God 1 King 8. 10 11. so Isa 6. 1 2 3 4. hence that same testifying of the presence of God in the Churches after Christs ascension in a way of mercy to his people and for their sakes in a way of justicâ— against his and their enemies Revel 15. 8. Hence the frequent answers made to them and for them by Oracle from Gods mercy-seate Exod. 23. 21 22. see Deut. 4. 7. Christ himselfe went with them whither soever they went 1 Cor. 10. 4. whence they are said to tempt him verse 9. see Exod. 33. 15 16. besides those extraordinary Sacraments in which they shared as spirituall things 1 Cor. 1 2 3 4. onely those fathers so partaking of them which to Egyptians and beasts were not of that nature It was their covenant-right to have such deliverances flowing thence as that from Egypt Exod. 6. 7. albeit afterward too God continued in other respects as well as that their covenant God Exod. 29. 45 46. Levit. 26. 11 12. so in and after that Babylonish deliverance Ier. 24. 7. which deliverances of theirs were not of any common nature to other people but by vertue of Christ the Anointing the Mediator virtually of that coveâ—… Isa 10. 27. see Ier. 24. 7. and 15. 17 18 19 20. see more Deut. 29. with 30. 6. Acts 2. 38 39. hence that Rom. 3. 29 30. see Heb. 4. 1 2. Acts 3. 25. Rom. 9. 4. not meaning the Law or two Tables of it but distinguishing those promises from the other nor was Canaan all which God promised them as some have said For First it was promised them as an everlasting possession when yet many even the best of them never enjoyed it constantly if at all Heb. 11. 9 10. Num. 20. 12. the promise of Canaan was ratified in Christ as are other temporall blessings to us now 1 Cor. 3. 21 22. hence Christ's said to drive out their enemies thence from them Exod. 23. 20 21. hence called Immanuels land Esay 8. 8. hence sundry of them excluded thence for that Gospel sin of unbeliefe Heb. 3. last compared with Chap. 42. Hence God promised to bee a God to them and as one branch thereof instanceth in giving them Canaan Gen. 17. 7. 8. yet to shew that was not all hee promised hee againe addeth after that And I will be a God to them Hence those expectations of faith beyond the same Heb. 11. 9 10. Ps 142. 5. Secondly the Proselyted strangers were to have Abrahams covenant sealed to them and theirs by Circumcision Gen. 17. 7 8 9 â—0 11 12 13. yet they might not have lots there nor keepe them â—…t returne them at the Jubilee Iosh 13. 6. Numb 36. 2. and â—… 53 Thirdly Christ was the mediator of that covenant of Abraham made with them and so held out to
Christs owne c. even the worst of them John 1. 12. Deut. 32. 19 20. Isa 1. 2. and 43. 6. Ezek. 16. 20 21. 23. Matth. 15. 26. Christs chickens Matth. 23. end not Gods children meerely by creation as neither were that Church-seed of old called the sons of God for that Gen. 6. 1 2. in opposition to the daughters of men or of those without the Church For so all were of God Mal. 2. 10. Heb. 12. 9. nor yet by regeneration and saving adoption such but by externall filiation and adoption The argument then is a dicto secundum quid They are not children of the promise or of God savingly and in respect of the effect of the promise and of their covenant and Church estate to salvation therefore not at all children of God or of his promise which followeth not 2 Object They were children onely after the flesh and of the Sinai-covenant John 8. Gal. 4. now Abrahams spirituall seed onely are in the covenant of grace Rom. 9. Answ If children after the flesh be taken properly so even Isaac and Jacob were such They had Abraham to their father as well as the Jewes If taken exclusively as if no more but children of the flesh wee have already proved in what sense they were children of God and of his free covenant If children of the flesh allegorically so I deny that the Apostles intent Gal. 4. is to compare the state of the Jewes from Abrahams time downward to Ishmaels of Hagar as neither were they as Ishmael of Hagar the bondwoman but of Sarah the freewoman even as Isaac was Esa 51. 1 2. Hebr. 11. 11 12. Esa 10. 22. 23. So neither doth the Apostle consider them in reference to their first covenant estate in Abraham but to their degenerate estate into a legall frame and way scil as adhering to the morall Law delivered in mount Sinai not as a rule of holy life as there it was propounded and intended but as the substance of the covenant of workes so as to looke for life by it in which way God never intended it to his covenant people And likewise considering them as abusing the ceremoniall law not as given of God at Sinai to represent the Messiah before his comming in the flesh as one in whose blood virtually they might and ought to have looked for life and grace and by it to bee led to him when come in the flesh as hee in whom all those shadowes were fulfilled and so to cease but they abusing both morall and ceremoniall Law so as to seeke to bee justified after Christs comming thereby and not by Christ and persecuting such as held forth the contrary in this allegoricall sense not Hierusalem or the Church of old but Jerusalem which then was when Paul wrote this long after Christs time As might be shewed by comparing Gal. 1. 17. 18. and 2. 1. with other Scriptures This Hierusalem which then was and her children Hierusalem which now is and her children and verse 29. and so it is now not so was it of old verse 29. Those which did as Rom. 9. 31 32 33. and 11. 20. which were enemies to the gospel-Gospel-church v. 21. 1 Thes 2. 14 15 16. These which would bee under the Law in that sense not under Christ Gal. 4. 21. to 26. These were the persons here intended Yea it 's evident that hee considereth not the Jew-Church of old as in covenant with God but that Allegoricall Hierusalem in that hee applyeth this to all Legalists whether Jewes or Gentiles Those of Galatian Churches which are and will bee of that straine they were such children also Gal. 4. 21. Tell mee saith Paul to them yee that desire to bee under the Law c. where hee applyeth that further verse 2 3 4 c. whence also that Gal. 5. 2 3 4 c. In a word it 's one thing to bee under the morall or ceremoniall Law as a tutor another thing to bee under it as a parent both the Church-seed of Abraham and his choyce elect seed were all in common under the Law in the former sense and so to the outward face of reason and comparatively they were as servants Gal. 4. 1 2 3 4. scil not so free from vayles and manifold ceremonious burdens and services They were a royall nation under a Princely covenant and estate Exod. 19. 5 6. They were then children yea and heires as to Canaan so to greater things also in respect of externall right Gal. 4. 1 2 3. But yet as Princes children at schoole or as great mens sonnes at a kind of service Thus they were under the Law as a Tutor ibid. but under it as a parent and mother v. 23 24 c. scil such as were only of the Sinai covenant in the legall part of it and were to inherit by vertue thereof or no way Thus those Jewes as of Abraham Isaac Jacob considered as covenant-fathers they were of other manner of seed scil such like as Gen. 17. 7 and Deut. 36 c. and were externally instated to another manner of inheritance 3 Object They were under the old and first covenant which was formerly c. and not under the new or in the covenant of grace Answ Even that Sinai covenant could not disanuall that covenant formerly made with them in Abraham as being much later then it Gal. 4. 16 17. That was upon their comming out of Egypt Jer. 31. 32. This above 400. yeeres before it The covenant of Abraham Isaac and Jacob in reference to their Church seed was in the essentialls of it the same with that dispensed to us now and as to them before Abraham an everlasting covenant and Gospel Heb. 13. 20. Rev. 14. 6. The Lord as others which are wise and not variable made but one testament or covenant or will of grace yet he caused it to be writ in divers characters some more legible and perspicuous The royall charter and grant was and is the same but renewed so that the phrases new and old import not new in nature and substance but in accidents and qualities or new that is renewed As the same grace in nature it is said to be new or renewed every morning Lam. 3. 22 23. so the commandement of love the same in nature both old from the beginning yet also new â— John 2. 7 8. so the new way Heb. 10. 20. yet the old way too Heb. 13. 8. 20. Christ is not two wayes but one way John 14. 6. so new heavens and earth scil refined new churches yet the same essentially with those of old as wee sometimes call garments new which are but old ones new trimmed When the covenant is said to be new and old it is not divisio generis in species but subjecti in adjuncta So the phrases first and second Heb. 9. note that two testaments specifically different but numerically as the first and second person in the Trinitie are called first and second yet are not two Gods
essentially but one Besides it 's called a first and second testament scil in order of succession So the former is said to bee faulty comparatively not absolutely In a word in way and manner of dispensation that was different from the covenant now dispensed in respect of ceremony of administration not in the essentialls And this which hath been said may take off divers empty scruples which may make against Gods covenant of old with the Jewes as if not of any force to our purpose 4 Object It was not the same covenant made with them as with Abraham Isaac and Iacob Answ It was a covenant made for ever and the same with that unto Abraham and with that oath unto Isaac and it was that which God remembred for their good and so an Evangelicall covenant yea it was a soveraigne commanding word of grace and certaine Therefore said to bee commanded For which see Psal 105. 8 9 10. And of the phrase of commandment taken for the promise see Psal 119. 54. 66. 92 93. 96. and Psal 94. 19. and 133. 3. meaning of the Law of faith or of the promife Rom. 3. 27. which is mighty to effect notwithstanding other lets Rom. 3. 3. True you will say in respect of Canaan promised there was such a covenant with them Psal 105. 11. Answ That covenant was of another nature then meerely such else not lasting in such sort to 1000. generations verse 8. whereas Matthew noteth but 42. generations from Adam to Christ 5 Object It was a nationall covenant say some Ergo a covenant of workes Answ It followeth not ex natura rei for that Gospell covenant Gal. 3. 8. was of a nationall nature Gen. 12. 2 3. being a promise to Abraham to make a nation of him and not excluding a Church respect of that nation yet did not God make two contrary covenants of workes and grace with him nor if it had beene a covenant of workes which was made with that nation as it had not held them so long together by the strength of it Ier. 13. 11. so neither durst any have pleaded it in the revolted estate of that Church as hee did Ier. 14. 19 20 21. 6 Object It threatned and executed corporall punishments as well as rewards Answ And so doth the Gospel also Iohn 3. 18. 36. Marke 16. 15 16. 2 Thes 1. 8. Rev. 11. 3 4 5 6. Hebr. 2. 1 2 3. 1 Cor. 11. 29. 1 Tim. 4. 8 c. 7 Object That admitted of a fleshly seed and such as proved carnall this onely of a spirituall seed and such as beleeve Answ That as invested with Church covenant admitted none but a Church-seed and Church-members to the fellowship of the covenant externally dispensed And so much and no more is done if rightly done now Againe if the Author take fleshly seed for sâ—…h as came of Abraham Isaac and Iacob so in admitting all it must needs admit the elect seed of Abaham also unlesse any deny that there were any such of that Church Contrary to Rom. 9. 6 7 8 c. And so it did not admit onely of such as proved carnall but as well of beleevers also If he take it in an allegoricall sense as Gal. 4. so also it admitted of others then such And on the other side the covenant now as invested with Church-covenant and so most authoritatively administred it admitteth as of children which come of good parents so of carnall hypocrites yea of fleshly legalists which defy ordinances and rest in and trust unto them and to their Church and family and closet duties c. the Galatian Churches had such legalists Gal. 4. 21 22 23. Many are called into covenant fellowship which are not chosen Mat. 22. 13. 8 Object That was in the flesh this in the heart Answ Was that onely in the flesh was not the word of Covenant as well in their heart as Moses judging ecclesiastically avoweth of Israel Deut. 29. 10 11 c. with 30. 11 12 13 14. so Isa 51. 7. Gods covenant now is to write his Law in our hearts Heb. 8. but is not all that included in this I will bee your God whence all is closed up in that phrase ibid. or was not this first made to the Jewes after their returne from captivitie more expresly Ier. 31. as before more implicitely Gen. 17. Yea but God did not actually write such holy dispositions in them Suppose he did not that is the execution of the covenant as for the very berith or covenant it selfe it is the promise hereof dispense to them and this they had both Gen. 17. and Deut. 30. 6. To circumcise the heart to love God is to imprint gratious dispositions to promise the same to them is to covenant to imprint it and so he did covenant with them and theirs ibid. Besides is not Gods covenant now also Sacramentally on our bodies too and in many no further which are onely baptized with water but their soules filthy and chaffie Matth. 3. 11 12. which have barely the washing of the flesh not the heart Answer as some call it 1 Pet. 3. 21. 9 Object That was in their Generations Gen. 7. not so now Answ As that was to Abraham and Isaacs seed in their generations till they actually became obstinate perversely rejecting the covenant-grace and Christ so it is now Rom. 11. from 16. to 24. As In-churched Cain who was of Adams house-Church was then together with his and not till then rejected Gen. 4. 15 16. compared with Gen. 6. 1 2. where his posteritie are called daughters of men as contra-distinct from the children of God or of the Church Then also and not till then was Ishmael together with his rejected scil when hee mockt at both the head Christ and the body the Church in Isaac in whose race it was promised the covenant should bee confirmed and by them carried on see Gen. 17 18 19 20 21. compared with 21. 9 10 11 12. and Gal. 4. And then and not till then was Esau with his rejected Hebr. 12. 15 16 17. 10 Object That was a conditionall covenant this an absolute That had a commandement as the instrumentall meanes or cause of interest in the Covenant and that required onely a male of eight dayes old to interest them in the covenant of their fathers and for that end to bee circumcised c. but now not so Answ If the intent of the objectors be to exclude all conditions surely now the Gospell requireth faith and repentance and so it did then To externall interest personall faith was not required witnesse that Deut. 29. and 30. 6. But to effectuall interest it was in adultis Heb. 4. 2. But it 's false to say the commandement gave right to covenant-interest since covenant-right was first premised and declared to bee the ground of that commanded service of the initiatory seale Gen. 17. 7 8 9 10 11 c. Thou shalt therefore keepe my covenant Hee doth not say you must bee or are circumcised and
it was ratified and fulfilled but her Church seed whom the same promise also did comprehend togegether with Eve in whose hearing God uttered these things to the Serpent And hence Eve by faith did thus interpret the scope of that promise as made in refernce to her Infant Church seed as was Seth as before wee proved Gen. 4. 25 26. And the opposition sheweth what kind of seed the promise reached scil Infant as well as adult seed the Serpents seed being as well the least Snake c. as the most venemous and overgrowne and the antipathie being naturall and forcible betweene even little children and any sort of Serpents as is evident this then was held out as Gospel even in the beginning of the visible Church and world hence also in the beginning of the renewed world as I may call it after the flood the same doctrine is implicitely held forth Gen. 9. in the opposition of the servill condition of Canaan or 25 26. to the future Church estate of Japhet vers 27. the one accursed parent and child to servitude so that Chams babes as soone as borne were to bee slaves but Japhet parent and child are prophetically devoted to Church estate in Sems Tents so that inchurched Japhets babes are actually within Sems tents so soone as borne As God would accurse collective Canaan Noah prophesieth that God would inlarge or cause collective Japhet to turne into the Tents of Sem which interpreters expound of the joyning of the Gentiles unto the visible Church Now visible Church estate supposeth visible covenant estate as is evident The like opposition was allegorically made in the primitive times after Christs ascension Gal. 4. 23 24. betweene collective naturall Ishmael of the bond-woman in type and collective legall Ishmael in antitype And collective naturall Isaac in type and collective Evangelicall Isaac in antitype In the types the opposition is undeniably verified that Ishmael with his children are expunged and cast out from a civill family priviledge and portion in Abrahams house and onely Isaac and his children are to have that civill and naturall priviledge of inheritance therein The sonne of the bondwoman shall not bee heire with my son Isaac Gen. 21. 10. And in the antitype even persons formerly in Gods family the Church if rejecting Christ and the covenant in him and imbracing and adhering obstinately to any thing in a way inconsistent with him such are cast out and dischurched they and theirs as was verified in that legall Ierusalem and her children even the body of the Jewes adult and Infant Thus far à typo ad veritatem the argument is undeniable and what reason then to make the other branch of the allegory dissonant onely that there à typo ad veritatem the argument holdeth not that all inchurched persons which are gospelled hold forth the free covenant in reference to Gospel Church estate are as Isaac and his posteritie visibly priviledged and instated in the Church heritage of the Lords family the visible politicall Gospell Church As in Isaac Abrahams seed naturall is called in point of civill heritage all of them and as in the same Isaac not Ishmael Abrahams Church seed was called and so all of them called to the externall fellowship of covenant and Church and as in a restrained sense Abrahams elect seed were called not in Ishmael but Isaac Rom. 9. 7. so in the Ecclesiasticall Isaac as I may say in these dayes the Church seed are counted and not in pagans without the Church and according to ordinary dispensation and in mans count in the same line are Gods elect seed counted all the individuall children in the former that species of Church children and none other in the sense mentioned are of the latter account But to hasten to the latter branch that the same doctrine is held forth as Gospell to bee dispensed and fulfilled in the purer times of the Gospell towards the latter end of the world that Esay 56. 20. is a promise referring to the purer times of the Gospel Church and probably to the times of the comming in of the Jewes vers 17 18 19. when albeit there may bee some accursed ones yet the Churches children though Infants of dayes not allegoricall Infants in humilitie or by imitation of beleevers c. that sort of persons too dying in Infancie yet God promiseth they shall die in a holy maturitie of covenant grace and blisse as if elder by many yeeres When elder ones some die ripened for the cause of God the like singular account doth the Lord expresly make as of parents in his Church so of their off-spring vers 13. see Esay 61. 9. God promiseth not onely that the growne persons should bee had in account but their seed and off-spring not meaning it of allegoricall seed amongst the Gentiles for it 's not said they shall bee knowne to convert Gentiles c. but their seed shall bee knowne among the Gentiles yet not meaning pagan Gentiles but rather inchurched Gospelled Gentiles the Hebrew word for knowing being used to signifie speciall owning of persons either by God Jer. 24. 5. or by men Psal 142. 5. Ruth 2. 10. 19. Deut. 21. 17. and 1. 17. Prov. 24. 23. now none will say the worser part of the Gentiles would thus owne the members of the Church or their children with such choyce respect but the better part rather of the Gentiles they are then the persons acknowledging the seed not the allegoricall seed acknowledged so Ezek. 37. 20 21. 27. when all the scattered of the Tribes of Israel and Judah shall become as the two sticks joyned in one in Ecclesiasticall respects at least under the discipline of Christ God in reference to that time reâ—… the old Charter of Abrahams covenant to bee a God to thâ—… 〈◊〉 which promise hee includeth their children they being aâ—… their parents scattered among the heathen vers 21. and to bee gathered to their Land and parts of the nations and kingdomes as of old to bee then joyned yea vers 25. expresly their children and childrens children are by covenant put under Christ as their Prince with them is the covenant of peace made and that of no temporall but of an everlasting nature and all this in reference to Church estate and administration whence that branch of the old Charter now actually renewed of setting his Tabernacle and Sanctuary in the midst of them vers 26 27. and that in a very glorious and perspicuous manner as persons thereto ex confesso to the very heathen sanctified and sequestred by the Lord vers 28. the very same they which shall dwell in the Land are children with their parents their Prince will David or Christ bee with them is that everlasting covenant of peace vers 26. amongst them will Gods Sanctuary and Tabernacle by vertue of covenant be placed vers 26 27. their God will God bee and they shall bee his people or hee their covenant God and they his covenant people vers 27. and all this
any promise neither in respect of internall and saving no nor so much as in respect of externall right therein I conclude then that such children are Abrahams spirituall seed and that therefore the promises belong to them at least externally And so much for proofe of this seventh conclusion wherein I have been the longer in that it is the very hinge of the controversie It is not then the Gospell of any mortall man deriving its rise from Zwinglius or any such sinfull sonne of man albeit pretious in the sight of God and his Saints nor is it any other Gospel which may bee anathematized I should feare to bee anathematized of God if I said so It 's Gospel that beleevers are Abrahams seed Gal. 3. 6 7 8 9 c. true but that is not all and onely the Gospell this part of the Gospell their childrens covenant estate at least ecclesiastically this is Gospell too Rom. 10. 6 7 8 compared with Deut. 29. and 30. as before yea the rather is this Gospell because the other is one dependeth and followeth upon the other as hath beene shewed SECT XI 1 Object BY what hath been now said answer is ready to what I. S. objecteth That if Infants be visibly in the covenant of grace then at one and the same time one may be visibly under grace and yet as Ephes 2. under wrath by nature and so by nature bee under two contrary covenants of workes and of grace Mr. B. also hath a like objection I answer they are not under two such contrary estates by nature taken in the same sense but by nature taken in a diverse sense they may take nature for corrupt sinfull nature and so Paul a Jew and all other Jewes or Gentiles Wee saith Paul are by nature children of wrath But take nature for a birth estate of covenant-Ancestors and so Paul and others of Abraham Isaac and Jacob were not sinners or strangers from the covenant of grace as were those of the Gentiles but they were Jewes by nature inchurched persons And in their confessing parents confessors and professors as the word Jew is used Rom. 2. 9. 28. and Est 8. 17. Rev. 3. 7. they became Jewes that is joyned in a Church estate c. sinners they were in that sense they had by sinfull nature sinne in them but sinners in opposition to a Jew or Church and covenant estate at least externally they were not not Jewes barely scil persons of that nation without further Ecclesiasticall respect to the administration of the covenant for then the notion of sinners of the Gentiles had been unsuitably added It had sufficed to have said wee that are Jewes by nature and not Gentiles but Jewes by nature rather as above the elect seed of Abraham of which yet many died in infancy they were the choyce children of that promise Gen. 17. 7. with Rom. 9. 7 8 9. yet they were also by nature children of wrath Isaac was visibly the child of the promise in Infancy borne by promise interested in the promise expresly made with reference to him as soone as borne actually as before intentionally yet also by nature as a sonne of Adam a child of wrath but as a sonne of covenant Abraham a child of promise The like may be said of David in the former sense conceived in sinne Psal 51. in the latter a child of promise So of the other Infants of their loynes whence injoyned whilst Infants to bee sealed with the seale of Abrahams covenant Yea some of our opposites grant yea urge it as a reason against the exposition of 1 Cor. 7. 14. which some give thereof that children of parents whereof one was not matrimonially sanctified to the other but came together unchastly as Pharez and Zara of Judah and Thamar Jephtah of Gilead and many others were within the covenant of saving grace and Church priviledges Now the author intended not this thus that they came into the covenant of grace when they were growne and came actually to beleeve for then there were no colour of argument against Paedobaptists reasoning from 1 Cor. 7. touching such Infants covenant estate and that annexed that they were in the covenant of saving grace and Church priviledges sheweth that to bee his meaning since all confesse that the Jewes children did whilst Infants partake of the initiatory Church seale of circumcision which the author elsewhere counteth their priviledge saying that they had that priviledge to bee reckones in the outward administrations as branches of the Olive by their birth by vertue of God his appointment c. albeit the author I suppose forgate himselfe speaking of branches by nature saith that it seemeth to him to import not that the Jewes were in the covenant of grace by nature but that they had this priviledge to bee reckoned in the outward administration as branches of the Olive by their birth c. when yet even those illegitimately born of Jewes mentioned are confessed to bee in the covenant of saving grace as well as Church priviledges which as was said must bee spoken of them as Infants borne of such parents or else it is not any argument against them which plead for birth federall holinesse from 1 Cor. 7. 14. So then here are persons by nature children of wrath but by priviledged nature and birth in the covenant of saving grace 2 Object If Infants saith I. S. be in the covenant of grace and borne so then such Infants were borne in the covenant and never out And besides Gods covenant of saving grace being absolute and undertaking to give saving grace to such as are in covenant with him all such must bee saved unlesse God faile of his truth Answ 1. That covenant of grace as I. S. acknowledgeth it to bee mentioned Deut. 29. it was made with little ones then unborne intentionally vers 14 15. as well as with those then present actually So that when they were borne they were born in that covenant and never out as much may bee said of the Infant elect seed or children of the promise dying Infants they were borne so and never out of that estate after they were actually existent yea the rest were all girded in the covenant Jer. 13. 2. Gods covenant did not barely offer or promise to covenant but made a covenant a covenant and an oath with them that day Deut. 29. 12 13 14 15. and amongst other promises ingaged himselfe to circumcise their heart Chap. 36. 6. yet were not all in heart circumcised and yet the promise of God failed not being in the generall propounded to them conditionally and not as it is said here absolutely at least as it had reference to them all in common The word of promise tooke not effect in as many of the Jewes to whom the covenant promises externally belonged yet it followed not that therefore it took no effect at all and that God was unfaithfull for it tooke effect in others Rom. 3. 3. and 9. 6 7 8. so here 3.
into such an estate Gal. 3. 27 28 29 were none but true beleevers and elect ones in that Church baptized for all that were baptized are said to bee one in Christ as having put on Christ and if Christ then Abrahams seed either then there were none but elect ones true beleevers in those Churches which were absurd and crosse to the Scriptures before named or if there were any hypocrites or reprobates in that Church they were left unbaptized which were as absurd to avow it for how knew they so exactly to distinguish of such divine secrets in so infallible a way were they Gods to know the secret guile of hearts Now if not unbaptized then they also in baptisme putting on Christ and putting on Christ being one with Christ and so Christs and being Christs were Abrahams seed now A. R. must conte with us to say that when 't is said that all baptized persons put on Christ Gal. 3. 27. it was verified in generall of them all Sacramentally and Ecclesiastically and so when said to bee all one in Christ and to bee Christs and Abrahams seed and all children of the promise and of Jerusalem which is above c. hee must distinguish of persons being such in foro dei and of persons which are such in foro facie ecclesiae visibilis In the former sense onely the elect amongst them were such in the latter sense all in common sound and unsound members of the Church they were such and that the Apostle speakes such things of them in common not by a meere infallible Apostolicall dictate and sentence as concluding them to bee all such savingly but ministerially to hold forth what such as members of Christ as head of the visible Church were Ecclesiastically Object But will it not bee said that whereas Gen. 17. 7. maketh but two subjects of the covenant God made scil Abraham and his seed which Paul expounds to bee beleevers wee by our doctrine doe make three subjects and parties Abraham and beleevers and the Infant seed of both Answ To which I answer that wee doe not make three such distinct subjects now any more then of old there was made before Christ was incarnated then Abraham and his beleevers growne children and the Infant seed of both made but Abraham and his seed and so is it with us Secondly that the covenant being made with Abraham and his seed Abraham sustaining the person of all beleevers Jewes and Gentiles which in a sense also were his seed in that covenant hence therefore the covenant still is onely between Abraham and his seed CHAP. IIII. Sect. I. Touching the Explication of Luke 18. 15 16 17. ANother Scripture holding forth the Federall and Ecclesiasticall right and holinesse of inchurched visible beleevers little ones is Luke 18. 15 16 17. where the Lord affirmeth of the children offered to him by those pious minded parents that of such is the kingdome of God as Matthew hath it Chap. 19. of such is the kingdome of heaven which is here taken for the visible Church so Matth. 8. 11. 12. and 13. 24. and it seemeth evident from Luke 18. that hee mentioneth the kingdome of God three wayes First a kingdome of which such Infants and such like persons are namely as subjects Secondly a kingdome which such actuall subjects of that kingdome doe receive Thirdly a kingdome unto which in an ordinary way and meanes they come to enter The first is meant of the visible not of the invisible Church and of them as members of the former and not so properly of the latter touching which let it bee remembred that this was not a bare temporary and present charge in reference barely to those very children and onely to that very present approach to Christ but did respect after approches of such like persons unto Christ hee saith not suffer these little children to come at this time to mee for of these is the Kingdome of God but indefinitely rather suffer little ones scil of this sort such as these are to come to mee nor would A. R. and others which apply it to such like persons for humilitie c. restraine it to the occasionall act at that time but inlarge it in reference to any such persons at any time in a like case that they should not bee hindred from Christ Now as for the members of the invisible Church as such they are invisible and fall not under the proper cognizance of the sons of men to know which or where they are and to suppose an injunction of not hindring their approach to Christ unlesse they came under a visible respect of members of the visible Church that they might bee discerned and it might bee knowne how and when and in whom this rule of suffering such to come to Christ were kept or broken it were very incongruous and it 's a very improbable conjecture that Christ spake thus of these very Infants by an act of divine knowledge of them to bee the elect of God as if a company of children should bee by an unwonted providence singled out to bee brought to him which were every one of them elected to eternall life and not any of them in a contrary estate And by the latitude of the extent of Christs speech as before wee shewed in reference to after and other times and examples of like nature as to the present case it appeares hee neither spake thus as God or as a meere extraordinary inspired Prophet but delivered as in ordinary administration of the mind of God as at other times an ordinary rule of ordinary practise and use afterwards in reference not barely to those very little ones then brought but to others like them wherefore such evasions of C. B. in his fourth answer to this place are frivolous And why should there bee such startling at this place as if it were uncouth doctrine that children of inchurched members should be counted subjects of Gods kingdom or members of his visible Church the Jews children as well as parents which were cast out together Matth. 8. 11 12. were surely in that kingdome together out of which they came to bee cast afterwards the uncircumcised man child was of the people or Church of God in visible account else not cut off from his people in that case of neglect Gen. 17. 14. and in the purer dayes of the Gospell yet expected the children are put under David or Christ their Prince as King and head and Lord of his visible Church as well as the parents as before wee shewed from Ezek. 37. 25 26 27. and God accounted them even in very corrupt time children of his covenant spouse or visible Church Thy children which thou barest to mee Ezekiel 16. 8. 20 21. 23. witnesse the setting to of the initiatory Church seale of circumcision to those children of Abraham Isaac and Jacobs loynes and no wonder in that they were all interested in the covenant of grace as invested with Church-covenant which is even the very
was ground why Christ might command those little ones brought to him to bee baptized yea it was his mind and according to his will they should bee baptized albeit it bee not mentioned that they were baptized who could forbid water that they should bee baptized which received the holy Ghost which were Disciples Christs extraordinary knowledge of it himselfe and revelation thereof to his Apostles then present which used to baptize others John 4. 1. 2. it 's granted was sufficient warrant albeit there had been no rule for it when yet in this case the rule of baptizing Disciples John 4. 1. also might suffice Let it then bee no more said that if it had been Christs mind that Infants should bee baptized hee would have commanded those Luke 18. to bee baptized since according to the acknowledged principles those little ones either were or might groundedly have been baptized But wee will suppose Christ did not then expresly injoyne those little ones baptisme or that they were not then baptized yet will it not follow that it was not his mind such babes to whom hee expressed such love should not bee baptized or were not baptized hee that had his time of blessing them was free to take his time of injoyning their baptisme Yea hee gave not any expresse charge touching any care to bee had of them by those which brought them nor touching their being further instructed in the way of God and many other things of that nature And yet none will thence reason that Ergo it was not his minde that any speciall care or religious indeavour touching their further good should bee used No more doth the former follow that it was not his mind that either those or any other such like persons should bee baptized because hee did not then expresse his mind that way touching those little ones There might bee diverse other reasons why Christ might not then injoyne the same possibly their parents themselves albeit circumcised yet not baptized or if baptized their children also might be baptized when they were And his reasons to prove that by kingdome of heaven is rather meant that of glory then of grace are as weake still First Because they understand not the Lawes of the kingdome of grace Secondly because this kingdome is a locall kingdome as appeareth by the word entring in But doth C. B. which saith these Infants did receive the kingdome of God by gift thinke that they received not the kingdome of grace at present before their entrance into glory they were not yet entred heaven but on earth then and long after it may bee yet hee saith those little ones received it of gift in what way or by what meanes could they receive it without any covenant right surely no For there is no inheritance of glory other then that promised inheritance hence the promise put for glory promised Heb. 10. 36. nor eternall life but such as is promised Tit. 1. 1 2 3. yea could they receive it without the Spirit which yet they must also partake of by promise or no way none are made partakers of the Divine nature in any respect but by the promises 2 Pet. 1. 4. now if thus really and effectually interested in the covenant of grace and partakers of the spirit then the kingdome of grace too was theirs albeit they understood not the Lawes of it Yea doth Mr. B. thinke that the kingdome of glory belongs to any to whom that of grace belongeth not must not that bee first ours before the other yea doth not the phrase of receiving the kingdome note out that the kingdome of glory is received in and by the receiving of that of grace or of the word of the kingdome the promise and covenant c. else is it not improper to say that those Infants before they entred into Gods kingdome of glory they did receive it It 's a Locall kingdome as Mr. B. hath it and is it proper to say that a man receiveth a place before hee come at it otherwise then by word of mouth or writing or some equivalent ingagement I conclude then that the kingdome that they received was rather that of grace even the covenant of grace if not also grace of the covenant wherein was plighted and ingaged some right to that of glory or that it was the kingdome of glory in reference to such plighting and pledge of it Nor doth Mr. B. his other reason conclude against what I have said they were at least externally of Gods kingdome in that first sense scil considered as his kingdome dispensing scil his Church Secondly they received his kingdome in a second sense scil considered as dispensed in the revealed way of Gods plighting of it by word and initiatory seale at last of Circumcision if not of Baptisme and how ever in the externall right to both they are such which according to men at least should enter into glory in respect of actuall fruition of it which is the kingdome in a third sense scil the kingdome to bee possessed and to which a entring in in the Text hath indeed reference but else Mr. Blackwoods reason would not inforce it that because of that locall expression of entring in the kingdome must ergo bee a locall kingdome or heaven it selfe there are locall expressions very full Matth. 8. 11 12. sitting down of some in the kingdome of heaven out of which others are cast yet will not Mr. B. conclude that even the Jewes were in heaven and so cast out thence if they had not been first in they had not been thence cast in and out are here relatives It was some other kingdome scil that of grace in the externall subject of it the visible Church and ingagement of it the covenant of grace and dispensation of it the administration of Church ordinances c. in which they were by externall adoption and incision and out of all actuall priviledges whereof they were afterward cast As for that which others object against us in this point of childrens federall and ecclesiasticall estate from hence scil that Christ saith not of these but of such and such like scil as A. R. hath it such like in humilitie c. is the kingdome of God c. this is as groundlesse an interpretation as some others mentioned For first it 's evident that Christ maketh these little ones patterns to others like them in that interest in Gods kingdome of such or such like is Gods kingdome now samples must have that verified in themselves in some sense in which they are examples to others secondly they are inclusively made examples of such an initiatory receiving of the kingdome of heaven as tendeth to a more full fruition and injoyment thereof Luke 18. 17. Mark 10. 15. and and therefore at least externally such and so qualified themselves now will their paralelling this with Matth. 18. 3 4 5 6. hold good therein to say nothing that that Matth. 18. 6. may bee read from the Greek these little
Nay they are not onely opposed but the Gentile body is received in instead of the Jew-body broken off vers 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in ramorum defractorum locum Beza on Rom. 11. 17. and vers 19. They were broken off saith the collective Gentile that I might bee graffed in The Apostle yeelds this as truth well 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if hee would say it is true now growne ones among the Jewes were broken off who came in their stead growne Gentiles True but Jewish babes and little ones too amongst other branches and sprigs are broken off that Gentiles might come into covenant and Church estate in their stead What Gentiles growne ones nay roome is made for them in the breach of the growne Jewes Verily then such a like species of Gentiles unto those rejected Jewish sprigs scil Gentile babes and little ones must necessarily bee thus inserted and admitted into that covenant and Church estate out of which the other were broken So then as Jewes were so Gentiles are considered in this Chapters discourse touching communion in federall and Church ordinances and priviledges under the notion of Olive fatnesse c. not in a bare personall way but in reference to people of both kindes and persons of all sorts and species younger or elder which is a strong argument that God never intended to limit the benefit of his covenant grace to growne ones or parents personally but rather extends it to them in a parentall way at least Hence when that commission Matth. 28. 19. was given for this end it is in the old terme and notion of nation a large word and subject God delights to inlarge his grace in these times and his very intent in Matth. 28. is inlargement of Gospel mercies The more crosse are their minds to Gods thoughts who from that very place would conclude a straightning such a Gospell mercy as this mentioned was and is both to parents and children and for which they have nothing equivalent in stead thereof The Apostle it 's confessed bringeth in Rom. 11. 16 17. as an argument to prove the receiving in againe of the Jewes scil unto actuall fruition of all covenant and Church priviledges vers 15. For if the roote bee holy so are the branches vers 16. and so vers 28 29. To the same purpose now if the covenant with godly ancestors bee so forcible to fetch in such Apostates after so grosse and long a time of their desperate revolts from and contempts of covenant grace in Christ is it not much more of force to the receiving in of the babes of next beleeving parents unto the visible fellowship of covenant grace God forbid that any should obstinately gainesay it SECT II. BY roote I. S. saith in that Rom. 11. 16. is meant Christ personall and yet the same author elsewhere would have it meant mystically considered and elsewhere of union and communion with God in ordinances and elsewhere of Abraham in his faith and elsewhere of beleeving parents in part for hee saith not onely beleeving parents are the roote c. not onely in part then such parents are the root But indeed this author refuteth himselfe in that hee knoweth not where to fix Abraham in his faith as latherly and eying the covenant in this latitude as to him and his seed of Isaac by propagation and to the beleeving Gentiles with their seed by proportion thus hee might bee a root in his faith but if Abrahams faith bee considered in a meere personall respect so neither Jewes nor Gentiles are properly said to bee inserted into that but rather into his faith with its object the covenant It is improper to say of the Gentile that they stood in it scil in the root of faith by faith or that the Jew was broken off from Abrahams personall faith by unbeliefe Abrahams faith was a saving faith if this therefore had been in them all or they in it they had not fallen as many Jewes and Gentiles priviledged by externall covenant right did and might or supposing the root to bee meant not of Abraham Isaac and Jacob but of Christ as Mr. B. also affirmeth who is elsewhere called a root Apoc. 22. 16. and 5. 5 c. if they had been in him by any proper and invisible union neither those of the Jewes had been nor so many of Gentiles could have been broken off as they were whole Churches of these are witnes this Church of Rome to which the Apostle wrote this But otherwise if understood of impropper and visible union with Christ scil a visible union with Christ mysticall thus indeed many such may fall away finally as did these Hence that John 15. 2. now in this sense parents and children Inchurched whether Jewes or Gentiles by being in the holy root of those covenant fathers they are visibly in that holy root Christ or Christ mysticall as was shewed I. S. will and doth confesse the first fruits of whom yet the same holy effect is affirmed Rom. 11. 16. to be these fathers and why not then as wel the same fathers to bee the root since the context cleareth it that the Apostle intendeth the same of the selfesame persons under divers Metaphors Either then Christ is the first fruites as well as roote intended or those fathers are the first fruites as well as the root mentioned Verily covenanting Abraham in reference to his seed is called a rock whence that Church as a Church was hewen for in that sense the Prophet speakes to them Esay 51. 1 2. yet is Christ the rock of the Church too in another sense and why is not Abraham then a covenant root to such Church branches as that from whence they in that sense doe spring And what I say of Abraham is as well to bee referred to Isaac and Jacob in the same respect as being other veines making up this one root the Instrumentall meanes and cause of the mercy offered and exhibited both to Jewes and Gentiles in regard that to them all this large covenant was made over in a radicall way see Gen. 17. 2. 7. and 22. 18. compared with Gen. 26. 3 4 5. and 28. 13 14. whence such frequent mention in Scripture of Abraham Isaac and Jacob in reference to covenant blessings yea their names are pleaded in prayer for that end Exod. 32. 13. Deut. 9. 27. see more 2 King 13. 23. and Mich. 7. 20. c. This was not in respect of any personall holinesse of theirs or barely in respect of their personall faith but it was by reason of that large covenant made with them in this reference as the places quoted shew see further for this end Luke 1. 71 72. Rom. 15. 8. Deut. 4. 37. and 10. 15. with other like Scriptures Hence too they are made here a radicall meanes of the Jewes receiving in againe Rom. 11. 15. grounded on this reason vers 16. compared with vers 28. Whence also the Jewes which are called holy branches by vertue of their
Apostles time but some of the branches were broken off vers 17. And blindnesse did happen to collective Israel but not wholly but in part vers 25. In both which that which is proper to the parts is applyed to the whole of which they are parts by a synecdoche To come then to argument it is true that the Jewes collectively taken for the whole nation containing the choicer part intended they are federally holy scil in respect of that choyce part and yet it followes not that the Jewes distributively taken for those Jewes living at this day supposed to bee a refuse part of that whole should bee properly said to bee federally holy and so neither to have right to Church priviledges so that the instance crosseth not us who speake of persons federally holy as well distributively and not meerely collectively considered There is therefore a fallacy a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter Rep. Suppose we take this of the whole in respect of the choycer part of the Jewish nation this choyce part then at least is federally holy yet they have not right to Church priviledges as being not yet ingraffed into the olive nor possibly in actuall being in the world Therefore persons may bee federally holy which yet have not right to Church priviledges Answ Wee againe distinguish persons may bee said to be federally holy either seminally preparatively or actually in the former sense persons not yet existing may bee said to bee in covenant with God or such as God makes a covenant with and consequently to bee federally holy Deut. 29. 14 15. neither with you onely doe I make this covenant but with him that standeth here with us before the Lord our God and also with him that is not with us this day Marke it God saith not I will make this covenant in the future but in the present tense I doe make this covenant with him that is not here this day that is with persons unborne these being expresly taken into covenant with God and their covenant right laid up and included therein in such sort as that which in its season should actually bee exerted these persons albeit unborne and not actually existing yet in this seminall and preparatory respect of the covenant they have thus far a covenant right and so farre also a Church right together with it so here in these unborne Jewes as they are federally holy in that seminall respect Hence the Olive or Church here is called their owne Olive Rom. 11. 24. How is the Church now their owne but in respect of this seminall Church right Federall holinesse actually taken is that which is actually subjected and exerted in a person existing whether parent or child in which sense God made his covenant with those Jewes and with their children that were before him that day Deut. 29. 14 15. And in this sense the Apostle speaking of the federall holinesse especially of children actually borne of covenant in-churched parents saith they are holy scil actually 1 Cor. 7. 14. Now therefore to apply the Argument it is defective in the consequence of it thus Persons not in being which are federally holy onely seminally and intentionally they have not actuall Church right nor can actually bee baptized therefore persons existing and living which are federally holy actually they may not bee baptized this followeth not one may as well reason thus Those with whom God made a covenant Deut. 29. 14 15. who were not borne not there that day had not actuall right to circumcision could not be uncircumcised Therefore those children which were there that day with whom also God made his covenant Ibid. they had not actuall right to circumcision might not could not bee circumcised this every rationall man will say is a non sequitur Object 2. This Rom. 11. 16. is spoken of the naturall branches which have an hereditary covenant right as naturall branches of that roote Abraham Isaac and Jacob. And therefore not pertinent to the Gentiles and their children which are not branches of that root Answ Albeit the beleeving Gentiles and their children are not of that root by nature and propagation yet they are in that root by grace and by proportion The Jew-branches were broken off that the Christian collective Gentile might by grace be graffed in scil in their stead Rom. 11. 19. Looke then what covenant and Church right the Jewish parents had for their children in an hereditary way the same hath the inchurched Gentile for his children through grace Repl. This were to make way for all children of Christian Gentile nations to have right to Church priviledges Answ It sufficeth that thus farre it holds that as all and onely Church-members children were ecclesiastically priviledged among the Jewes so all and onely Church-members children are ecclesiastically priviledged among the Gentiles Object 3. The Gentiles are said to bee ingraffed not by a naturall way as being of such parents but by a way contrary to nature and therefore what is this to the federall estate of Gentile Infants as comming of beleeving parents and so in a way of nature Answ It is most true if applied to the first parties amongst any Gentile people which in the Apostles time or since enter into Church estate living formerly in a Pagan estate and not having any of their ancestors other then Pagans or such as were cut out of the wilde Olive tree scil Ancestors pagan or outlawry from all covenant and Church estate Rom. 11. 24. Ephes 2. 12. But if it bee applyed to other which come of such persons so transplanted from that wilde Olive to this good Olive estate as branches or sprigs of such Olive boughs or gratious ancestors then is it not fully verified that these are onely in a way contrary to nature partakers of the fatnesse of the Olive As they are considered together with their gratious ancestors as all of them of other pagan ancestors so they are all ingraffed in a way contrary to nature even meerely by divine Grace but as they and their gratious fathers are considered apart their fathers as nextly descended of pagan ancestors these their children as nextly springing from fathers visibly beleeving and inchurched so their covenant and Church estate comes to them principally by a way of divine grace and instrumentall by birth descent from inchurched ancestors and in this latter respect therefore such children may bee said to bee inserted by a way of nature for looke as the Israelites of old before their cutting off were and others of them hereafter will bee by virtue of their holy root or covenant fathers holy branches as naturall branches scil branches springing naturally from them or borne of them Rom. 11. 16. 24. compared or as those Israelites were not sinners or outlawries from covenant or Church as were those of the Pagan Gentiles but Jewes or ecclesiastically priviledged even by nature or naturall descent of such ancestors inchurched Gal. 2. 15. so must the proportion hold in the
goe so farre in this case To the saving interest and efficacy of Baptisme it is required that one savingly belong to Christ and bee a Disciple savingly in that sense but to the externall and Church interest in the use of the seale it 's not of necessitie for then none ought to bee baptized but such as are in a saving estate which to us is a secret and so no ordinary proceeding in mans Court yea the very place speakes of the case as one that giveth drinke to another because to him and in his judgement hee is a Disciple for infallibly hee doth not know him but taketh him rather to bee such a one and therefore refresheth him The major therefore of the Syllogisme is in substance the very Text the minor is evident such as externally belong to the Church of which Christ is the the head they doe externally belong to Christ c. hence to bee in his Church by externall profession and to bee in him are put for one John 15. 2 now that such Infants belong to that Church wee formerly proved in proving both that they belonged to Christs visible Church and kingdome and that he was head thereof also Mr. B. frameth two answers to a like objection hence his first wee have already disproved scil that Infants also belong to Christ in respect of visible and Church constitution which hee denyeth His second is as impertinent hee saith Christ speakes in Matthew and Marke of Adult persons true I never intended to urge it otherwise but my argument runs that the signification and reason of the name of Disciple there given though to growne persons yet since what is there in that Scripture applied to such is also appliable to such Infants also therefore they are Scripture Disciples So Acts 11. 26. the name Disciples and Christians are made Synomyna in way of distinction from Pagans not of the Church alike to what is here intended for distinction sake from the rest of the Pagan world amongst which since the breaking down of the partition wall I hope Anabaptists will advise better how they place beleeving Gentiles Babes unlesse they will leave a piece of the old wall standing Discipled persons in the Text as in reference to baptizing implyeth persons externally in the Covenant of grace unlesse our opposites thinke other then such should bee baptized Also persons in the visible Church are baptized unlesse they thinke persons out of any visible Church fellowship may bee in ordinary dispensation baptized for which extraordinary calls and cases our times meddle not nor have not as of old there were some which yet impeach not our rule of the Church seales given to the Church for her use and by her preaching Elders to bee dispensed he then is discipled for Baptisme which is inchurched which is in the Schoole of Christ and in peculiar fellowship with the other Schollers there and in speciall relation to Christ the Teacher of his Church yea such as to whom in some sense hee preacheth Gospell as to those Babes in Luke and howsoever hee teacheth the lowest formes as I may call them that sort of persons in his Church that is some such he so promiseth to teach them inwardly that hee doth so appeare in saved Church children yea so hee may teach Indian Papouses now too I answer if wee speake of his absolute power hee can doe more then he ever will as to make many other worlds c. but to speake of his ordinate and regulate power so hee can doe but what hee willeth to doe what his secret will is not for us Deut. 29. but according to his revealed will wee may say that those children being estranged actually from the Covenant and Church they are actually without God and Christ and hope but beleevers Infants externall estate is ecclesiastically of another nature So much for clearing Matth. 28. and confirmation of Paedobaptisme thence SECT V. A Second Argument is this All those which are the Church seed of Abraham they are to bee baptized Infants of inchurched beleevers are the Church seed of Abraham ergo are to bee baptized The major is not denied I thinke by our opposites but if it bee Gal. 3. 16 17. 27 28 29. proveth that all such were baptized in Apostolicall Churches and therefore are to bee in ours The minor hath beene formerly proved in the conclusions touching federall interest and is evident by the Apostles argument if Christs then Abrahams seed Whence I argue All such as are Christs or belong to Christ they are Abrahams seed Such Infants belong to Christ ergo they are Abrahams seed The Major is true both waies such as savingly and efficaciously belong to Christ they are so farre also Abrahams elect seed such as ecclesiastically are Christs in which sense the Apostle here speakes of it as hath been proved they are so farre also Abrahams Church seed The Minor is true of the species of such Infants if taken in an efficacious way of saving interest that sort of persons as well as the other of adult persons are such else none of them could ever bee saved unlesse some are saved which neither belong to Christ nor are elect either of which would bee absurd to affirme but that is a secret wee are to looke to visibilitie thereof as the rule of dispensation of Church ordinances If therefore taken in an ecclesiasticall sense as here it is as was proved so all such Infants doe belong to Christ as hath beene proved and consequently are ecclesiastically Abrahams Church seed SECT VI. A Third argument is taken from Acts 2. 38 39. thus Those to whom appertaineth any principall ground upon which any of the Apostles have moved and encouraged growne ones to bee baptized they are according to Apostolicall encouragement virtually given to bee baptized But to the Infants mentioned doth appertaine the forenamed ground therefore there is virtually an Apostolicall encouragement for them also to bee baptized The Major is undeniable unlesse any suppose that any of the Apostles as Apostles as here Peter is considered should give an insufficient ground to any thing unto which they encouraged others For to give a chiefe ground of encouraging and putting any upon this or that which will not universally hold where the same ground was to bee found it is to give an insufficient ground If a Pastor ministerially urge a member thus Brother looke you watch over your brethren c. for you are a brother if this bee not cogent with any other brother as a brother unto the like watch it is an insufficient principle and groundworke so here in the case mentioned none will doubt but it was a sufficient groundworke to enforce the former as a dutie scil their repentance to whom hee spake and why not of the like force in the other yea and so you will say it is where both are joyned Nay verily it must bee of force if sufficient to enforce either apart if both bee distinct duties as reason will evince
of a true visible Church which are according to Mr. B's profession and the initiatory seale of the covenant then circumcision now baptisme and so Mr. B. his ninth argument is answered his second third fourth sixth and eight argument hath been elsewhere answered his seventh argument from a mistaken exposition of Acts 19 is elsewhere answered in what is briefly spoken to that place his tenth argument from the taking up of Paedobaptisme from corrupt principles is abundantly answered in the whole discourse wherein better principles are held forth and if any hold it out upon weake and unwarrantable grounds it weakens not a good cause in it selfe that it is ill handled His last argument from universall practise to the contrary is elsewhere answered and amongst others the practise in baptizing Lydia's house is one exception nor doth that which Mr. B. would pretend as an argument to the contrary evince what hee would have they are not said to bee the brethren of the house which Paul there comforted Acts 16. ult doth Mr. B. which would make all the jaylors houshold to bee actually beleevers thinke that they attended not Paul and Silas from prison for hee was now to depart the citie and hasted out of the jaylors house by the comming of the Magistrates thither for that end vers 39. so that there was no opportunitie before to utter what they had to say at parting but another house as that of Lydia in their way out of the citie is a fitter place for that purpose there therefore they make a little pause for that end after which they departed SECT XIIII ANd to adde here to consideration of 1 Cor. 10. 1 2. which to mee hath been long of validitie to prove this practise of Paedobaptisme as then in use nor can I yet bee removed from those thoughts the Apostles scope there was to take downe their pride in priviledges and resting secure in ordinances c. by shewing them the hazard to which they lay open notwithstanding if they provoked God by an argument from a like example of Church members interested not meerely in ordinary but extraordinary priviledges yet by reason of such provocation comming to a sad end and thus lyeth the Apostles argument Where there are like priviledges of grace there if abused will bee like punishments inflicted but with you and with them of old are like priviledges of grace ergo if alike abused there will follow like punishments And because they might glory in those peculiar Church ordinances of the seales which yet they were so apt to abuse hee singles out parallels to them and therein doth not take instance from the ordinary Sacraments of the Jewes but from two extraordinary ones wherein if in any thing they might seeme to bee priviledged above others Now if there were no parallel in that materiall businesse of the childrens baptisme in Corinth Church a great part of the Apostles scope of urging them from a ground of paritie of priviledges failed nay this had been a good argument to have taken downe their pride another way scil that the members of that Church had their children with them in a glorious manner baptized in the cloud and sea yet God dealt so with them in his judgements and you Corinthians that have nothing any way parallel to such a baptisme of your children doe you thinke to escape Object 1. But you will say there is no proportion betwixt them in that this was no Sacrament at all but an extraordinary providence Answ An ordinary Sacrament it was not but a Sacrament it was though extraordinary SECT XV. FIrst in that the other of the Manna and rock was not else spirituall meat and drinke and Christ to many of them really it was then Sacramentally so or no way to them Secondly why else doth the Apostle single out but these two to the one giving the name of baptisme to the other of spirituall meat and drinke and Christ agreeable to that mentioned in the end of this argument vers 16 17. Thirdly why else doth hee having mentioned their being under the cloud vers 1. come over it againe vers 2. and adde the name of baptisme to it It were a tautology if intending it of a bare providence Fourthly else the Apostle had much failed in his scope of deterring the members of this Church considered as such from Church sinnes and wantonnesse under and against Church priviledges Fiftly else why is not the same ascribed to all the rest to the mixt multitude which were with them yea to the very beasts for all shared in this as a providence all passed thorough the Sea with them c. yet none but the Church have this ascribed to them All our fathers were under the cloud and baptized c. the Church fathers to Paul and Gentile Church members as such were those Jew Church members whether parents or children the very babes as then yet in respect of after ages of the Church to whom afterwards they were Instruments to convey Church truths and blessings they were fathers Paul spake this to the brethren of the Church yet not excluding the sisters but including them in his admonition and argument but it 's usuall that Church admonitions and Epistles doe runne in the name of the brethren as being principall actors in all Church matters and hence also albeit the females of the Jew Church as such bee by proportion included in this matter of Church priviledge yet hee nameth onely the males but onely members of the Church did share in it in that respect Sixtly hence also the phrase baptized into Moses not personally but ministerially considered in his doctrine hee gave them from God both a precept for it and a promise encouraging to it or into Moses typically considered as a type of Christ Act. 3. 22. Object 2. Was not this onely a type of saving preservation from sinne c. Answ All the Corinthians had no antitype thereof in their baptisme really no more then many of them and in a Sacramentall way that baptisme to them was as that to the Corinthians a visible seale of salvation Object 3. Doth hee not speake of a samenesse therein betwixt the Jewes themselves and not in reference to the members of the Church of Corinth Answ The scope of the Apostle being what was mentioned will not beare other sense then of comparing them with the Jewes in like priviledge for substance to deterre them from like sinnes lest they incurre like punishments Object 4. By this argument wee set up nationall Churches now Answ No more followeth hence ex natura rei but as onely Church members according to their severall capacities were so priviledged and not others so onely Church members now are to partake of Church Ordinances wee are to consider it herein quà Church which is continuing and not quà nationall Church wherein was some circumstantiall peculiaritie which vanished Object 5. You may then pleade for Infants comming to the Lords Supper since all our Fathers did
all without regard to their parents Church or covenant estate yet was it an old errour albeit not so old so farre as I can finde But if it should bee taken in reference to children visibly in the covenant I wonder if hee should speake any such thing in that sense having so solemnely subscribed to the contrary in that famous meeting at Wittenberg formerly mentioned SECT III. CAlvin that grand opposer and stigmatizer of Anabaptists is quoted to confirme Proposition 6. and 8th lib. 4. Instit cap. 16. Hee confesseth that it is no where expresly mentioned by the Evangelists that any ones child was by the Apostles hands baptized Now Calvin having said Sect. 8. that there is none which seeth not that Paedobaptisme is not of humane devising which is established by such Scripture approbation brings it in by way of objection that it will bee said it 's no where expresly mentioned where the Apostles baptized children which giving albeit not granting hee saith Bee it so c. yet because neither were they excluded as oft as mention is made of baptized families who unlesse hee bee mad will thence reason that they were not baptized they may as well reason on that ground that women were forbid to receive the Supper when notwithstanding in the Apostles time they were thereunto admitted Yet our Authors are so madde to bring this very place to prove their 6th Proposit that the Apostles never baptized any Infants And upon Matthew Calvin is said to say Christ hath no where commanded to baptize Infants But on what place in Matthew Calvin saith so is not said but this I can say that in the most likely places where that Argument of baptisme is handled Calvin no where speaketh in these words here expressed as farre as I can finde Dathenus in his Colloquie is the next witnesse confessing It 's no where plainely in such words written that Christian children shall in the New Testament bee baptized and yet wee have no expresse commandement of it scil as before in so many words You shall baptize children and that there is no evident or expresse example scil in so many words recorded that the Apostles baptized such or such children and what then therefore Christ never instituted the Apostles never practised Paedobaptism according to the 6th Proposition Non sequitur Here then are three more witnesses abused CHAP. VIII SECT I. ORigen calleth childrens baptisme a ceremony and tradition of the Church Hom. 8. in Levit. and in Rom. 6. lib. 5. What doth Origen say so in both places that is false In the former hee saith baptisme is given to Infants according to the first observation of the Church But if any boggle at that in the other place quoted hee telleth you the groundworke of that observation of the Church For this also the Church hath received a tradition from the Apostles to give baptisme even to Infants If it were an Apostolicall tradition then not a bare Church tradition if the Church received it from the Apostles then was not the Church the Author of it but the Apostles rather Yea but others perceiving the force of the Testimony of so early an author in the matter of the practise of Paedobaptisme casheere it as a spurious testimony of some other rather then of Origen Some stumble at the word Tradition when yet it 's no other then what Basil speaking as before quoted of the forme of Baptisme calleth it a tradition and in his 73. Epistle speaking of the Spirit the comforter as placed in equality with the Father and Sonne to bee a thing which they had received as delivered to them So Justin Martyr another author formerly cited maketh the forme of that manner of worship mentioned in his second Apology to bee that which they had received from the Apostles So Gregory Nazianzen another quoted Author here in his first oration against Julian the Apostate hee inveigheth against that abusive imitation of the Church traditions the manner of administration of the ordinances for Pagan uses Clemens Alexandrinus a speciall Author quoted by Mr. B. yet hee counteth it a metamorphosing of a Christian to kick against the tradition of the Church and warpe to opinions of humane heresies lib. 7. Stromaton Hee meanes not bare Popish superstitious Church customes but such as are opposite to meere humane conceits and devices yet calleth them Church traditions Yea but those corrupt exploded Canons are yet called the Apostles Canons They are so by Papists not so by Protestants Such all those orthodox Divines may explode them yet maintaine this as an Apostolicall tradition which is genuine and divine Yea but it may bee said that Erasmus noteth in his Praecognita unto the Booke of Leviticus that hee which readeth this worke scil the Homilies upon Levit. and the Enarration upon the Epistle to the Romans hee is uncertaine whether hee reade Origen or Ruffinus And the peroration of the Translator annexed to the commentary of the Romans saith that hee added something defective whereof yet hee had the fundamentalls from the Author and abbreviated other things too largely expressed in the Commentaries upon the Romans Leviticus Genesis Exodus Joshua and Judges Suppose these additions of things defective by Ruffinus yet hee saith hee had the foundations of what hee added from Origen So that Origen gave such foundations of Paedobaptisme if Ruffinus added that as gave occasion to it but why is not this particular mentioned as Origens rather then Ruffinus his notion Because Origen was somewhat Pelagianisticall and this place touching baptizing Infants in respect of originall sinne was too crosse to Pelagianisme This is new to mee that Origen held that errour albeit hee were not free of others but I have read more said of Ruffinus that way scil that hee was the forerunner of Pelagius If on that ground it was not Origens much lesse was it Ruffinus his owne dictate And Erasmus denieth not but all there mentioned must bee fathered upon either Origen or Ruffinus But to put an end to this dispute the Homilies on Luke are not questioned to bee Origens neither doth Erasmus nor the Translator in the peroration mentioned acknowledge either additions or detractions in setting forth of those Homilies on Luke Yet there Origen affirmeth to the substantiallâ— mentioned in that place of the Romans for in his 2. Tom. Hom. lib. 14. on Luke hee saith parvuli baptizantur c. and little children are baptized unto remission of sins of what sins or when did they sinne or how can there bee any occasion of washing in little children unlesse in that sense of which wee spake a little before None is cleane from blemish no though but a day old in the earth and because the defilement of our Nativitie is put away by baptisme therefore even little children are baptized Nor doe I finde in our Criticks or the Authors quoted by them that these Homilies of Origens on the Romans are doubted of to bee genuine Albeit both Perkins and Rivet doe