you and your children so many of them as the Lord shall call viz. you and your children have hitherto been an holy seed But now if you beleeve in Christ your selves your children shall bee in no better condition then the rest of the Pagan world but if afterward any of them or any of the heathen shall beleeve and be baptized their particular persons shall be taken into Covenant but their Children still left out this said I would not have been a very comfortable Argument to perswade them to come in in relation to the good of their children To this your answer is that this witlesse descant followes not on the applying the restriction in the end of the verse to them their children and all that are afarre off and that which I burden my adversaries Tenet with of putting beleevers Infants out of the Covenant into the condition of Pagans children is a Coâ—cysme answered before But Sir bee it witlesse or witty they must owne it whose it is and I perceive you can more easily put it off with a scoffe then give it a solid answer and it is a thorne which will not so easily bee plucked out of your side the strength of it is Peter could not have used this as an Argument to perswade them to come under this administration of the Covenant whereof Baptisme was a seale from the benefit which should come to their children if your interpretation bee true because by this their children should be in a worse condition in relation to the Covenant then they were before all grant in the former they were included you say in this latter you know no more promise for them then for the children of 〈…〉 How then could this argument be fit to be used tel me I pray you suppose a man held some Farm or Office under some great man and that in his Grant or Patent there were some apparent priviledges or benefits included concerning his posterity If now the Lord of whom hee held it should offer him a new Grant in which his children should be expressely left out and no more priviledges for them then for meere strangers could an Argument bee taken from the benefit that should come to his Children to perswade him to give up his former and accept this latter Grant I thinke not And whereas you call that expression of putting of the children of beleevers into the same state with the children of Turks a Coccysme which you have answered before I pardon your scornfull expression you doe but kick at that which bites you it is a truth which you have no cause to delight to heare of you have answered it indeed by granting the truth of it as the Reader may plainly see in my Answer to your 10 Section of the second Part and to Sect. 3. of this part Whereas I further said in my Sermon except in relation to the Covenant there was no occasion to name their children it bad been sufficient to have said a promise is made to as many as the Lord shall call You answer Their children indeed are named in relation to the Covenant But there was another reason then that which I alledge not onely their imprecation Matth. 27. 25. but especially because Christ was first sent to the Jews and their children Acts 3. 26. I Reply but this reason which you alledge affords no Argument for them now to beleeve and repent from any benefit should come to their posterity by vertue of that promise I will bee thy God and the God of thy seed To close this Section you say The Antipadobaptists have hence a good Argument against baptizing of Infants because Poter required of such as were in Covenant repentance before baptisms I answer just as good an one as because Abraham was in Covenant and an actuall beleever and justified by the faith he had in uncircumcision and received it as a seal of the righteousnesse of faith therefore all these must go before Circumcision and because all who turned Proselytes to the Jews must first make profession of their faith therefore none may bee circumcised but such as they are But more of this when we consider this Argument in your Exercitation Next let us try whether your successe bee any better against the next Text of Scripture which I brought to prove this Conclusion viz. Rom. 11. 16. c. where I said The Apostles scope was to shew that we Gentiles have now the same graffing into the true Olive which the Jewes formerly had and our present graffing in is answerable to their present casting out and their taking in at the latter end of the World shall bee the same graffing in though more gloriously as ours is now and it is apparent that at their first graffing in they and their chiâ—dren were taken in at their casting out they and their children were broken off and when they shall be taken in again at the end of the world they and their children shall be taken in together and all this by vertue of the Covenant Ero Deus tuus c. Which is the same to us and to them we and they making up the Church of God In your Examen of this Argument you still proceed in your old method first to cast scorne upon it as such an obscure Argument That none but a Diver of Delos can fetch up the meaning of it and indeed should you not pretend difficulties you could have no colour to bring in so many imaginary senses thereby to darken an Argument which is the second branch of your Artifice As whether this ingraffing be meant of the visible or invisible Church by faith or profession of saith certain by reason of election or Covenant of grace made to them or probable and likely because for the most part it happens so c. Alas Sir why doe you thus strip your selfe to dive under the water when the sense swims upon the top Look how the Jewes were Gods people so are the Churches of the Gentiles looke how the Jewes children were graffed in so are our children we are taken in in stead of them who were cast out and become one visible kingdom of Christ with the rest of them who kept their station this is the plaine sense of my Argument Now if you please but to apply all your imaginary senses to the Jews and their children and say if they and their children were graffed in together was it into the visible or invisible Church was it by faith or the profession of faith was it certain or probable Doe you not thinke your Reader would smile at the vanity of these questions When you have set downe your senses next you thus proceed the thing that is to be proved is That all the infants of every beleever are in the Covenant of Free grace in Christ and by vertue thereof to bee baptized into the Communi of the visible Church No Sir the thing to bee proved from this Text is That our infants have
of Satan Hee would have Infants of all who are taken into Covenant with him to bee accounted his to belong to him to his Church and family and not to the Devills So much weight lies upon this Conclusion and it so neerely concernes you to make at least a shew of overthrowing it that in 40 Pages and upward you try all your wits and artifices to shake the strength of it by scornefull speeches by clouding and darkning what was expressed plainely by framing senses and confuting what was never asserted nor intended by Bringing in at the by opinions of other men and disputing against them by alledging the Testimonies of some eminently learned men when they are nothing to the purpose in hand and by seeking to elude the strength of my arguments In all these I shall attend you and endeavour to cleare what you would seeme to have obscure briefly to passe over what is impertinent and chiefly buckle with you in that which concernes the cause in hand First you tell me this conclusion is a bâ—â—kin that may bee put on either leg right or left exprest so ambiguously that you know not in what sense to take it Truely Sir you take a course to make it seeme so I knew a man in Cambridge that went for a great Scholler whose remarkable facultie was so to expound a Text as to make a cleare Text darke by his interpretation even thus have you dealt with a plaine Conclusion you bring first three sorts of senses then you subdivide them and under each of them bring severall Imaginable senses foure or five under one head five or six under another head and then blame me that I have not distinctly set downâ— in which of these senses Infants of Beleevers belong to the Covenant whether in respect of Election or of a promise of grace in Christ whether potentially or actually whether they are so to bee accounted by an act of science or faith or opinion and that grounded on a rule of haritie or prudence or probable hopes for the future thus you expresse your skill in multiplication of senses But I reply that hee that runs may reade my sense and with the tenth part of the paines you have taken to fasten a sense upon it which I never thought upon might confidently have concluded that I meant of a visible priviledge in facie visibilis Ecelesiae or have their share in the faedus externum which my words plainely enough held forth when I spake of Gods separating a number out of the world to be his Kingdome Citie Household in apposition to the rest of the world which is the Devills Kingdome and afterwards in the same Conclusion God having left all the rest of the world to bee visibly the Devills Kingdome although among them many belong to his invisible kingdome as being of the number of his elect he will not permit the Devill to come and lay visible claime to the off-spring of those who are begotten of the children of the most High is not this plaine enough that as all they who by externall vocation and profession joyne to the Church of God though few of those many so called are elected have a visible right to bee esteemed members of the Church Kingdom of God which is a visible Corporation distinct and opposite to the rest of the world which is visibly the corporation and kingdom over which the Devill doth reign So God would have their children even while they are children to enjoy the same priviledge with them what Delian Diver is there any need of to fetch up the meaning of this But that you may no longer complaint of not understanding my sense I say plainly The Covenant of grace is sometime taken strictly sometime largely as it is considered strictly it is a Covenant in which the spirituall benefits of justification regeneration perseverance and glorification are freely promised in Christ Secondly as the Covenant of grace is taken largely it compâ—â—hendss all Evangelicall administrations which doe wholly depend upon the free and gratious appointment of God and this administration is fulfilled according to the counsell of Gods will sometimes it was administred by his appointment in typeâ— shadowes and other legall Ordinances this Covenant of administration God said Zâ—â—â—ary 11. 10. hâ—â— did 〈◊〉 with the people of the Jews and at the death of Christ hee did wholly evacuate and abolish and in stead thereof brought in the administration which wee live under where also hee rejected the Jews or booke them off from being his people in Covenant and called the Gentiles and graffed them in ramâ—rum defractorum locum into the place of the branches broken off as your selfe page 65. doe with Beza rightly expresse it Now according to this different acceptation of the Covenant are men differently said to bee in covenant with God or to be members of his Church and family some are mysticall members by inward grace the inward grace of the Covenant being bestowed upon them being made new creatures c. others are members in regard of the externall and visible aeconomy accordingly among the Jewes some were said to bee Abrahams seed according to the promise and not onely after the flesh who had the Circumcision of the heart as well as that which was outward others were Jewes in propatulo Jewes onely in foro visibilis ecolesia and in like manner is it under the Evangelicall administration in the Christian Church some are in Christ by mysticall 〈◊〉 so as to bee regenerate c. 1 Cor. 6. 17. 2 Cor. 5. 17. others are said to bee in Christ by visible and externall profession as branches which beare no fruite Iohn 15. 2. and these also are called branches of the Vine though such branches as for unfruitfulnesse shall at last bee cut off and cast away and often times tells us many are called but few are chosen Unto both these do belong great priviledges though the priviledgâ—â— of the one be saving the other not as shall by and by appeare Furthermore according to this different notion of the Covenant grounded upon the different manner of mens being in Christ there are also different Sâ—ales belonging unto the Covenant some peculiar and proper onely unto those who are in Covenant spiritually a quoâ—d substantiam et gratiâ—â— faeâ—â—ris as the testimony and Seale of the Spirit 2 Cor. 1. 2â— Ephes 1. 13. 14. 30. Rom. 8. 16. others common and belonging unto all who are in the visible body and branches of Christ the Vine in any relation and so in Covenant quoad 〈…〉 till by scandalous 〈◊〉 which are 〈◊〉 with that very outward dignitie and profession they cut themselves off from that relation and such are the visible and externall Seales annexed to the externall profession among Christians as the Jewish Seales were to those who were Jewes externally When therefore I say they are visibly to bee reckoned to belong to the Covenant with their parents I meane looke what
sense every child of a beleever is brone a Christian that is hee is a member of the visible Church in the second sense none can claime it as a birthright men must be made Christians in that sense and not borne Christians thus this which is a weake objection of the Lutherans against the Calvinists is easily answered to bee children of wrath by nature and yet to bee holy in an externall Covenant being borne of beleeving parents do no whit oppose one another thus it was not onely among the Jewes who had a visible standing under the Covenant of grace and yet multitudes of them were the children of wrath but even thus it is unto this day among growne men who are admitted to be Christians in your way some of them are sancti called and holy in the face of the visible Church and yet not so coram facie dei whilst others are so both in the spirit and in the letter Your great errour and mistake is that you speake not distinctly of the Covenant of grace for whereas the Covenant is to bee largely understood for the whole dispensation of it in outward Ordinances as well as saving graces you usually take it strictly for saving graces which belong onely to the elect You cannot bee ignorant how our Divines owne the outward administration of the Covenant under the notion of faedus externum and the spirituall grace of it under the notion of faedus inteâ—â—um you still restraine the Covenant to the spirituall part onely and would perswade your Reader that they who speake of the Covenant of grace must meane it thus strictly and yet you bring not arguments to disprove a true visible membership upon a visible profession whether the inward saving grace be known or not Now I returne with you to my Sermon where your examen proceeds I used for illustration sake â—â— comparison from other Kingdomes Corporations and Families the children follow the condition of their parents free mâ—nâ— children are borne free the children of slaves are borne slaves c. and thus hath God ordained said I that it shall bee in his Kingdome and Family children follow the Covenant condition of their parents this passage you slight first in generall as that which containes nothing but dictates but parâ—ius-ista-vitis you may give your adversary two in the seven at dictating you who call my onely using a comparison or allusion to bee a dictating can dictate in this very place Christianitie say you is no mans birthright this was but even just now the question betwixt you and Mr. Blake and you here without any proofe â—et downe this peremptory conclusion which was the very question betwixt you Christianitis is no mans birth-right but the thing is true call it what you please and will not bee blowne away with a scornefull puffe but say you I doâ—very carnally imagine the Church of God to bee like civill Corporations as if persons were to bee admitted into it by birth whereas in this all is done by free election of grace and according to Gods appointment I reply you carnally and sinfully judge of Gods wayes in this particular for is it not evident that the Jewish Church was in this like civill corporations were not children then admitted in by birth-right and yet was not grace then as free as it is now had the Jewes by birth no seale of grace and that by Covenant because God was the God of them and their seed or was there no grace accompanying the Jewish Sacraments I suppose you are not so Popish as to deny it And further I pray you tell mee was not all done among them as much by the free election of grace as among us are you of Arminius his mind that Iacob and Esaâ— both circumcised persons are not proposed to us Rom. 9. as such who hold forth to us the soveraigntie of God in election and reprobation Secondly what meane you when you say all is done in the Church according to the fâ—â—â— election of grace T is true if you meane it of the Church invisible all is there done by the free election of grace but wee are speaking of the visible Church and I hope you will not say all is there done by free election of grace you will not say that none have any interest in the visible priviledges but onely they who are elected You adde yea to conceive that it is in Gods Church as in other kingdomes is a seminary of dangerous superstitions and errors Dr. Reynolds in his conference with Hart hath shewed that hence arose the frame of government by Patriarchs Metropolitans c. and this is say you the reason of invocation of Saints c. I reply true for men to say thus it must be or thus it may bâ—e in Godâ— kingdome because it is so in other kingdomes is the very Seminary which Dr. Reynolds speaks of but to mention some things alike in Gods Kingdome and other kingdomes when God himselfe hath made them so it is obedience and not presumption Yea it is a great sinne to call that a carnall imagination which is Gods owne doing Next when I say if hee take a father into Covenant hee takes the children in with him if hee reject the parents the children are east out with them You answer if I meane this in respect of election and reprobation it is not true or in respect of the Covenant of grace which is congruous to election or reprobation I answer you judge right I meant it not of election or reprobation nor that the saving graces of the Covenant are alwayes made good either to Infants or growne men who are taken into Covenant I meant it as before I expressed it of taking in into a visible Church-standing But say you neither is that true it is not true in respect of outward Ordinances the father may bee baptized and not the child and è contra the father may bee deprived and the child may enjoy them I answer but this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the thing that is in question betwixt us the contrary whereunto I undertake to justifie Indeed de sacto the one may enjoy them and the other hee deprived of them a father may bee baptized and his child die before it bee baptized but our question is de jure whether a Parent being a beleever his child hath not right to Baptisme and other Church-priviledges as it growes copable of them at the â—ewâ—s children had to Circumcision c. De sacto it fell out sometimes so among the Jewes David the â—ather circumcised and not the child borne to him by Bathsheba which dyed the seventh day and was not Circumcised and many multitudes more in the same condition but is this any thing against the right of Infants to beâ— Circumcised Next say you In this point there i◠〈◊〉 certaintie or agreement in the paedobaptists determination becausâ— Mr. Rutherford saies the children of Papists and excommunicate Protestants which are barne
the same right which the infants of the Jews had and your Arguments fight against the Infants of the Jews as much as against the Infants of the Gentiles for to apply your own words spoken of beleevers now to the Jewes then Though it may bee granted that the infants of the Jews were for the most part under the election and Covenant of grace and so in the visible Church yet it will not follow that every infant of a Jew in as much as hee is the child of a Jew or a beleever is under the Covenant of grace because we have Gods expresse declaration to the contrary Rom. 9. 6 7 8. and all experience proves the contrary is not this as much against the one as the other To what I said the Jewes Infants were graffed in by Circumcision therefore ours are to be ingraffed in by Baptisme You answer by demanding whether in good sadnesse I doe thinke the Apostle here meanes by graffing in baptizing or Circumcision or incision by outward Ordinances for if that were the meaning then breaking off must be meant of uncircumcising or unbaptizing To which I reply that in good sober sadnesse I do think that graffing in is admission into visible membership or visible communion with the Church of Christ and that the externall seale of their visible graffing in was Circumcision and of ours Baptisme and yet it follows not that breaking off is onely uncircumcising or unbaptizing but breaking offâ—â—â— a casting out from that visible membership whereof this Sacrament is a Symbole But to you it seems that ingraffing here is meant of the invisible Church by election and faith I Reply if it be meant of the invisible Church onely and that all who are graffed in in the Apostles sense whether Jews or Gentiles are onely electones I will solemnly promise you never to plead this Scripture more for any Infants either of Jews or Gentiles no nor for visible Professors of either of them provided onely if you cannot make that good you will as indeed you must yeeld that some are to be reputed visible Church-members though not elect whether Jews or Gentiles and that our graffing in is as theirs was they and their children we and our children and if you please let us a little try it out The Text is plaine some of the branches were broken off such branches whose naturall growing in the Olive yeelded them that priviledge which they now partake of who are graffed in in their stead were these broken off from the invisible Church you dare not say so if then the Olive from which they were broken off bee the visible Church I have enough and I wonder that any but an Arminian should make any question that the Apostle speaks onely of rejecting the Nation of the Jewes from being the visible Church and taking the body of the Gentiles in their stead to be Gods visible Kingdom in that it is meant of such an ingraffing as may be broken off which cannot bee from the invisible Church But let us see how you seek to evade this and how you prove that it must bee meant of the invisible Church Abraham say you bad a a double capacity one of a naturall Father and another the father of the faithfull in respect of the former capacity some are called branches according to nature others wilde Olives by nature yet graffed in by faith and when it is said that some of the naturall branches were brokin off the meaning is not that some of the branches of the invisible Church may be broken off but onely such as were so in appearance according as our Saviour expresses it Joh. 15. 2. But I Reply I professe I understand not how this distinction gives you the least helpe for tell me I pray you were not these whom you cal naturall branches is truly in the Olive as they who being wilde by nature were yet graffed in in the stead of them who were broke off If they were how doth this distinction help you You say indeed That the Infants of beleeving Jewes were not in the Covenant of grace because they were their children if by this you meane they were not members of the invisible Church you say the truth but nothing to the purpose But if your meaning be that they had not a visible membership such an ingraffing as gave them a right to outward Ordinances you not onely contradict the Scripture but your selfe who plead this That it was a peculiar priviledge to Abraham that his children should have such a visible standing as ours have not plainly the Jewes were the naturall branches some of them were elect some not the body of them were the branches spoke of in this place many of these were broke off others of them kept their station yet Gods election failes not even so is it now the Gentiles were graffed in that is their visible faith gave them a visible ingraffing their invisible faith gave them who have it an invisible membership yea to me your selfe seem to say as much when pag. 63. you affirme incision may be either into the visible or invisible Church graffing in may be either by faith or profession of faith And pag. 65. It is true that our present graffing in is answerable to or rather for their casting out that is God would supply in his Olive tree the Church the casting away of the Iews by the calling of the Gentiles so much the Apostle saith ver 17. thou being a wilde Olive wer 't graffed in in ramorum defractorum locum into the place of the branches broken off if you mean it in this sense say you I grant it And truly Sir in these words to my understanding you grant not onely my interpretation of this place but even the question controverted betwixt us First you grant my interpretation that it is not meant of the invisible but the visible Church for I know you will not say that any of the elect Jewes were broken off and the Gentiles elected and put into their place It must therefore be meant of the visible and of the visible Church of the New Testament and that those Jewes who kept their station and we who are in the roome of those that were broke off doe make that Olive which the Jewes made before Yea secondly you by necessary confequence grant that our children are taken in as theirs were we are graffed in in ramorum defractorum loeum we supply in the Olive tree the Church the casting away of the Jews Now if we thus supply our children supply the place of their children which were broken off and beside we are one with the rest of the Jews who remained in this Olive and their remaining in the Olive did not I hope deprive them of that priviledge which before-times they had for their children and therefore we must have the same with them and a greater then they had for their children none of us ever pleaded though ours be clearer and a greater
against baptisme to succeed circumcision as a Lord Major elect succeeds the old though the old continue after his election for a time Yet further You inquire in what sense Baptisme succeeds in the roome and place of Circumcision and say if by roome and place I meane locus communis et proprius so Baptisme being an action hath no roome or place at all properly and if by roome and place I meane the baptized and baptizers that is true but in part seme who were to be baptized were not to bee circumcised as women Thirdly if by roome and place I meane the same society that is not true Circumcision admitted into the Jewish baptisme into the Christian Church Fourthly if of the Commandement upon which both are sealed that is not true neither Circumcision was commanded long before Baptisme Fiftly if of the same use that is most untrue for the use of Circumcision obliged to keepe the Law to be a partition between Iewes and Gentiles and to initiate into the Iewish Church or rather into Abrahams family Then lastly you say if I meane it of confirming and sealing the same Covenant neither is that true save onely in part because their Covenant was a mixt Covenant and although Circumcision did confirme righteousnesse by faith and signified holinesse of heart so also did the Cloud Sea Manna the Rock the Deluge or Arke and the same are also confirmed by the Lords Supper and therefore to say that Baptisme succeeds in the roome and place of Circumcision is a position erroneous and very dangerous I am prone to thinke that time as well as paper and Inke are very cheape with you who thus needlesly waste them this poore quibbling about succession and roome place c. is too Pedanticall for a grave Divine what Reader will not at the first view see this to bee my meaning of Baptisme succeeding in the roome and place of Circumcision that Baptisme succeeds Circumcision as a signe substituted in the place and stead of Circumcision to signifie and seale the same Covenant of grace which Circumcision did Circumcicision more darkely sealing Christ being not yet exhibited baptisme more clearely the shadow being taken away and the substance come almost all your differences refer onely to the severall manners of administration of the Covenant not to the Covenant it selfe or thing administred yet I shall touch upon each particular First your fancy of Locus proprius communis is too idle to require any answer Secondly that of the Iewish women hath been sufficiently spoken to in the first Section of this third part Thirdly when you say circumcision admitted into one Church baptisme into another I am very loath to impute to your sense which you intend not if you meane onely the severall administrations the Church of the Jewes being Christs Church under one administration the Christian Church the same Church of Christ under another administration you speake truth but not to purpose my conclusion never said Circumcision and Baptisme doe initiate into the same Administration of the Covenant but if you meane that the Church of the Jewes and wee are not one and the same Church you speake pure Anabaptisme indeed and contradict the Scripture expresly which every where makes the Church of the Jewes and the Gentiles one and the same Church though under divers administrations I count it needlesse to annex any proofes because I thinke you dare not deny it Fourthly you lay the command of circumcision was loâ—g before the command of Baptisme but how this followes that therefore Baptisme doth not succeed in the roome of Circumcision I cannot guesse the Lords day succeeds the seventh day in being Gods Sabbath but certainly the institution of it was long after the other And fiftly as for the severall uses mentioned by you they all referre to the manner of administration peculiar to the Jewes I have often granted there were some legall uses of Circumcision it obliging to that manner of administration and so they were part of the Jewish paedagogy which is wholly vanished and therein Circumcision hath no succession but baptisme succeeds it as a Seale of the same Covenant under a better administration as a set and constant initiating Ordidinance onely I wonder that you say Circumcision did initiate into the Church of the Iewes or rather into Abrahams family I pray you explaine this rather into Abrauams family if by Abrahams family you meane the Church of the Jewes why say you rather into Abrahams family if you meane any thing else tell us what it is and how Circumcumcision initiated Proselytes into Abrahams family any otherwise â—hen as it was the Church of the Jewes Lastly you hit upon the right thing intended They he both seales of the same covenant but say you the covenâ—nt was not the same except in part which hath abundantly been confuted before and justified to be one and the same and the difference to lie onely in the manner of administration But say you the Cloud Sea Manna water of the rock c. signified righteousnesse by faith and holinesse of heaâ—t as well as baptisme doth and why then should we not say that Baptism succeeds these as well as it doth Circumcision I answer these were extraordinary signes not standing Sacraments to bee used in all generations much lesse were they set and standing Sacraments of initiation And yet so farre as God hath made the parallel what hurt is there in saying baptism succeeds them sure I am the Apostle Peter compares baptism and the Ark the like figure whereunto Baptisme saves us But whereas you adde And why also should not the Lords Supper succeed Circumcision as well as Baptisme I answer what ever disparity may bee made betweene Circumcision and Baptisme yet herein certainly they agree and you often grant it That both of them are initiall signes and therefore this is most wildly said of you That the Lords Supper may he as well said to succeed Circumcision did ever any thinke the Lords Supper to be an initiall signe And now let the Reader judg of that expression of yours in the close which you so boldly use against all Divines and Churches since the Apostles time who all concurre in the same truth except onely the Anabaptists That to say Baptisme succeeds in the roome and place of Circumcision 〈◊〉 a proposâ—tion 〈…〉 and very dangerous To confirme this of Baptism succeeding Circumcision much may be gathered out of many places in the New Testament which hold out the things wherein they are parallel'd I used onely that clear place Col. 2. 8 to 13. whence I made it evident Not onely that we have the same thing signified by Circumcision while we are buryed with Christ in baptism but also that the Apostle plainly setâ— Baptisme in the same state and makes it of the same use to us as Circumcision was to the Jews Christ onely to them â—nd 〈◊〉 also is the
disputation should bee carried as yours is altogether in the way of making exceptions against arguments but not positively affirming any thing But notwithstanding by the helpe of God I hope clearely to vindicate my arguments from your exceptions My first Argument was the Infants of beleeving parents are faederati therefore they must be signati they are within the Covenant of Grace therefore are to partake of the Seale of the Covenant This Argument because I knew the tearmes of the propositions and the reasons of the consequents would not be cleare at the first propounding I therefore made no further prosecution of untill first I had cleared five conclusions from which it receives not onely its light but strength and from which it ought not to bee separated because in them I both prove a Covenant and signe initiall this first you assault singly and denying both the propositions you try your strength in this Section against the consequence and affirme that they who deny the consequence doe it justly because say you if they who are faederati must be signati it must bee so either by reason of some necessary connexion betweene the tearmes or by reason of Gods will declared concerning the Covenant of Grace but for neither of these causes first there is no necessary consequence that God gives a promise ergo he must give a seale or a speciall signe Joshuah had none for his promise of bringing Israel into Canaan Phinehas none for his for the Priesthood to continue in his family nor secondly by any declaration of Gods will Adam and all the rest to Abraham had none yea and in Abrahams time Melchisedeck Lot Job and for Abrahams family there was no such universall order or declaration of Gods will for children under eight dayes old and all the females had no such command and therefore to have sealed them would have beene will-worship and so you conclude here and in many other places of your booke that it is not being foederati in Covenant which gives title to the seale but onely the declaration of Gods will to have it so To which I answer clearely and first in generall That concerning the truth of this consequence the difference betweene you and me is not so much as you would make the world beleeve wee differ indeed in the interpretation of the word faederati about what is meant by being in Covenant I assert that many are to bee reputed to belong to the Covenant of grace and in some sense to bee Covenanters though they be not partakers inwardly of the saving graces of the Covenant for the Covenant of grace containes not onely saving grace but the administration of it also in outward Ordinances and Church priviledges and that according to Gods owne word many are Covenanters with him or in some sense under the Covenant of grace who are partakers onely of the outward administrations and Church priviledges you allow none to be under the Covenant of grace in any true Gospel sense but onely such as are inwardly beleevers justified sanctified and partakers of the saving graces of the Covenant Whether of us are in the right shall God willing be tryed out in this dispute but as to the truth of the consequence That all who are in the Covenant of grace ought therefore to be partakers of thâ— seale you acknowledge more then once or twice or ten times for though you every where dispute that God hath made no declaration of his will concerning baptizing of Infants yet rotundis verbis you professe that if you knew an Infant to bee regenerate you would baptize it And when I said Such as have the inward grace ought not to bee denyed the outward signe You answer There is none of the Antipaedobaptists but will grant that proposition to bee true pag. 142. And the present state of a person is that which gives right to baptisme pag. 158. It 's granted that such Infants such as are inwardly sanctified are disciples and may not be debarred from baptisme mark Infants disciples and is not this in plain English That such as are Covenanters ought not to be denyed the initiall seale of the covenant Now then if I can prove that not onely such as are inwardly regenerate but others also whether Infants or grown men are to bee reputed to belong to the Covenant and that an externall visible right in facie visibilis Ecclesiae may be made out for any person or persons to be by us owned received as Covenanters with God you your selfe grant that the seale may be applyed to them and whether this bee so or not shall God willing afterwards fully appeare Secondly I answer more particularly 1. I grant with you that there is no necessary dependance between a promise and a seale the addition of a seale to a promise is of free grace as well as the promise it self if God had never given any Sacrament or seal of his Covenant wee should have had no cause to complaine of him he well deserves to be believed upon his bare word Nor 2. did I ever think that by Gods revealed will this Proposition was true in all ages of the Church All Covenanters must bee sealed I carryed it no higher then Abrahams time when God first added this new mercy to his Church vouchsafing a seal to the Covenant And 3. from Abrahams time and so forward I say it was Gods will that such as are in Covenant should bee sealed with the initiall seale of the Covenant supposing them onely capable of the seale and no speciall barre put in against them by God himselfe which is apparent in the very first institution of an initiall seale Gen. 17. 7 9 10 14. Where the very ground why God would have them sealed is because of the Covenant I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting Covenant to be a God to thee and thy seed after thee thou shalt keepe my Covenant therefore and this is my Covenant which yee shall keep every man childe among you shall bee circumcised and afterward in the 14. the seale is by a Metonymia called the Covenant for that it 's apparent not onely that God commanded them who were in Covenant to be circumcised but that they should therefore be circumcised because of the Covenant or in token of the Covenant betweene God and them and he that rejected or neglected the seale is said not onely to breake Gods commandement but his covenant so that because the initiall Seale was added to the Covenant and such as received it received it as an evidence of the Covenant or because they were in Covenant I therefore concluded that by Gods own will such as enter into Covenant ought to receive the seal supposing still that they were capable of it So that to lay Circumcifion upon Gods command and the Covenant of grace too are well consistent together for the command is the cause of the
right a visible prâ—fessor hath to bee received and reputed to belong to the visible Church quâ— visible professoâ— that right hath his child so to bee esteemed now all know the spirituall part and priviledges of the Covenant of grace belongs not to visible professors as visible but onely to such among them who are inwardly such as their externall profession holds out but yet there are outward Church-priviledges which belong to them as they are visible professors as to be reputed the sonnes of God Gen. 6. 1. the sonnes of God saw the daughters of men Deut. 14. 1. ye are the children of the Lord your God and Paul writing to a visible Church Gal. 3. 26. saith yea are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus yet I suppose you doe not thinke that all the Galatians were inwardly so so likewise to bee reputed children of the kingdome Matth. 8. 12. the children of the kingdome shall bee cast out the children of the Covenant Act. 3. 25. yee are the children of the Covenant which God made unto our fathers and many other of their priviledges which belong to them who are Israeliteâ— in this sense viz. being by such a separation and vocation the professed people of God though they were not all heires of the spirituall part of the Covenant Saint Paul reckons up in severall places as Rom. 9. 4. to them pertaineth the adoption even to the body of that people not a spirituall adoption but the honour of being separated and reputed to bee the children of God Deut. 14. 1. and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the service of God and the promises yet of these Paul saith they were not all children of Abraham when he speaks of the spirituall seed So likewise Rom. 3. 1. afteâ— Paul had shewed Rom. â— that nothing but faith and inward holinesse gave right to the spirituall part of the Covenant and that all the externall priviledges of the Jewes who were onely Jewes in propatulo Jewes outwardly were nothing to justification before God hee then propounds this question Cap. 3. 1. What advantage then both the Jew or what profit is there of Circumcision what priviledge or gaine is it to bee a visible professor a visible member of the Jewish Church hee answers the advantage is great many wayes and instances in this one particular that the Oracles of God were deposited to them the custody and dispensation of his Ordinances which they might use as their owne treasure and thereby learne to know and feare him therefore it is called their Law John 8. 17. It is also written in your Law when the rest of the nations all that while were without God in the world and received the rule of their life from the Oracles of the Devill according to that of the Psalmist Psal 147. 10 20 He shewed his word to Iacob his statutes and his judgments to Israel hee hath not dealt so with any nation and as for his judgements they have not knowne them So Deut. 33. 4. The Law is called the inheritance of the Congregation of Iacob And although it bee true that these visible and externall priviledges will end with the greater condemnation of them who live and die in the abuse of them while they rest in Cortice in the outward thing it selfe and labour not after the spirituall part yet the priviledges themselves are very great It is no small mercy to have a membership or visible standing in that societie where salvation is ordinary this our blessed Saviour told the woman of Samaria Iohn 4. 22. Salvation is of the Iewes this was the priviledge which the Church of the Jewes had above the Samaritans that salvation was to bee found in their way and God in his wisedome hath so ordained it to have his visible Church made up of such I meane so as to have some of them inwardly holy and others of them by externall profession onely for this reason among many others that there might bee some who should from time to time bee converted by the Ordinances dispensed in his Church as well as others who should be built up that the Pastors which hee sets up to feed his flocke should not onely bee nursing fathers to build up but also fathers to beget sonnes and daughters to him and though all are bound de jure to bee inwardly holy who joyne to the Church yet would hee have his Church admit those who professe their willingnesse to bee his that hee by his discipline might make them inwardly such as they externally professe themselves and as yet are not in truth as into a Schoole are admitted not onely such as are actually learned but such as are dedicated to be learned not onely quia docti sed ut sint docti and who ever will deny this that there are some rightly admitted by the Church to visible membership who onely partake of the visible priviledges must deny that any are visible members who are not inwardly converted which I thinke you will doe but lest you or any other should I shall at the present back it onely with that speech of the Apostle Rom. 11. where Paul speakes of some branches grassed into the Olive and afterwards broken off not onely the Iewes whom hee calleth the naturall branches were broken off but the Gentiles also the Gentile Churches who were graffed in in their roome and were made partakers of the roote and fatnesse of the Olive even they also may bee broken off if they beleeve not and God will no more spare these branches then hee did the other now this cannot bee meant of any breaking off from the invisible Church from partaking of the spirituall roote and fatnesse of the Olive from this neither Jew nor Gentile are ever broken off it were Arminianisme to the purpose to affirme the contrary it must therefore bee meant onely of a visible standing and externall participation of Church-priviledges and if you thinke otherwayes that none of old were nor now are visible members of the Church or had right to externall Church priviledges unlesse they were inwardly sanctified I beseech you in your next to cleare this and open our eyes with your evidence that wee may see it with you and in stead of leading your Reader into a maâ—e by framing multitudes of senses the like produce some solid arguments to shew and prove that no other but true beleevers may in fore visibiâ—â—â— Ecclâ—siae bee reckoned to belong to the Church and people of God But I suppose in this particular you will hardly deny a lawfulnesse of admitting men into a visible communion upon a visible profession and that rightly even by a judgement of faith though their inward holinesse be unknown to us for so much you grant pag. 159. and if by a judgement of faith a Minister as Gods Steward may dispence the seale of the Covenant of grace and not stay from applying the seale
to him who makes an outward profession because wee have not a Spirit of discerning to know them to bee reall beleevers then it undeniably follows That some may rightly be accounted to belong to the Church of God and Covenant of grace beside reall beleevers which is as much as I need to make my sense and meaning in this Proposition to passe for currant And truly Sir whoever will grant that a Minister in applying the seale must doe it de fide in faith being assured he applyes it according to rule must either grant such a right as I plead for that many have right to bee visible members and bee partakers of the externall administration of Ordinances though they be not inwardly sanctified or else hee must by revelation be able to see and know the inward conversion of every one hee applyes the seale unto for certainly hee hath no written Word to build his faith upon for the state of this or that man And for my own part when once you have disproved this that there is such a visible membership and right to externall administrations as I have here infisted upon I shall not onely forbeare baptizing Infants but the administration of the externall seale to any what profession soever they make untill I may bee de fide assured that they are inwardly regenerate This then was and is my meaning when I say That Infants of believers are confederates with their Parents that they have the same visible right to be reputed Church-members as their Parents have by being visible Professors and are therefore to be admitted to all such external Church-priviledges as their Infant age is capable of and that the visible Church is made up of such visible Professors and their Children that the invisible takes in neither all of the one nor the other but some of both Whereas therefore you say you are at a stand to finde out what my meaning is and know not what to deny or what to grant and again pag. 45. You are at a stand whether I meane they are to bee taken in with their Parents into Covenant in respect of saving grates or the outward priviledge of Church-ordinances I beseech you stand no longer doubtfull of my meaning I meane of them as I meane of other visible Professors they are taken into Covenant both ways respectively according as they are elect or not elect all of them are in Covenant in respect of outward priviledges the elect over and above the outward priviledges are in Covenant with respect to saving graces and the same is to bee said of visible members both Parents and Infants under the New Testament in this point of being in Covenant as was to be said of visible members in the former administration whether Jewes and their children or Proselytes and their children I endeavour in all this to speak as clearly as I can possibly not onely because you say you are oft at a stand to pick out my meaning but because this mistake runs through your whole book that none are to be reputed to have a visible right to the Covenant of grace but onely such as partake of the saving graces of it Now I proceed with you When I say That God would have beleevers children reputed to belong to his Church and family and not to the devills You answer That you feare I use that expression of not belonging to the Devills Kingdome to please the people But Sir why doe you judge my heart to intend amisse in using an expression which your self cannot mislike I have more cause to think you use all these words it cannot be denyed but God would have the Infants of beleevers in some sort to be accounted his to belong to him his Church and family and not to the Devills And againe it is true in facie visibilis Ecclesiae the Infants of beleevers are to bee accounted Gods c. onely ad faciendum populum to please the people because this is not your judgement for when you speake your full meaning and sense of this point you professe you know no more promise for them in reference to the Covenant then to the children of Turkes And even here you onely grant them a nearer possibility to belong to the Covenant of grace then the children of Infidels have therefore in your judgement they are not now actually belonging to it but onely in a possibility so that though they may be accounted to belong to the Kingdom of God potentially yet by your doctrine they belong to the Kingdom of the Devill actually and all this charitable opinion which here you expresse toward them dontaines no more then is to be allowed to the child of a Turk if born among Christians especially if a Christian will take it and bring it up in Christian Religion and by what may we ground any probable hopes they will actually receive the profession of Christ since by your rule there is no promise no externall Covenant why may I not have as good hopes of Heathens children if Gods promise helpe not here But say you To make them actually members of the visible Church is to overthrow the difinitions of the visible Church that Protestant Writers use to give because they must be all Christians by profession I reply it overthrows it not at all for they all include the Infants of such Professors as the visible Church among the Jewes did include their Infants male and female too lest you say that Circumcision made them members I adde also Baptisme now as well as Circumcision of old is a reall though impâ—iâ—â—â— Profession of the Christian Faith But say you Infants are oâ—ly passive and doe nothing whereby they may bee denominated visible Christians I answer even as much as the Infants of Jewes could doe of old who yet in their dayes were visible members Yea say you further it will follow That there may bee a visible Church which consists onely of Infants of beleevers I answer no more now then in the time of the Jewish Church it 's possible but very improbable that all the men and Women should dye and leave onely 〈◊〉 behindâ— them and it 's farre more probable that a Church 〈…〉 Anabaptists why may consist onely of Hypocritâ—â— Againe you affirme We are not to account Infants to belong to God either in respect of election or promise of grace or presenâ—◠〈◊〉 of in being in Christ 〈◊〉 â—state by any act of 〈…〉 with in a particulâ—â— revelation because there 〈…〉 declaration of God that the Infants of prisâ—â—◠〈…〉 all or some either are elected to life or in the Covenant of grace in Christ either in respect of present in-being or future estate To which I answer briefly though all this bee granted if meant of the spirituall part of the Covenant onely yet this makes nothing against that visible membership which I plead for Yea I reâ—ort the argument upon your selfe and dare boldly affirme that by this argument no visible Church or all
saving grace to Infants the Seale is set to a blank for give mee leave but to put the same case first for the Infants of the Jewes was the seale put to a blanke with them or had they all promises of saving graces Secondly let mee put the same case in growne men who make an externall visible profession and thereupon are admitted to baptisme can any man say that all the saving graces of the Covenant or the spirituall part of it is promised to all visible professors is it not abundantly knowne that in all ages even in the best times even in the Apostles times multitudes were baptized to whom God yet never gave saving graces and therefore never promised them for had hee made a promise hee would have performed it But I shall desire you a little to consider the nature of a Sacrament in what sense it is a seale and then you neede stumble at this no longer these three things are necessarily to be distinguished first the truth of the thing signified in a Sacrament and secondly my interest in that thing And thirdly my obligation to doe what is required in or by that Sacrament I say therefore that in every Sacrament the truth of the Covenant in it selfe and all the promises of it are sealed to be Yea and Amen Jesus Christ became a Minister of the circumcision to confirme the promises made unto the Fathers so to every one who is admitted to partake of Baptisme according to the rule which God hath given to his Church to administer that Sacrament there is sealed the truth of all the promises of the Gospel that they are all true in Christ and that whoever partakes of Christ shall partake of all these saving promises this is sealed absolutely in Baptisme but as to the second which is interesse meum or the receivers interest in that spirituall part of the Covenant that is sealed to no receiver absolutely but conditionally in this particular all Sacraments are but signa conditionalia conditionall seales sealing the spirituall part of the Covenant to the receiver upon condition that hee performe the spirituall condition of the Covenant thus our Divines use to answer the Papists thus Doctor Ames answers to Bellarmine when Bellarmine disputing against our doctrines that Sacraments are seales alledges then they are falsely applyed ostentimes hee answers to Bellarmine Sacraments are conditionall Seales and therefore not seales to us but upon condition Now for the third thing the obligation which is put upon the receiver a bond or the for him to performe who is admitted to receive the Sacrament this third I say is also absolute all Circumcised and Baptized persons did or doe stand absolutely ingaged to performe the conditions required on their part and therefore all circumcised persons were by the circumcision oblieged to keepe the Law that is that legall and typicall administration of the Covenant which was then in force and Infants among the rest were bound to this though they had no understanding of the Covenant or that administration of the Covenant when this Seale was administred to them Now then since in Baptisme there is first an absolute Seale of the truth of the Covenant of grace in it selfe a conditionall seale of the receivers interest in the Covenant and an absolute obligation upon the receiver to make good the Covenant on his part is there any reason that you should say that the seale is put to a blank where the spirituall part or saving grace is not partaked of What you further say here that by Abraham who is the father of the faithfull is meant Abrahams person and not every beleever that it was a personall priviledge to Abraham and not a common priviledge to beleevers as beleevers which thing you repeate very often it shall bee considered in a more proper place So that you having thus wholly mistaken my sense and undertaken to dispute against a sense which I never owned I may therefore passe over your six arguments which you bring to confute this sense which you have set downe I joyne with you that it is an errour to say that all Infants of beleevers indefinitely are under the saving graces of the Covenant for although I finde abundance of promises in the Scripture of Gods giving saving graces unto the posteritie of his people and that experience â—eacheth us that God uses to continue his Church in their posteritie and that Gods election lies more among their seed then among others yet neither to Jew nor Gentile was the Covenant so made at any time that the spirituall part and grace of the Covenant should bee conferred upon them all it is sufficient to mee that they may have a visible standing in the Church partake of the outward priviledges of the Church and bee trained up under that discipline or administration of the Covenant which God uses to make effectuall to salvation in the meane time all of them to bee visible members as well as their parents and some of them invisible as well as some of their parents And therefore although in some of your fix reasons there are divers expressions which I cannot swallow yet I shall not here stay upon them but examine them when you bring them elsewhere to dispute against mee as here you doe not onely give mee leave to touch upon the last of your fix arguments because in some sense it militates against my Thesis Is this were true say you that the Covenant of grace is a birthright priviledge then the children of beleevers are the children of grace by nature then Christians are borne Christians not made Christians if the child of a Christian be borne a Christian as the child of a Turke is borne a Turke and if so how are they borne the children of wrath as well as others I answer According to the sense which I owne I maintaine this assertion to bee true that the child of a Christian is borne a Christian it is his birthright to bee so esteemed I meane to bee reputed within the Covenant of grace or a member of the visible Church our I am sure it was so the child of a Iew was borne a Iew and it was his birthright to bee an Israelite a visible member of the Church of Israel and the Apostle Paul stuck not to use the word Iewes by nature Gal. 2. 15. We who are Iewes by nature and not 〈◊〉 of the â—â—â—tiles â—ee there opposes the naturall priviledge of the members of the Church to the condition of the heathens and Rom. 11. hee calls the whole nation of the Iewes the naturall branches of the Olive tree because they were the visible Church of God Will you say of them also how were they then the children of wrath by nature I answer doe but consider the Apostles distinction Rom. 2. last betwixt a Jew in propatulo in facievisibilis ecclesiae a Jew without and a Jew in abscondito a Jew within and your objection is answered in the first
would hardly swadlow downe the tediousnesse of my discourse if I should take them all singly and shew what I own or reject of each of them It is better to set down the plaine sense together and make it goods and then he will discern how you have indeavoured to cloud an argument and wrangle against it when you cannot answer it I plainly expressed the Apostles argument to be fetched from the benefit which would not onely come to themselves but to their children by their beleeving in Christ and after added that the cleare strength of the Argument lay thus God hath now remembred his Covenant to Abraham in sending that blessed seed in whom hee promised to be the God of him and of his seed doe not you by your unbeliefe deprive your selves and your posterity of so excellent a gift In which passage you acknowledge I have hit the marke and given that very interpretation which you owne And whereas you adde as a further illustration that the promise is now fulfilled to them and their children according to Acts 3. 25. Ye are the children of the Prophets and of the Covenant which God made with our fathers c. I confesse that is true but not all that is meant and yet even that strengthens my Argument the Covenant which God made with their Fathers That hee would bee thâ— God of them and of their seed and they were the children or heires of that Covenant that look as God was the God of Abraham and his seed so he would be the God of them and of their seed if they did beleeve and were baptized and therefore he would not have them by their unbelief deprive themselves and their children of that priviledge this I then made my argument and this you saw well enough and therefore say that this expression doe not by your unbeliefe deprive your posterity of so excellent a gift hath a little relish of my interpretation of the promise concerning the naturall seed of beleevers But Sir why doe you call it a little relish it is the very scope of my Argument that look as God did when hee made the promise of grace in Christ to Abraham upon his beleeving and took also his posterity those that were borne of him into Covenant with him in the sense which I before alledged and not onely the naturall Jews but even among all Nations whoever became followers of Abrahams faith did inherit Abrahams promise That he would be the God of them and their seed and by vertue of that promise their children were taken into visible communion so this blessed seed in whom this promise was founded being now come would according as heretofore make it good to al whether Jewes or Gentiles that should beleeve in him This clause of the Covenant of grace and the interpretation of it viz. That it belongs to all believers and that by vertue of it their children are to be received into visible communion you often dispute against and sometimes say that it was a promise peculiar to Abraham at other times it was at the utmost to be extended no further then to Abraham Isaac and Jacob to have their posterity as born of them to belong to the visible Church though in this place where it was most proper you say little or nothing about it onely make wrangling exceptions against my interpretation but because it most pertinent to the businesse in hand I shall here take it into consideration and manifest that it was not a personall priviledge to Abraham no nor to Abraham Isaac and Jacob to have their posteâ—â—ty taken into Covenant by vertue of that promise I will be the God of thee and thy seed For first though Abraham was the father of the faithfull and so in some sense the root as you elsewhere call him yet the Covenant was made with him for his faiths sake and believers are his children and heires and partake of those priviledges and promises which were made to him and therefore look as Abrahams faith justified him before God gave him interest in the spirituall graces of the Covenant and none but himself yet it was so beneficiall and advantageous to his children that for his sake they should be accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom and houshold and partake of the externall priviledges of it and thereby be trained up under the discipline of it and so bee fitted for spirituall priviledges and graces which God doth ordinarily confer upon them who are thus trained up so shall it bee with them who become followers of Abrahams faith Secondly had it been a peculiar priviledge to Abrahams naturall seed Proselytes of other Nations could never by vertue of their becomming followers of Abrahams faith have brought their children into Covenant with them so as to have a visible Church-membership as wee know they did Thirdly and we know also that this promise of being the God of beleevers and their seed was frequently renewed many hundred yeers after Abraham Isaac and Jacob were dead and rotten as Deut. 30. 6. The Lord will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed c. so Esa 44. 2 3. Feare not O Jacob my servant and thou Jeshâ—run whom I have chosen I will poure my spirit upon thy seed and my blessing upon thine off-spring and they shall spring up as among the grasse c. So likewise Esay 59. 21 As for me this is my Covenant with them saith the Lord my Spirit that is upon thee and my words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth nor out of the mouth of thy seed nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed saith the Lord from henceforth and for ever and this last promise your selfe acknowledge page 54. to bee intended chiefly of the nation of the Jewes at their last calling in and whereas you use to elude these Texts by saying these things belong onely to the elect when they come to beleeve and reach not to any priviledge which is externall I reply by the same answer you might cut off the seed of Abraham Isaac and Jacob for to beleevers then as well as to beleevers now were these promises made and I shall desire you to thinke how by this Answer you will avoyd that which page 42. you call absurditie and trifling in Mr. Cotton For Instance God made this promise say you to Abraham Isaac and Jacob to bee the God of them and of their seed in all generations see how you will answer your owne objection if it bee understood universally to all his seed that is manifestly false all his seed had not God to be their God or if it be meant conditionally if they beleeve then the meaning must bee that God would bee the God of Abraham and his seed if they did beleeve and then it signifies no more then thus that God will bee the God of every beleever and then it is but trifling to adde to bee the God
the Covenant But from this you seeke to draw many absurdities and to shew wherein my comparison holds not as this tree is not cut downe as that was onely some branches broken off and that to make Abraham the root to bee bound with a chaine is unhandsome and that in this allufion I sometimes make Abraham the roote sometimes the Covenant the root c. all which are worthy of no answer nothing being held out in the allusion but what I now said neverthelesse were it pertinent to our controversie it might easily enough be shewed how in a sound sense the Covenant is the root upon which Abraham and all the rest of the branches grow and also how by vertue of the Covenant Abraham is also a root from which his seed grow yea and severall beleevers are roots from which their posteritie springs and how in one sound sense Abraham Isaac and Iacob and all visible beleevers make up this one tree this Olive and yet in another sense they are all but branches of this Olive Whereas I said in all this discourse the holinesse of the branches there spoke of is not meant of a personall inherent holinesse but an holinesse derived to them from their Ancestors a faederall holinesse Against this you except many things First Mr. Goodwin expounds it otherwise if Mr. Goodwin meane that there is no other holines which may make men esteemed so in facie dei according to Rom. 2. ult I concur with him but if he say there is no other holinesse or that the profession of holinesse may not make him passe as holy in facie visibilis Ecclesiae when I heare him say so as yet I never did I shall dissent from him though hee be my loving friend Secondly say you bere are divers things to be marked indeed but with an obeliske indeed Sir that brand is alwayes ready at your hand let us see whether you have set it justly or no in this place and whether your impartiall Reader will not take it off and set it upon your selfe I oppose say you personall inherent holinesse to derivative holinesse as inconsistent but Reader looke into my Sermon and see whether I did so or no I confidently deny this charge I onely shewed the meaning of the word in this place to bee of derivative holinesse common to the whole nation not excluding personall inherent holinesse in true beleevers among them and I say again the whole nation was called holy not personally inherent but federally and you acknowledge here a derivative holinesse from Abraham as a spirituall father yet I suppose you will not undertake to justifie that true inherent holinesse is derived from any but from our Lord Jesus Christ and his holy spirit Next say you this holinesse is derived not from any Ancesters but onely from Abraham But I beseech you in your next not onely to dictate this as in this booke you doe very often but cleare and prove it by some good arguments why it does not descend from other immediate parents who are beleevers as well as originally from Abraham for parents who are branches from Abraham their father are yet rootes to their children who spring from them Doe wee not read of the root of Iesse Esay 11 though hee was but a branch from Abraham might not every parent among the Jewes at least every beleeving parent apply that promise made to Abraham I will bee the God of thee and thy seed if you thinke hee may not disprove the Arguments which I have brought for it in answer to your sixt Section I demand further was not such a holinesse derived from Abraham to his naturall seed or posteritie where all Abrahams posteritie who are called the holy seed true beleevers and inwardly holy No say you other parents are not roots Abraham onely is an holy roote or at the most Abraham Isâ—ac and Jacob in whose names the Covenant runs To which I reply first this is to say and unsay Abraham onely is an holy roote yet Isaac and Iacob are holy roots too Secondly the Apostle names none of them at all but speakes of the fathers which includes all their Ancestors at least more then Abraham onely Thirdly how often did God as I shewed before renew that promise I will bee the God of thee and of thy seed after Abraham Isaac and Iacob were all dead Fourthly your self say the body of beleevers is compared to the Olive tree and each beleever to a branch and then sure Abraham Isaac and Iacob onely are not the root or tree which bare the branches but the body of beleevers is the tree and so by your owne grant it followes beleevers in one sense are the tree in another the branches Fiftly I adde that the body of beleevers who make this Olive tree and branches must necessarily be understood of visible professors and not restrained or limited to true beleevers onely otherwise the branches could not have been broken off as is aforesaid Next you step out of your way to reproach Mr. Thomas Goodwin who say you indeavored to inserre a kind of promise of deriving holinesse from beleevers to their posteritie out of the similitude of an Olive and its branches compared with Psal 128. 3. c. And then you vilifie him as a man who by spinning out similitudes and conjectures deludes his Auditory with such things rather then satisfie them with arguments what his discourse was you set not downe nor in what sense he alledged holinesse to be derived from beleeving parents to their posterity but why like Ishmael your sword should bee thus against every man I cannot tell as for Mr. Goodwin notwithstanding his difference from me in some points of Church-government I can doe no lesse then testifie that I know him to be a Learned godly Divine and an eminent Preacher of the Gospel of Christ and his worth not to be blasted by your scornfull speech and for the things you alledge against him he assures mee You have set downe his notions in your Booke otherwise then he preached them and that in due time hee intends to publish his Sermons and then the world shall see whether you have done him right or not Lastly to that which I asserted That the Infants both of Jewes and Gentiles for these outward dispensations are comprehended in their Parents the Infants of godly Parents according to the tenor of his mercy the Infants of the wicked according to the tenor of his justice you upon this demand whether I do not in this symbolize with Arminius who makes this the cause why the posterity of some people have not the gospel because their forefathers refused it and you bring in the learned Doctor Twisse and Moulin disputing against him in that point How faine would you say somewhat which might reproach this Argument But may not both these things be true that God shews mercy to whom he pleases and hardens whom he pleases and yet shews mercies to thousands
sure you will also agree that it were easie for mee to bring ten for one who interpret this Text as I doe though I forbeare to bumbast my booke with them no wayes desiring that this cause should bee carryed by number of suffrages Secondly there are many things in this Section wherein wee differ but the cause depends nothing at all upon them first you severall times cite the learned Beza as if hee were of your mind in the interpretation of this Text to construe it of matrimoniall holinâ—ssâ— I confesse the cause depends not upon Beza's judgement but your reputation depends much upon making this good That you should dare to cite an author as interpreting it for you who exprofesso interprets it against you Beza indeed acknowledgeth this Text warrants a lawfull use but withall sets himselfe to prove that that 's not all but saith it 's such a sanctification as I contend for and saith no man may interpret it otherwise then I doe of federall holinesse according to the Covenant Ero Deus tuuâ— c. And out of that very Text doth in his annotations upon that place assert Infant-Baptisme Secondiy you thinke this Text was never interpreted of federall holinesse untill the dayes of Luther the cause I confesse depends not upon this but it discovers some defect in your reading since it is apparent that Athanasius one of the most ancient of the Greek Fathers and Tertullian one of the most antient of the Latine Fathers bring this Text to prove the prerogative of the Infants of beleevers which certainly they could not have done if they had interpreted as you doe that their children were legitimate nor have given them any title to the kingdome of heaven if to their understanding it had not related to the Covenant of Grace Thirdly whether Mr. Blakes paralleling this place with Gal. 2. 15. upon which you spend almost two whole pages bee good or no or whether these places doe interpret one another is not much materiall to the present controversie about this Text although it be plaine that by Jewes by nâ—ture the Apostle intends the Church-priviledge of the Iewes in opposition to the Gentiles as I have elswhere shewed Fourthly whether Bellarmine was the first who expounded holy for Iegitimate in confuting whereof you spend another page and alledge sundry Authors before him who so understood it this is not to our businesse though you take occasion to shew your reading in it Thirdly this therefore onely remaines to bee tryed out between us whether this bee meant of lawfulnesse of wedlock between man and wife and legitimation of children as you affirme or of Instrumentall sanctification betweene husband and wife quoad hoc and federall holinesse of children as I affirme wherein I shall first make it plaine that your Interpretation cannot hold secondly that mine must stand The sense which you undertake to justifie is that it is a Matrimoniall sanctification when the Apostle saith the unbeleeving husband is sanctified by the wife c. the meaning iâ— their marriage is lawfull and their children are not unclean but holy the meaning is they are not bastards but lawfully begotten Against this I dispute First in making good the foure Arguments used in my Sermon against this interpretation the first whereof was this uncleannesse and holinesse when opposed one to another are never meant of civilly lawfull or unlawfull but are alwayes used in a sacred sense alluding to a right of admission into or use in the tabernatle or Temple which were types of the visible Church holinesse is always taken for a separation of Persons or things from common to sacred use To this you except many things First you like not the term civill holinesse you rather would call it matrimoniall holinesse because its institution is of God not from the laws of Man I Reply this is a poor shift by holy and civill wee distinguish things belonging to the first and second Table All second Table duties are civill things though their institution be of God civill Magistracy though instituted of God obedience of children to their Parents though instituted of God and all the judiciall lawes given to the Jews about meum and tuum were they not therefore civill because they were Gods institutions Or is marriage a businesse more concerning Religion then these are is it a Sacrament or how else is it more holy then these other civill things You except secondly uncleannesse may bee taken for bastardy in an allusion to a Tabernacle use Bastards being numbered among the uncleane I Reply this is spoken without any proof for although the Lord saith Deuteronom 23. 2. That a bastard shall not come into the congregation of the Lord it cannot be meant that bastards shall bee numbered among the uncleane or having nothing to doe about Tabernacle or Temple services for there was the same law for Eunuchs who were not excluded as unclean no unclean person might eate the Passeover might no Eunuch or Bastard eate the Passeover Beside when you thus construe else were your children unclean you make there a Bastard and unclean to be termini convertibiles consequently every unclean child must bee a bastard Now if any man would suppose that bastards might bee reckoned amongst unclean yet all unclean children must not bee reckoned amongst bastards all the children of the Gentiles were unclean but they were not bastards It is needlesse to enter into a further discourse about that place Deut. 23. how or in what sense a bastard might not come into the Congregation whether by the Congregation be meant the Sanhedrin as some or whether his not entring bee of bearing Office as others or of not marrying a wife an Israelitesse as others it matters not it 's sufficient they were not numbred among the unclean Thirdly you refer me to the 1 Thess 4. 7. God hath not called us to uncleanness but unto holinesse and desire me to tell you whether uncleannesse be not there meant of fornication and by holinesse chastity I answer I prevented this in my Sermon and shewed that chastity among the Heathens is never called sanctification the holy Spirit onely is the Spirit of sanctification and the bodies of the Heathens are not the temples of the holy Ghost but among beleevers it may be called so because it is a part of the new creation a part of the inward adorning of the Temples of the holy Ghost and though the chastity of beleevers is onely a morall vertue in respect of the object yet in respect of the root principle end it 's a Christian vertue and it 's an act of pure Religion to keep a mans self unspotted from the flesh as well as from the world Iam. 1. 27. Besides I now adde there is no reason that that place 1 Thess 4. should be restrained to fornication because many other sins are named in that place besides fornication Mark the words in the 3 ver the Apostle tels
my owne part Pace tanti viri I humbly conceive the Prophet intended not a legitimate seed onely as Mr. Calvin would have it but to shew what was Gods chiefe end in the institution of marriage viz. The continuance of a seed of God wherein the Church is to be propagated to the end of the world now according to your interpretation of holinesse for chastity the Apostles Argument must run thus If your marriage were not lawfull your children would be bastards but now they are chast which sense were too ridiculous which to avoid you are compelled in stead of chaste to say legitimate without any example of such a use of the word holy Lastly yet one Argument more I propound your sense makes the Apostles Argument wholly inconsequent if the unbeleeving party were not sanctified by the beleever viz. matrimonially then were your children unclean that is in your sense Bastards which follows not for if they were both unbeleevers yet their children were not bastards and if they were both chast yet being Infidells their children were uncleane id est Infidells and Pagans so that to close this I retort your owne words page the 75. That let this be granted that it is meant of matrimoniall sanctification â—â— of necessitie it must then the uncleanenesse must bee meant of Bastardy and holinesse of Legitimation but I say é centra let this bee granted as of necessitie it must that it is not meant of matrimoniall sanctification or lawfulnesse of wedlock then uncleannesse must not bee meant of Bastardy nor holinesse of Legitimation but of some other holinesse which what it is is next to be enquired Having thus plainely overthrowne your interpretation it remaines that I make good my interpretation against your exceptions I said their doubt seemes to arise from the Law of God which was in force in Ezraes time where Gods people were ordered to put away their Infidell wives and children as a polluted seed which God would not have mingled with his owne you answer first You see very little agreement betweene this case and that and that the cases are very farre different of two persons not under the Law marrying in unbeleefe and of two persons under the Law the one a Iew by profession the other a stranger secondly and that none of the phrases except the word holy are used in the one place which are not used in the other thirdly you rather thinke their doubt arose from a former Epistle which hee had wrote to them mentioned 1 Cor. 5. 9. wherein he commanded them not to keep company with fornicators or Idolaters thereupon they might doubt whether they should continue with their unbeleeving yoke fellowes I reply first that the cases were the very same when their scruple arose for though they were both unbeleevers when they were married and at that time neither of them both belonged to the Church of God yet when one of them was converted and the other remained an Infidell one of them was now become a Church-member the other remained an alien their case was the very same and they finding their condition parallell with that in Ezra might very well apply that case to themselves and make this their doubt Secondly although the phrases used in Ezra differ from those used here that makes nothing against this collection because phrases are used according to the different administrations each speaking according to the received dialect belonging to the administration they lived under Thirdly and as to that you say that it might arise from 1 Cor. 5. 9. I answer should that be granted yet my sense remaines as strong as before for if this scruple now rose that if beleevers because of the unbeleefe or Infidell condition of the husband or wife might not by the rule of the Gospel continue in marriage societie with them it must bee from some rule of Religion which must strike upon their conscience and from what rule could they gather that their marriage which before was lawfull was upon their conversion turned into fornication and if their doubt were as your selfe grant whether it were lawfull for a converted party or a beleever still to retaine their Infidell wife or husband not of unbeleevers whether they bee sanctifyed matrimonially one to another the doubt must necessarily arise from something in Religion some case which was peculiar to beleevers now as Mr. Beza saies truely the doubt being in their consciences of an unlawfulnesse to continue in their married condition from some thing peculiar to Gods people the Apostle should have used a most indirect argument to pacifie their consciences in referring them to the civill Lawes of other nations by which their marriage is proved lawfull and to what purpose should hee discourse of Bastards or the like when their consciences were scrupled in something which begun to concerne them upon their conversion and to tell them they were sanctified in their unbeleefe could never have reacht the scruple arising after they begun to bee beleevers because their marriage might be firme and good while they remained unbeleevers yet the Infidell might now become impure in that relation of marriage to the other which was converted And therefore it remaines that it must bee resolved from some rule which must reach beleevers as they were the people of God and not bee common to Infidels with them now what is that Argument which Paul here uses to satisfie them which must reach them as they were beleevers your selfe grant it is this else were your children uncleane which is the medium because your children are not uncleane but holy therefore the unbeleever must bee granted to bee sanctified to the wife or husband this Argument must therefore necessarily inferre some kind of holinesse which is appliable onely to the State of Religion therefore it must be federall holinesse But against this you except many things First this could not have resolved the doubt in the case of those who by Age could not bee sanctified to this end or by reason of accidendall inabilitie for generation they might still depart each from other notwithstanding this reason I answer it followes not this is a laying downe of their right which they may claime when ever they are capable of it this is their priviledge which remaines firme though it should never come into Act as if a freeman of a Citie should have right to have all his children borne freemen that is to bee numbred among his priviledges though hee should never have a child this reaches to men and women married and unmarried yea even to children yet unborne besides the first part of it reacheth to the bed even the coitus is not onely undefiled but sanctified Secondly say you this reason would then run thus you may live together for you may bâ—get a holy seed and so their consciences should have been resolved of their present lawfull living together from a future event which was uncertaine and here as I toucht
of the sanctuary and the Priests lips must preserve knowledge so our Ministers must be of holy life fit to teach c. And all this wee may plead by good warrant and whereas I added in my Sermon that our Lord taught us this by his owne example miz that Circumcision initiated into that administration and Baptisme into this who was Circumcised as a professed member of the Jewes Church and when hee set up the Christian Church hee would bee initiated into it by the Sacrament of Baptisme hereupon you runne into divers things as why Christ wouâ—d bee Circumcised why Baptized and in what sense Christ when he was to be baptized said that hee would be baptized that hee might fulfill all righteousnesse but you thinke it not probable that it was any part of his meaning to be initiated into the Christian Church by baptisme the Christian Church was not yet set up with worship discipline distinct from the Iewish and because his Baptisme was of a higher nature then our Baptisme I reply that the Christian Church was not fully set up and compleated with all Ordinances of worship government officers till afterwards is readily granted but that it was not in fieri in erecting and framing and that Baptisme was administred in reference to the Christian Church and that by Baptisme men were initiated into this new administration or best edition of the Church I thinke no sound Divine did ever question I grant Christs Baptisme was a transcendent one and differs from ours in many things and so was his Circumcision also a transcendent one and differed from the Jewes in many things can you thence frame an Argument that hee intended not by his conformity to our Ordinances to expresse the same favour to us as he did to the Jewes in conforming to their Ordinances but that you should hence fetch an Argument that because Christ was not baptized till hee was thirtie yeers old which was within lesse then thirtie weekes after Baptisme was made a Sacrament is I confesse a most transcendent straine of wit yet you boast of it as if by it you had broke one of the strings I have to my bow And proceed to try whether you cannot crack the other also the evidence which Colos 2 8. 9. c. gives to prove Baptisme to succeed in the roome of Circumcision but before you come to the examination of this place you make enquiry in what sense Baptisme succeeds in the roome of Circumcision and you first observe that in speaking exactly Baptisme was a concomitant of Circumcision if not ancienter that it was in use among the Jewes for many yeers together with Circumcision though not as a Sacrament and for this you cite the learned Gentleman Mr. Selden and Mr. Ainsworth on Gen. 17. and Mr. Lightfootes Elias Redivivus I confesse you are in the right Baptisme was a knowne rite in the Jewish Church long before it was made a Sacrament and therefore when Iohn came baptizing none of the Jewes were ignorant of the use of Baptisme they never asked him what he meant by baptizing they knew well enough that it was a rite used in admitting of Proselytes or new Converts into the Church they onely wondred why hee did Baptize if hee were not the Messiah But Sir this exception of yours is so farre from being any argument against mee that it affords me a good argument for Infant-Baptisme because the same authors which mention this as an Ecclesiasticall rite in admission of Proselytes doe testifie that the Infants of Proselytes were baptized as well as circumcised and wheresoever Circumcision was applyed Baptisme went along with it so that the use of Baptisme was the same before viz. to bee a rite of admitting growne men and Infants into the Church onely it begun to bee a Sacrament of divine institution when Iohn was sent to Baptize into the name of Christ and it is in this Sacrament as in the other Sacrament of the Lords Supper the panis benedictus and the cup were used before in the Sacrament of the Passeover as an Ecclesiasticall rite but our Lord at the last Passeover instituted the bread and wine to bee Sacramentall Elements which before were only an Ecclesiasticall rite now seeing that Baptisme which was in use before was onely turned into a Sacramentall use to succeed Circumcision with whom before it was a concomitant and alwayes applyed to the same persons Have you not helped us to a good Argument that Baptisme belongs to Infants as well as grown men especially since there is not the least hint given in the Word that when it was thus advanced to bee a Sacrament it should not bee applyed to those persons to whom before it was viz. Infants as well as growne men the truth of this that it was so may appeare partly by Mr. Selden who testifies that the Infants of the Gentiles were made proselytes by this rite among others both the male children and the female so likewise Maimonides Issurei biah Cap. 13. tells us by three things Israel entred into Covenant by Circumcision by Baptisme and offering and that Baptisme was in the Wildernesse before the giving of the Law as it is said And thou shalt sanctifie them to day and to morrow and let â—hem wash their garments and in another place when a Gentile will enter into the Covenant and gather himselfe under the wings of the Divine majesty hee must be Circumcised Baptized and bring an offering if it bee a female baptisme and offering and againe a Proselyte that is circumcised and not baptized or baptized and not circumcised is not a Proselyte untill hee bee both circumcised and baptized and againe a little Proselyte they baptize by the appointment of the Consessus There are also speciall testimonies in the Talmud which declare that Infants both of Iewes and Gentiles were thus admitted the male children by circumcision and baptisme the females by baptisme c. Many testimonies of this nature to shew that Infants as well as growne men were baptized among the Jewes are to be seene in Mr. Ainsworth upon Gen. 17. vers 12 13. I was willing to give this little taste that the Reader may see that baptisme ever since it was in use was applyable to children as well as growne men You adde even the Sacrament of Baptisme was before circumcision ceased and you instance with Iohns Baptisme which was a concomitant Sacrament with the Sacrament of circumcision I answer as before Iohns Baptisme and Ministery was a Prâ—ludium to Christ and was wholly in reference to the Christian Church which then begun to bee moulded and though there was not a new distinct Church of Christianitie set up yet all this was preparing the materialls of it and Iohn did not admit them by Baptisme as members to the Jewish Padagogy which was then ready to bee taken away but into that new administration which was then in preparing but this is no argument
that no part of the spirituall Covenant made with Abraham did appeare to belong to Ishmael when he was circumcised or not to Esau when hee was circumcised God indeed did then declare that Isaac was he in whose family the Covenant should continue but not a word that Ishmael should have no part in it prove if you can in your next that Ishmael and Esau were not by their circumcision bound to have their hearts circumcised and to beleeve in the Messiah that was to come of Abrahams seed And whereas you say againe and againe that no benefit of the Covenant was the proper reason why these or those were circumcised but onely Gods precept I have already cleared it out of the Text Genesis 17. that though Gods command was the cause of the existence of the dutie of Circumcision yet the Covenant of grace was the motive to it and these two are well consistent together Whereas I answered to that carnall objection of the Anabaptists that nothing is plainer then that the Covenant whereof Circumcision was a signe was the Covenant of grace you reply first it was a mixt Covenant which is before taken away in answer to your exceptions against my first conclusion Sect. 2. Part 3. Secondly you say all circumcised persons were not partakers of the spirituall part it 's one thing to bee under the outward administration another thing to be under the Covenant of Grace Sir I thanke you for this answer you grant as much as I have been proving all this while viz. that men may have a visible membership though they bee not elected and that there ever was and will be some such in the Church to whom the outward administration and externall priviledges doe appâ—â—taine though they are not inwardly sanctified and I hope you will not deny but that these are called in that sense which our Saviour meanes when hee sayes Many are called but few are chosen I added Abraham received Circumcision a signe of the righteousnesse of faith true say you Circumcision was a seale of righteousnesse but not to all or only circumcised persons but to all beleevers whether Iews or Gentiles though they never are or may be sealed in their own persons I reply first this is but a peece of odde Divinitie that Circumcision should seale righteousnesse to them who never are circumcised nor reputed so nor capable of being circumcised nor might lawfully be circumcised but let that passe 2ly Indeed none but beleevers have the spirituall part of Circumcision but visible professors had a visible right to it and were obliged to seeke the spirituall grace of it and though they who are externally called and not elected never come to attaine the spirituall part yet are they in foro visibilis Ecclesiae to be reputed Church members and they have as Austin saith veritatem sacramenti though not fructum Sacramenti they receive the truth of the Sacrament though they partake not of the best part of it And the Iewes said I received it not as a nation but as a Church as a people separated from the world and taken into Covenant with God against which you object if I take as with reduplication they received it neither as a nation nor as a Church for if as a nation then every nation must have been circumcised if as a Church then every Church must be circumcised they received it as appointed them from God under that formall notion and no other But what poore exceptions are these my plaine meaning was the Jewes were both a civill societie or Common-wealth they were also a Church or a people in Covenant with God Circumcision was given them in reference to their Church State not in reference to their civill state and was in ordine to the things of Gods kingdome and though the formall reason of their being circumcised was the command of God yet the Covenant of grace or their Church state was the motive to it and the thing it related to as is most cleare out of the 17. of Genesis and many other places where their Circumcision denotates their religious standing as hath often been shewed before But what is all this say you to the answering of the objection which was that Circumcision was not the Seale of the spirituall part of the Covenant of grace to all circumcised persons and that Circumcision was appointed to persons not under the Covenant c. I answer I thinke it very fully answers the objection for if it was commanded and observed as that which was a priviledge and dutie belonging to the Covenant and they used it as being in Covenant the objection is wholly taken off Your frequent bringing in of the manner of administration by types shadowes c. hath been abundantly answered in my vindicating my first conclusion and elsewhere Next you much trouble your selfe how I will cleare that expression of mens conformity to temporall blessings and punishments because blessings and punishments are Gods acts and not mens I desire you to require an account of it from them who assert it I said Circumcision bound them who received it to conforme to that manner of administration of the Covenant which was carried much by a way of temporall blessings and punishments they being types of spirituall things is this all one to conforme to temporall blessings and punishments I added no man can shew that any were to receive Circumcision in relation to these outward things onely or to them at all further then they were administrations of the Covenant of grace you answer they received Circumcision neither in relation to these outward things onely no nor at all either as they were temporall blessings or types of spirituall things and so administrations of the Covenant of grace but for this reason and no other because God had so commanded I reply here had beene the fit place for you to have made good what you have so confidently asserted heretofore that Ishmael Esau and others were circumcised for some temporall respects that Circumcision sealed the temporall or politicall promises c. but in stead of proving this you doe here as good as deny it for if they were not circumcised in any respect at all to their temporall blessings how I pray you did Circumcision seale their temporall blessings Nay further you by consequent deny that Circumcision sealed either temporall or spirituall blessings and consequently it was no seale at all or a seale of nothing at all for if they were circumcised with respect to nothing but onely because God commanded them to bee circumcised how was Circumcision any Seale to them If a father give a child a Ring and command him to weare it onely to shew his obedience to his fathers command what doth the wearing of this Ring seale to the child it declares indeed the childes obedience to the father but seals nothing to the child from the father Nor doth that which you adde any whit helpe this you say You deny not
that circumcised persons were by faith to looke on the covenant of grace through these administrations but by what warrant could their faith look upon the Covenant of grace through circumcision if the command of circumcision were not in reference to the Covenant of grace I professe I cannot understand it nor doe I thinke it possible for you to reconcile this either with the constant doctrine of the Scripture concerning the end and use of Circumcision or with your owne grant that Circumcision was the initiall Seale of the Jewes Covenant with God To cleare it further that Circumcision was not a seale of the land of Canaan or the temporall blessings of it I shewed the Proselytes and their children could not bee circumcised in relation to Canaan c. because they were not capable of any inheritance there yea that it tied them to a greater expence of their temporall blessings by their long frequent and chargeable journies to worship at Ierusalem you answer onely this all this may bee granted yet this overthrowes not this proposition that the Covenant made with Abraham had promises of temporall blessings and that some were to be circumcised who had no part in the covenant of grace but Sir the thing I am here proving is that Circumcision was no Seale of the land of Canaan not that there were no temporall blessings belonging to the Covenant I know the promises of temporall blessings belong to the Covenant of grace as well as the promises of spirituall godlinesse having the promise of this life and of that which is to come nor was I proving that all who were to bee circumcised had part in the spirituall graces of the Covenant my drift being onely to prove that all who were to be circumcised had a visible membership and right to bee reputed as belonging to the Church against which in this place you say just nothing Lastly whereas I added that Ishmael and the rest of Abrahams family Esau and others were really taken into covenant untill afterwards by apostasie they discovenanted themselves you answer that I plainely deliver apâ—stasie from the covenant of grace which in others wou'd bee called Armianisme because taking into the covenant of grace argues election or some act which executes election I reply I have no doubt but that all indifferent Readers well enough understand what I meant by being taken into the Covenant of grace even such a taking in as when the Gentiles were taken in in ramorum defractorum locum instead of the Iewes who were broken off your selfe grant it is one thing to bee under the spirituall grace of the Covenant and another thing to bee under the outward administration in this later sense were Ishmael Esau and the rest taken in they were visible professors had an externall calling and are all visible professors elected and is not externall vocation Gods act though a common one The fifth and last conclusion which I laid downe in my Sermon was this the priviledges of beleevers under this last and best administration of the covenant of grace are many wayes enlarged made more honorable and comfortable then ever they were in the time of the Iewes administration many Scriptures speake of their inlargement not one for the dimininishing or extenuating of them I could hardly have imagined that you could have spent ten or eleven whole pages in excepting against this I shall very briefely examine what you have said first you shew your skill in the description of a priviledge out of the civill Law and I concurre with you that a priviledge must bee somewhat which is a benefit and that the same thing may bee a priviledge at one time which is not at another that that may bee a priviledge in comparison of the heathens which is not in comparison of Christians but what 's all this to the purpose further say you the priviledges of the covenant of grace belonging to the substance of it are not now more enlarged or more honorable or comfortable then they were in the time of the Iewes I answer first though this were granted it hurts not mee it 's sufficient if the administration be now more comfortable to beleevers and their children Secondly if there be no more honorablenesse in those priviledges which belong to the substance of the Covenant how comes it to passe that in your answers to those severall texts which I and others bring to prove the enlargement of priviledges under this last administration you interpret them of those priviledges which belong to the substance of the Covenant or the spirituall part of it Thirdly though I willingly acknowledge that the spirituall priviledges are the same both to the Jewes and Gentiles the same under both administrations yet seeing that under this last administration these priviledges are communicated not onely with more clearenesse but in greater measure and abundance floods in stead of drops wildernesses made like Lebanon and Sharon I wonder you should say they are no more honorable and comfortable now then they were then is not abundance of grace more honorable and comfortable then a little grace But say you in respect of the administration it is granted they are many wayes enlarged and made more honorable this will serve our turne well enough for this was a priviledge belonging to their administration that their Infants were under it as well as themselves yeeld that for ours and the controversie is ended wee say I are freed from that hard and costly yoake of their way of administration true say you it is not onely our priviledge to bee free from that but it is our priviledge also to have nothing in lieu of that yoake To have nothing in lieu of them as they were shadowes of the substance which is Christ is very right but to say it is our priviledge to have nothing in lieu of them as they were externall Ordinances to apply Christ is to say it is our priviledge to have no Ordinances to apply Christ to us and thereby to make us compleat in him which were a most absurd thing to affirme Whereas I added that our priviledges for our selves and our children are at least as honorable large and comfortable as theirs your answer to this is very remarkable but whether with an obeliske or asteriske the Reader shall judge first say you circumcision belongs to the administration of the Covenant not to the substance of it I reply it was indeed a part of their administration and obliged them to the rest of that manner of administration as Baptisme now doth to ours but did it not also belong to the substance was it not a seale of the righteousnesse of faith of circumcision of heart c. doth not the seale belong to the thing sealed the conveyance and seal annexed to it are no part of the purchased inheritance but doe they not belong to it Secondly your next is as remarkable viz. That it 's so farre from being a priviledge to our children to
have them baptized to have Baptisme succeed in the stead of Circumeision that it is a benefit to want it God not having appointed it I answer then belike our priviledges of the Covenant of grace are so farre from being inlarged by enjoying the Sacrament of Baptisme that it had been our priviledge to have wanted Baptisme if God had not appointed it and by as good a reason at least you might have said that Circumcision was so farre from being a priviledge to the Jews and their children that it had been a benefit for them to have wanted it if God had not commanded it sure that is a strange kinde of priviledge of which I may truly say that it had been a greater benefit to them who have it to have wanted it if the Donor had not commanded it Next you come more particularly to examine the proofs of my Conclusion and say you the thing I should prove is one of these two either that circumcision did belong to the substance of the Covenant of grace or that the want of circumcision or some Ordinance in the place and use of it is a losse of priviledge of the Covenant of grace to us and our children Sir the thing I was to prove was this 5 Conclusion viz. That our priviledges are inlarged not extenuated and as for these two particulars I have already proved that Circumcision though a part of their administration did yet belong to the substance belong to it I say not as a part of it but as a meanes of applying it And I have also proved that though it be a priviledge to have nothing succeed circumcision as it bound to that manner of administration yet it is a priviledge to have somewhat succeed it as a seale of the Covenant in as much as a Covenant with a seale is a greater benefit then a Covenant without a seale More particularly I said our enlargement of priviledges appeares partly in that wee have freedome in what was burthensome to them in their manner of administration partly because our Covenant is established upon better promises Heb. 8. 6. Whereupon you enter upon a Discourse of that Covenant there mentioned and you positively assert That it was the Covenant of workes Alasse Sir why doe you run into this needlesse and erroneous digression I said indeed in my Sermon that the morall Law was added foure hundred and thirty yeares after the Covenant was made with Abraham not as a part of that Covenant but as a Schoolemaster to whip them to Christ that they finding the impossibility of keeping the Law might more earnestly long after Christ exhibited in those shadows of Rites and Sacrifices c. but to say that this Covenant mentioned in the eight of the Hebrews was the Covenant of works is a most erroneous doctrine look into the Text and you shall find that the Covenant which is there mentioned which God finds fault with and calls the first Covenant in opposition to this bâ—tter Covenant had Ordinances of divine Worship had a Sanctuary a Tabernacle Priests and High Priests Sacrifices and other Rites belonging to the administration of it Sir was this the Covenant of works I hope you will not own it in your next Next you say That place 2 Cor. 3. 10. the glory of theirs bad no glory in respect of ours This is not meant of the Covenant of grace but of the Covenant in Mount Sinai therefore impertinently alledged by me Sir I wonder at your confidence in it the Reader will easily discorne that the whole scope of that Chapter clearly holds forth the preheminence of the Ministery of the Gospel above the Ministery of Moses his vailed Ceremonies belike then with you Moses Ceremonies were the Covenant of works Next I shewed in my Sermon that as our priviledges are better then theirs in being free'd from their burthens so we as well as they enjoy the honour of being called a holy Nation a peculiar people a chosen generation c. Vpon this you discourse at large especially against Mr. Blake and you undertake to prove that all these things are meant of the invisible Church I answer very briefly none of us ever doubted but that the spirituall part belongs onely to the invisible Church and did so in the time of the Jews as well as now but yet we as well as the Jews partake of that priviledge and our visible standing gives us the honor to be so reputed as wel as theirs gave it unto them and were all the Jews who had the honour to bee called a holy Nation really such were they all inwardly holy or effectually called the like answer serves to your discourse upon Rom. 9. the Apostle speakes there of adoption as a priviledge of the body of that Nation their whole Nation had the Honour to bee called the children of God according to Deut. 14. 1. Ye are the children of the Lord your God yet they were not all the spirituall children of God the Reader may see more of this in the vindication of my second Conclusion and you shall doe well in your next solidly to prove that these were not priviledges which the visible Church of the Jewes enjoyed though many among them had the kernell without the shell rather then thus to triumph in these feeble exceptions I added Wee have all these things with advantage not onely in the clearnesse of the administration but in some sense in greater extent to persons with us there is neither male nor female Why I adde this of male or female you say you know not except I meane to insinuate that in the Jewish Church there was male and female because Circumcision was onely of the males c. I reply I acknowledge that though it bee true that among true beleevers among the Jews there was neither male nor female all equally did partake of the spirituall part of the Covenant as well as now with us yet for the comfortable manner of administration of it even this distinction of male and female is a priviledge enlaâ—ged under this last and best administration and the Apostle in that place Gal. 3. 28. doth plainly intimate the enlargement of this priviledge in this respect and so I think the words plainly hold out As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ there is neither Iew nor Greeke bond nor free made nor female for ye are all one in Christ Jesus and if ye be Christs then are ye Abrahams seed and heires according to promise To me the Apostle here doth plainly hold out that now under the New Testament baptisme is the visible pledge of our being Abrahams seed as circumcision was the pledge of it under the Old Testament that here is the enlargement of our priviledge in the New Testament that whereas Circumcision of old was applyed to one Nation and not to others now out of all Nations such are called in as are made Abrahams seed whether Jew or Greek
from the command of Circumcision to Baptisme be not every way as strong clear As for your ten Arguments to prove the abolition of the Jewish Sacraments ceremonies they are al agreed to are brought nothing to he purpose in hand I have already shewed that this argument from the Analogie betweene Circumcision and Baptisme and the reason end and use of them both stands still in force though Circumcision it selfe be abolished and I doubt not but the impartiall Reader will acknowledge this argument to be as good Circumcise your children because your children have right to this initiall seale Ergo by analogie let Christians baptize their children who have the same right to the initiall seale as this ye Iewes keepe the Sabbath on the seventh or last day of the weeke Ergo ye Christians keep the Sabbath on the first of the weeke As for your ridiculous consequences which you put upon me of thou art Peter Ergo the Pope is Monarch of the Church c. I answer onely this I shall desire you in your next to deal with your Adversary by solid Arguments rather then seek to render him ridiculous by jeeres and scoffes lest in the end you meet with some adversary who may dresse you in your own kind which I have no minde to doe whether I have not made good this command of Circumcising Infants to prove baptizing of Infants by good consequence I leave the Reader to judge and proceed to try your strength against the next Another command by good consequence I gathered out of Mat. 28. compared with Mar. 16. 15. Gal. 3. 89. Rom. 1. 16 17. where our Saviour bids his Disciples goe and teach all Naâ—ions baptizing them c. VVherein I observed two things First what they were to doe viz. to teach the whole Covenant the Covenant made with Abraham whereof this was one branch I will be the God of thee and of thy seed they were also to baptize that is to administer Baptisme as a seale of the Covenant to all who received the Covenant Secondly wee have the persons to whom they were to doe this all Nations whereas before the Church was tyed to one Nation one Nation onely were disciples now their Commission was extended to make all Nations Disciples every Nation which should receive the faith should be to him now as the peculiar Nation of the Iews had been in times past now we know when that one Nation of the Iews were made Disciples and circumcised their Children were made Disciples made to belong to Gods school and circumcised with them c. To this you answer First that promise I will be the God of thee and thy seed that it should be thus interpreted the seed of beleevers are taken into Covenant with their Parents is a new Gospel no older then Zwinglius But I have sufficiently proved that this was good Gospel in the Apostles dayes and in the times of the Fathers of the Primitive Church Secondly concerning the persons who were to be baptized every Nation or all Natitions to this because it is like to trouble you you bring forth your old artifice of framing many senses whether by every Nation be meant beleevers of every Nation then you grant the sense is good or whether by Nation be meant a great or eminent part of the Nation the Goveâ—nours and chiefe Cities the representative body of a Nation Then you fly out and talke of baptizing all within the Precinâ—â— of a Parish a concâ—it which you fasten upon Cyprian and talke of necessity of baptizing by officiating Priests and bring in the Independents nothing to the purpose and enquire whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or them referre to Nations or Disciples in those words of our Saviour then you vent your Criticismes against the author of Infant-Baptisme and undertake to shew that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to teach cum effectu or teach till they be made Scholars and after a long Discourse upon these things your result is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them may be meant of Disciples and Nations respectively Disciples of Nations or Nations who be Disciples but not to baptize any of them till they were Disciples But Sir what need all these things the meaning is plaine by Nations I neither meane the major part of a Nation nor representative body of a Nation nor the King of a Nation but whereas before onely one Nation of the Jews were Gods people in Covenant now other Nations should be taken in likewise and whereas before their Commission to preach and baptize was restrictive Goe not to the Gentiles or Samaritans now he enlarges their Commission to all Nations and wherever their Ministery should bee so blessed as to have any Nation accept the Gospel they should be his people now as the Jewes had been in times past according to that Evangelicall promise Esa 19. 24. In that day shall Israel he a third with Egypt and Assyria even a blessing in the midst of the Land whom the Lord of Hosts shalâ— blesse saying Blessed be Egypt my people and Assyria the work of my â—ands and Israel mine inheritance Here is the Nation of Egypt and the Nation of Assyria taken into Covenant as well as Israel Gods inheritance and now Abraham indeed became the Father of many Nations so that the emphasis of this Text is in the word Nations in opposition to the one Nation of the Jews that whereas the Apostles thought they were never to go to those vile nations who were esteemed as Dogs and Swine our Lord instructed them That now hee would pluck up the partition wall and that the rest of the Nations should be brought within the verge of his Church and partake of the same Covenant which the Jewes had before enjoyed as their peculiar treasure a wonder of mercy as the Jews themselves judged when they came first to understand it Act. 11. 8. and consequently when other Nations should thus by receiving and professing the Gospel come under his wing they should enjoy the same benefit of the Covenant with the Jews He would henceforth be the God of them and their seed Against this you except many things First say you then there may bee a rule assigned to know when a Nation may be called a beleeving Nation but there is none And to prove this minor you run out at large not when a King is baptized nor when the representative body nor when the greatest part are beleevers and further if the children of wicked parents in a nation may be baptized it must be either from their descent or place of birth or both if by descent it must be either from their immediate parents or forefathers within memory or beyond memory if from the place of their birth then the children of Turks born in England may be baptized and if the children of wicked parents may claime it it must be from some Charter Abraham indeed had a Charter to circumâ—ise his how wicked soever