and let believing Gentiles be counted branches yet Infants then were some of the branches when they were in the Olive or root and so were branches cut off when their parents were cut off as long as the parents stood branches so long the Infants were branches nor were any parents branches but from that state they had when Infants Gentiles Infants therefore are branches with their believing parents and stand in the same state with them Secondly wee know that the Scriptures do not so appropriate the words root and first fruits as not to apply them to others besides the particulars Jerem. 11.16 God called the Church there an Olive and the people branches so she is called a Vine Isa 5 c. So others are called first fruits as 1 Cor. 16.15 Rev. 14.4 c. And if parents had no relation to children nor Infants to parents in this respect how could Infants being branches with their parents to Abraham the root be cut off with their parents seeing they could not be cut off for their own unbeliefe and their relation to Abraham was intire in respect of any thing on their part to the contrary This place therefore is not abused in the application of it but fully concludeth what I brought it for Next hee considereth 1 Cor. 7.14 which hee saith neither suppresseth roots nor first fruits nor hath it any such meaning as that the holinesse of the parent should cause a holinesse in their Infant In a word I reply root and first fruits are not expressed but necessarily implyed and so much is expressed as amounts to that For if the children be holy upon their parents believing and if the parents did not believe the children should not be holy it is as much as if he had said the root is holy and the branches are holy not in the parents believing any cause of their childrens holinesse but Gods free grace But not to strive about words in the view of the place it self before he comes to expresse his Reasons negative and affirmative he conceives it necessary to observe what I say which hee thus sets down I suppose it is mistaken when expounded of the same holinesse spoken of before of an Infidel person sanctified to a believing yoke-fellow And the Apostle speaking of a two-fold holinesse the one not in the thing it self but to another use the other of the thing it self it cannot but be sinfull to confound them Hee answereth he◠will not contend nor gain-say any thing of this Reply Herein he makes himself an Adversary to some of his judgment in this case of Baptisme who maintain that state of holiness to be meant in the children that was in the parent that is holy to the believers use Further he saith I say the Apostle saith two things that to the pure all things are pure Ergo a believing person may dwell with an Infidell yoke-fellow Secondly that by vertue of a believers state in grace all the fruit is holy and partakers of the same state in grace unlesse they do by some act of theirs deprive themselves of it as Esau and Ishmael c. In answer to this he grants the former but denies the latter wholly and that it is not the purpose of Paul so to speak and therefore he gives divers reasons First ¶ 1 the Apostle intends such a holinesse in the Infants as is inseparable from their very being or else it would not have been a sufficient proof of the sanctification of the unbelieving unto the believer Reply I deny that the Apostle intends to conclude such a holinesse as is inseparable to their very being for then it would be common to all Infants whereas this is appropriate to an Infant of at least one believer In a word there is a two-fold holinesse of a person one is externall and is the separation of him from common state to be the Lords and bound up in covenant with him which is foederall holinesse The other is internall and is the speciall separation of a man from the state of sin by inherent sanctificaon from justification in Christ which is inseparable from them that have it The other is separable as in the case of Jewes who by this were called a holy people when yet they were not really sanctified by inherent grace and the holy city called an Harlot and of this in his place which fully will prove what the Apostle intends as wee shall see afterward His second Reason follows which is this ¶ 2 If by a believers state in grace be meant the covenant that Abraham and all believers do possesse by faith then he saith first Ishmael Esau c. were never of it Rom. 9.8 and therefore could not by any act of theirs deprive themselves of it Reply First by the state of grace is meant that covenant that Abraham and all believers do possesse by faith Secondly I say Ishmael Esau c. were of that covenant dispensed on Gods part unto them and to be received on their part by faith at present or afterward And if Ishmael and Esau were not so in that covenant as well as Isaac and Jacob then how could they be circumcised with the seal of the righteousnesse of faith they had the same seal set unto them that Abraham Isaac and Jacob had and if it were not the same covenant then Abraham Isaac and Jacob were in one covenant and sealed to that and Ishmael and Esau and the like were in another covenant and sealed to that with the same seal that the others were sealed to the other Further whether or no shall Ishmael Esau c. be judged according to that covenant of Abraham and punished for refusing it if so as it is certain then they were under that covenant though they injoyed not the benefit of it which is the meaning of Rom. 9.8 and deprived themselves of it by hardening their hearts and had a spirit of slumber inflicted upon them as a just punishment of that their refusing Rom. 11.7 Secondly he saith that if Ishmael and Esau were deprived by some act of theirs then we must fall upon Arminius tenet of falling from grace which all understanding Christians do utterly abhor Reply First it is well known that many holding with the Consuter in this point of paedobaptisme do maintain that a man truly elected and in state of salvation may and do fall away and perish if he dissents in this I will not blame him 2ly What understanding Christian did ever deny that some men fall from grace and are there not many Scriptures that do testifie as much Christians do deny that any elect of God and made partakers of saving calling can fall away from that estate they thereby are made partakers of But there is another state of grace whereof many non-elected are partakers of by the covenant on Gods part dispensed and of many effects of Gods operation in their hearts some more some lesse and from this all of them may many of them do fall
others unto them Now a Church I conceive to be an institution of it whereby a company of men and women called by the word of Gods grace and some work of Gods Spirit upon them doe joyn themselves unto the Lord and one to another by entring into covenant with the Lord to have him to be the God of them theirs and they and theirs to be the Lords and his Christs as also one with another to meet together to worship God for his glory their mutuall edification to life according to Gods revealed will Now as I tie no man to my expressions so I shall be willing to learn of any that shall help me to a better understanding in this point yet in this description all the causes concurre The efficient an institution of Christ with the instrumentall the Word in some effects upon their hearts the materiall a company of men and women so called and from thence Saints and beleevers the formall joyning themselves to the Lord and one with another by entring into covenant whereof there are two branches one called Zach. 11. The staffe of beauty taking the Lord to be the God of them and theirs and giving up themselves and theirs to be the Lords the other called The staffe of bonds or brotherhood and both the covenant the finall to meet together to glorifie God the supreme and edifie one another to life with the meanes worshipping God according to his own appointment revealed in his word onely I would be understood of a Church in the constituting of it which is continued in the same state by succession till the Lord the efficient dischurch them But to proceed this confuter next saith That I make this quaere Whether baptisme be not the form of a church and answering No giving reasons of my deniall I affirm a covenant acted is the form of it To all which he answereth first in generall And here he distinguisheth between the form and the thing formed and saith That a Church being an Assembly the form or fashion thereof is the relation that every member possesseth from Christ their head and each with other wherby every law and service is communicable and executed concluding that neither a covenant or baptisme is the form of a Church but baptisme of a beleever is an instrumentall meanes by which a Church is made partaker of that forme which it hath as by which it becomes a Church Further that the instrumentall meanes of the being of a Church both of matter and form is by consent of love issuing forth from the covenant of grace made in and from our Lord through one Spirit one Faith one Baptisme Ephes 4.4 5. And if any of these be wanting and be not supplied the Church can have no visible existence and being From whence it followeth though baptisme bee not the form of a Church yet being an essentiall meanes and the last too of the visible Church where true baptisme is wanting there can be no true visible Church Reply First to let passe his distinction onely this I say that he confoundeth forme and figure as one thing which are divers For water in a round glasse or square hath this or that figure or fashion but it is not the forme whereby water is water and not another thing and therefore form differs from figure and fashion Secondly whereas he denieth a covenant or baptisme either to be a Churches form he contradicteth what he said before in his answer to my first argument to prove the covenant before Christ and after to be the same It is true said he that the coventnt of God maketh the Church both in the time of the Law and Gospel too and a Church is nothing but a people in covenant with God That saying of his here and there cannot be both true Thirdly he saith that the form of the Church is that relation that each member possesseth from Christ the head and each with other which is by consent of love Reply First the relation that each member possesseth from Christ the head and each the other is either internall as Spirit Faith Love or externall the manifestation of these as they are internall they cannot be the form of an externall visible church as they are manifested outwardly they cannot make the churches form because they may manifest these graces and yet be no church nor members of a visible and this particular church And indeed they are neither matter nor form though hee makes them both but the manifestation of these maketh them to be fit matter for a church which yet cannot be a church without the form added to the matter and that is a covenant or as he calleth it a consent which indeed is a covenant by which alone every Law and Service is communicable and excecuted Last of all he saith that consent of love from one Spirit Faith and Baptisme are essentially necessary meanes of the being of a church for matter and forme Ephes 4.4 5. And if any of these bee wanting then there can be no visible church Reply First in making all these to concurre to the matter and form of the church as meanes thereof hee necessarily yeeldeth the form and matter to be something else differing from them all Secondly he confounds baptisme with faith and love which are internall graces unlesse he means the externall profession of them flowing from the covenant of grace which if he doe then I conceive he yeelds as much as I require that in a covenant or mutuall engagement of all parties and one main part by profession of faith and love through one spirit without which a covenant cannot be in the state we speak of it Thirdly that of Ephes 4. intends not to describe the forme of a church but perswades to unity by a sevenfold unity that they are already church-members were all partakers of Lastly if baptisme may be wanting for a time and yet a beleever essentially a church-member as Abraham and his many males and females were before circumcised for the space of at least 14. yeares between the covenant and circumcision and therefore doth not concurre to the constitution of a churches matter and form but for the confirmation of a church constituted in matter and forme before And when a man of yeares is baptized in a church is the baptized a visible Saint or no If yea for he may be no reall Saint then his baptisme doth not give him matter and forme but hee hath both before or else hee ought not to be baptized And thus much to his generall discourse In particular he goeth on and saith First as it is in natural birth so it is in spirituall but in naturall birth we have the beginning of our natural being among the world and in the affairs of this life by our birth from our parents therefore wee have the beginning of our spirituall and visible being among the church as in the affaires of life eternall by our spirituall birth and this spirituall
flesh successively Secondly by passing the promise into a solemne formall visible covenant as the father of the blessed and all-blessing seed and of all believers of all nations Thirdly confirming it by circumcision the sign and seal of the righteousnesse of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised 3. The third from Moses to Christs coming in the flesh this is the same in substance with the former the same Christ and doctrine and grace dispensed but differing from the former in the manner of dispensation in divers circumstances First in adding these ten words in tables of stone and drawing a vail of shadowes over it consisting of all those Lawes and Ordinances delivered to Moses on the mount according to the pattern shewed him and by him communicated to the people Secondly in adding the Ordinance of the Passeover with divers rites thereto belonging all which were to continue till the time of Reformation and this and not the former is the old Testament ratified by the death of Bulls and Goats c. Shadows of better things without the application whereof the other purified the flesh and not the conscience 4. The fourth begins with the manifestation of the Son of God in the flesh and still continues and is the new Testament ratified by the death and blood of the Lord Jesus the testator who being come the vaile of shadowes was utterly removed and the Mosaicall administrations quite abolished the old being done away that the new might be established which cannot be removed And this is to be attended that all the Scriptures that speak of the removall of the old and setting up of the new Testament or that declare the abolishing of the old and establishing of the new as was foretold is to be understood of these two periods from Moses to Christ and after not of that from Abraham to Moses and he opposition in this case made in the Scriptures is of that under Moses and Christ only 5. The covenant that God made with Abraham and continued to his seed the Jewes and us Gentiles hath two parts in it the first respecteth God the other respecteth us In the first concerning God is contained all that concerns our good temporall and eternall and himself held forth as the sole efficient of all preventing us with his grace freely and performing all the good pleasure of his grace in us according to his own will nor doth any thing that hee is pleased to work depend on us nor requires he any thing of us by way of efficiencie or causality yet so as that hee worketh something in us without us even being meerly passive in the act of working till it be first wrought something he works by us stirring up and assisting that which hee hath first wrought in us nor can we at first do any thing till hee hath principled us by supernaturall grace nor first or last more then hee helpeth us who worketh all the will and deed according to his will 6. Infants are passively capable of the dispensation of God and of the Spirit and grace of the covenant and what ever men of yeers are capable of though not wrought in the same way or by the same means yet the same things and by the same Spirit so far as is necessary to union with Christ and his justification to life thereby else no children dying Infants are elected or shall be raised up again in their bodies and saved nor is the judgement that we can have of men of yeers infallible as in Simon Magus c. 7. The Lord having taken hold of any man or woman by outward dispensation of means to call them out of Infidelity into visible profession of faith in the Word of his grace and obedience to his commands they are hereby made partakers of his covenant and all the priviledges outwardly belonging thereto yea though they have not saving faith but be hypocrites and so themselves and all that ever proceed from them continue in the same state parents and children successively so long as the Lord continues the course of his dispensation nor can any alteration befall them whereby this estate is dissolved but some apparent act of God breaking them off from him 8. Baptisme is not the first grace but the second nor doth it confer grace but confirm the former which therefore must be presupposed and it is the seal of the righteousnesse of faith in the new Testament to all that receive it as circumcision of old was to them Rom. 4.11 By baptisme I mean the ordinance of the church administred by a just calling which is too oft though it never should be separated from inward grace yet remains true baptisme so administred else Simon Magus and those false breathren Gal. 2. being not inwardly baptized were not truly baptized and if they had repented must be baptized anew 9. Last of all as of old more was required of Abraham and of men of yeers turning Proselytes when they were to be circumcised then of Isaac and their Infants continually afterwards circumcised So now in administring baptisme to persons more is required of men of yeers then of Infants God required faith of Abraham in the blessing seed before circumcised but hee required not faith of Isaac nor of any one of Abrahams seed after him before circumcision but that they should believe afterward which he promised to work in them So now of men of yeers faith is to be required and must be that a man of yeers be baptized but not so of Infants of baptized persons who are to be baptized that they may believe afterward c. Having premised thus much I come to the proof of the question that Infants of believing parents and in covenant with God by visible profession may and ought to be baptized ARGUMENTS ¶ 1 IF the covenant now under Christ be the same that it was with Abraham and the Jewes before Christ then as Infants were in that covenant and partakers of the signe thereof circumcision so are Infants now in the covenan and should receive the signe thereof baptisme But the covenant now under Christ is the same with that before Christ with Abraham and his posterity in the flesh Therefore as Infants were then in the covenant and signed with circumcision so are Infants now in the covenant and are to receive baptisme the signe thereof In this Argument three things are to be cleared First that the covenant made with Abraham and his posterity before Christ and this under Christ is the same And secondly that Infants were then in that covenant so they be now in this And thirdly that all Jewish Infants were then partakers of the signe and circumcised and so should Infants now receive baptisme the signe of it Of each of these I will set down particular grounds 1. That the covenant with Abraham and the Jewes before and the Gentiles now is the same is evident by these reasons First the Gospel is the doctrine of the covenant but this is but
one Gal. 1.6 and was preached to Abraham Gal. 3.8 Rom. 4.11 and to the Jewes in the wildernesse Heb. 3. 4. and in Davids time Heb. 4.7 from Psal 95. and during their whole state Rom. 9.31 10.2 This Gospel is now preached to us Heb. 4.2 Therefore the covenant is the same in all and it is an injurious thing to Gods grace and utterly against the Scriptures to affirm that that covenant was of nature in the flesh and of earthly things This is of grace in the spirit and of heavenly things And as little understanding doe they shew in Gods word that say Gods covenant was in their flesh because circumcision outward was in their flesh For though God calls it his covenant yet it is not but the signe of it as he after expresseth and outward baptisme is no lesse on the flesh then it and so may be called Gods covenant on the flesh Secondly if Abraham be the Father of the Jewes and Gentiles equally as he beleeves the righteousnesse of faith and they his children equally as so beleeving and no otherwise then the covenant is the same But Abraham is the father of Jewes and Gentiles equally as he beleeves and they his children equally as so beleeving Rom. 4.11 12 16 17 23 24. Gal. 3.7 9 26.29 Therefore the covenant is the same By beleeving I mean the profession of Faith Thirdly the standing of the Jewes under the grace of God was the same with Abraham as is cleare from Gods often expressing himselfe to be the God of their Fathers Abraham c. and dispensing himselfe according to the covenant made with Abraham c and to his posterity Exod. 2.24 2 Reg. 13.23 And their praying to the Lord to remember his covenant made with Abraham c. acknowledging the accomplishment of it to them Luke 2.54 and 72.74 And let not any say it was a covenant of giving the Land of Canaan For if that were all why did David so long after Joshuah possesse them of Canaan when they had rest there yet still provoke them in his time to enter into Gods rest lest they should be shut out as their Fathers were in the wildernesse as the Apostle argueth Heb. 3.4 was this the land of Canaan unlesse as a type was it not Christ and Gods free grace Now our standing is the same with the Jewes as is evident Matth. 21.4 chap. 22.1 2. That the Infants of the Jewes were then in the covenant will not be denied That Infants are now in the covenant whose parents professe the faith I prove thus 1. Else the covenant was not the same with the former but another But it is the same with the former and not another diverse from that as I have proved Ergo c. Else the state of the grace of God should bee straitned and made of lesse extent by Christs comming then it was before whereas it is more enlarged and of greater extent 3. If Infants be not now in the covenant as well as then either it is because God hath excluded them expresly or there was something more in the persons of beleevers then then now to interest Infants in it But God hath no where expresly excluded them nor was there any thing in the persons then more then now to interest them Therefore Infants are now in the covenant as then 4. If Jewes and Gentiles bee incorporated into one body in Christ and the Jewes Infants were in the body before and so continued then so must the infants of Christian Gentiles be now But the Gentiles and Jewes be incorporate into one body in Christ by the Gentiles being made neere and Citizens which they were not before as the Jewes were but strangers and farre off Ephes 2.11 13 20. 3.6 and the Jewes Infants were and continued in that body therefore so are the Infants of beleeving Gentiles 3. Infants should now be baptized as then they were circumcised To cleare it further I adde these considerations 1. Else the covenant was not the same then and now nor Infants in it now as then which I have proved to be otherwise 2. If they have the thing and substance they cannot be denyed the signe and circumstance if the first grace then the second and confirming But Infants have the thing and substance for they have the same covenant and the Kingdome of heaven which was taken from the Jewes of which Infants were subjects as well as elder men is now given to the Gentiles Therefore as Peter Acts 10. so say I Who can forbid water that Infants should not be baptized as well as men of years seeing they are subjects of the Kingdome as well as they 3. Else there should be no difference between the Infants of Gentiles beleeving Pagans and Infidels as there was before between the Jews Infants and the Gentiles which as it is uncomfortable without just ground to say so so it is contrary to the word of God which affirmeth that the Infants of beleeving Gentiles are holy and not as the Infants of Infidels which are profane This is manifest 1 Cor. 7.14 where the Apostle resolving this scruple Whether a beleever might continue to cohabite and enjoy marriage-fellowship with an Infidell yoke-fellow and not be polluted and he affirming it cleareth his affirmation by three Arguments 1. First from the priviledge of the state of grace to a beleever himselfe that being by faith pure himselfe all things are pure to him and so the society of marriage with an Infidell And this to be so hee cleareth viz. That an Infidell is sanctified to a beleeving yoke-mate 2. From a priviledge of the state of grace to their children that they themselves being pure by faith their children are thereby born pure of them and holy in that estate which could not be if the society of marriage was polluted This is the true meaning of the words yet what holinesse is here meant hath troubled men who have travelled with variety in expounding or torturing these few words Some will have them understood politically and that two wayes 1. In respect of the present children born of them which could not be legitimate if their marriage was not lawfull 2. In respect of those children they might have by others if they should forsake this marriage and betake them to another those children would be bastards Some ceremonially of uncleannesse of children begotten in time of the womans disease and are holy when the Infidell partie forbears that time which is absurd and groundlesse Some take it religiously But here they differ some will have it to mean future holinesse which the Parent by cohabitation may make the child partaker of either obtaining it may bee baptized or by counsell when they come to age But if they forsake the Infidell party then the children will remain in infidelity still Others take it for present holinesse yet not in one sense for some conceive thus That the beleever abiding and gaining the Infidell party the children
away the Scriptures affirming no understanding Christian denying it Heb. 6.4 c. 3ly He answereth then the being under the everlasting covenant of grace and peace with God by Christ should be conveyed by naturall descent and not by the Gospel which is absurd and contrary to many Scriptures Rom. 1.16 17. and 10.17 Gal. 3.2 2 Joh. 3. 5 c. These Scritpures saith he shews first that the Gospel is the power of God to save every one that believeth Secondly that faith cometh by hearing the Word preached by which conversion is wrought whereby wee become sons of God by adoption and grace But the Position saith that some are partakers thereof by vertue of their parents by generation directly contrary yea to the whole Gospel of Christ Rom. 4.14 where if they of the Law naturally descended and circumcised only be heirs the promise the whole Gospel and covenant of grace is made of none effect Reply First they were all under the everlasting covenant of Gods grace equally on Gods part dispensed offering unto them thereby all the Gospel to peace and life Secondly this offer was not made unto them for any naturall respect but freely of Gods grace The naturall generation though many Gentiles also were taken into covenant and had the grace thereof offered unto them and to be bestowed upon them but not out of any respect to them naturall civill or religious Deut. 17.7 8. 9.5 but meerely out of his good will and faithfulnesse Thirdly the Gospel was preached unto all the posterity of Abraham all along to Christ and his time by himself and Apostles preaching no other thing then Moses and the Prophets had preached before them to all that then believed it was the power of God to save them Act. 15.11 all ought to have believed it and if they had it would have been the power of God to their salvation also and they that did not believe it was not the power of God to their salvation because they believed not Heb. 4.12 and it was their sin and will be to their punishment Now it is the power of God not to salvation of all though Church-members to whom it is preached but many came short through unbeliefe All the Scriptures therefore by him alledged are hereby answered nor is there any footing for his distinction in regard of Gods part dispensing but from them who received not what God offered but refused it Hee proceedeth thus If by grace I mean that favour of God whereby hee made the Jewes partakers of circumcision and ordinances as the fleshly seed of Abraham leading them to Christ above other nations then he grants that Ishmael and such were partakers of that grace Reply First this is not all they were partakers of but of the former also and of this from the former nor were they partakers of this or any thing else as they were Abrahams seed barely but from his grace to their fathers and therein taking them above others to he his peculiar people Secondly they were partakers of these ordinances as leading to Christ therefore not of ordinances barely but Christ offered unto them by these ordinances and of these ordinances for Christs sake given unto them I would ask whether they were to believe in Christ or no and so to be saved If so as certain it is how then can he make good this distinction or deny that they were under the everlasting covenant of Gods grace and by these ordinances to be partakers of But granting this unto them hee saith But this was taken away when Christ came all which I have spoken to before more then once Secondly he saith that the Apostles purpose is not to conclude those children spoken of 1 Cor. 7. within the limits of such a distinction because the Lord there in that state did count children borne of one believer unclean and polluted and to be put away with their mothers being Infidels Ezra 9.2 and 11.3 Therefore that state even while it lasted did not allow children to be of that state when one of the parents were forreiner to the Church much lesse hath it any force now to conclude it should be so when that the state it self is disanulled Reply First it is the Apostles meaning to conclude such Infants under the covenant with their believing parents whereby they were foederally holy nor can there be any other holinesse here intended as we shal see afterward And the reason which he giveth to disprove it is not sufficient because it is of an instance of a diverse nature from this of the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. though he would confound them whether willingly or no I leave others to judge His Reason is this That state did not allow of children born of one believing parent but accounted them unclean and required them to be put away with their mother Reply That of Ezra speaketh of a believing Jew married to an Infidel Heathen this of the Apostle speaketh not of a believing Christian marrying an Infidell but of one who being married when they were both Infidels the one being converted after marriage the other remaining unconverted That in Ezra was an unlawfull marriage first or last this in Corinth was a lawfull marriage Secondly that in Ezra therefore being unlawfull was not to be continued but the wife and children to be put away but this in Corinth is not so the Infidel here may be continued if contented to dwell with the believer nor are the children unclean but both the instances being of two cases so different thence is no ground for this reason and so that hee grounded on that reason falls with it A third Reason that he gives against that I said ¶ 3 that the Apostle speaketh of a holinesse which the Infants of a believer hath with their believing Parent standing under the same state of grace is this First that a Proselyte in the time of the Law by circumcision was made a member of the Jewish state as one born in the land Secondly hee was to circumcise all his males and thereby they were admitted and with the males wife females children there being no other Sacrament of entrance for them and unlesse he did circumcise himself and all his males though neither hee nor they believed hee could not be a member of that state Thirdly no president can be that ever one parent coming to be of the Jewish state and leave their married yoke-mates out did possesse their seed of the same state and therefore now in this state whereof men are partakers by faith only and thereupon a believer admitted and the unbelieving yoke-mate left out the Infants cannot be admitted into this state no more then the wife which in that state was brought in by the care of the husband being a proselyte and in this left out till shee believed Reply First a proselyte was not made a member of the Jewish Church by circumcision but by accepting the God of Israel to be his God and submitting himself to
their lawes receiving circumcision as a seal thereof that being not the first but a second grace not the covenant it self but the sign of the covenant Secondly I deny that all the males were to be circumcised or else their parents might not be admitted but only Infants were admitted and circumcised with the parent and those of yeers were not admitted and circumcised but upon their owne voluntary acceptance of and submitting to the covenant and so the believing proselytes yoke-fellow For if they had no faith though they had circumcision yet how could they partake in the Passeover or sacrifices to the remission of sin And therefore though there were no Sacrament for females entrance yet there must be faith either potentially by being under the covenant with their believing parent or actually by their own profession And as I have answered before to the like allegation they should receive the seal of the covenant which in order of nature followes it and were not in it and be admitted to circumcision the seal of the righteousnesse of faith which they had not Thirdly touching a president or rule of a believing proselyte admitted with his Infants leaving out the yoke-fellow I need say no more then this Whatsoever is not of faith is and ever was sin Rom. 14. ult and without faith it is impossible and ever was to please God Heb. 11.6 But this answer saith that a proselyte might be admitted and circumcised with all his males and females by vertue of his admission though neither hee nor they believed quite contrary to these Scriptures and so some should become one with Abrahams people neither by flesh nor faith which himself hath said are the only two wayes whereby any may be instated in such a condition As therefore in that state proselytes were admitted by faith into the fellowship thereof and therein Infants with them by vertue of Gods covenant accepted for themselves and their seed but those of yeers and their yoke-fellows excluded unlesse they did believe So in this state now abeliever and his Infants are admitted into fellowship of it but such children as are of yeers and unbelieving yoke-fellow excluded till they believe A 4th reason of this is this ¶ 4 The Apostle speaks indefinitly of children as children and in that relation to parents whose children they are whereof some of them might be twenty or thirty yeers old but children of twenty or thirty yeers old apparently wicked are not holy in such a sense as by vertue of their parents state in grace to be partakers of the same state with them and for that cause to be baptized Therefore holines here cannot be so understood by the Apostle Reply First the Apostle speaking indefinitely I grant children of any or no yeers may be understood Secondly children of twenty or thirty yeers or Infants have a state of holinesse upon them by vertue not of naturall relation but of foederall as children of a believer for that must be noted that one of them must be a believer that being the case that the Apostle resolveth Thirdly children of twenty yeers more apparently wicked were born either before the parent believed or after if after then they are holy seep a seed of a believer and so remain notwithstanding their wickednesse till they be cut off from that relation by God in his usuall way and then that holinesse is taken away from them their naturall relation stil continuing they are children stil of those parents whose they were if they were born before I say then they are unclean notwithstanding their parents believing and are not holy at all nor can be partakers of it but by their own faith in Gods covenant but for Infants as I said before they are holy and by vertue thereof may be baptized as a holy seed and so remain till by some act of theirs they be cut off and deprive themselves of it as Ishmael and Esau This exception hee excepted against saying the Apostie speaketh positively of a conclusion drawn from the state of the relation which can admit of no exception For if it could then will it be of no absolute validity to enforce the conclusion Again if the children do deprive themselves by some act of theirs of their state in grace then their believing parents can have no sanctified use of the believing yoke-mate but that may be whether the children be in the state of grace or no. Reply First the Apostle speaks positively of a conclusion drawn from the state of the relation that is not naturall as children but foederall as holy children of a believing parent Secondly it may and doth admit of an exception and yet is of absolute validity to enforce the conclusion because the exception lies in a diverse respect of the thing if it lay against the thing it self viz. as a believers childe then indeed it would not force but it lies here that when it comes to yeers and stands by its own faith in regard of personall relation acted to the covenant also by personall sin deprive it self of the personall state it had by personall relation to the covenant yet though the children cease to be and deprive themselves of that foederall holinesse which they had in regard of their personall the relation they had of children of believers and thereby holy remains still they were holy as born of them as is evident in the Jewish Infants cut off with their parents who were a holy seed before they were cut off But more of this afterward The fifth answer he makes ¶ 5 stands thus The holinesse here spoken of is such as must prove the unbeleeving parent sanctified to the beleeving yoak-mate But the holinesse of Infants in such a state of grace inward or outward will not prove an unbeleeving parent to be sanctified to the beleeving yoak-mate therefore it cannot bee meant of such a holinesse and hee gives this Reason of this Assumption Because it answers not the Corinthians scruple nor proves the thing in question by them Reply To cleer this discourse two things are to be attended First what was the Corinthians scruple and the state of the question amongst them Secondly by what argument the Apostle answers this scruple and question To the first hee saith The scruple that troubled the Church was whether their marriage were lawfull or no and sheweth that such a state of holinesse of Infants in grace whether inward or outward will not prove whether the parents were lawfully married or no because the childrens state in grace cannot prove the unbelieving parent sanctified to the believing yoke-fellow Reply First Grant the holinesse here spoken of must be such as must prove the unbelieving parent to be sanctified to the believing yoke-fellow yet to argue that such a holinesse of children in a state of grace will not prove that is but a mistake For if the children be holy then certainly the believing parents from whom they proceed must needs be holy For no man can bring
that which is clean out of that which is unclean a Thorn brings not forth Figs nor a Fig-tree bramble-buries a Turk bears not a Christian nor a Christian a Turk Ergo if children be holy the unbelieving parent is sanctified to the believing yoke-mate so that they may enjoy society one with another otherwise children born of them could not be holy In a word the scruple of the Corinthians was not whether the marriage was lawfull or no but whether a believer might continue to cohabite and enjoy marriage society with an Infidel yoke-fellow and not be polluted This was the case that troubled the Corinthians and not whether their marriage were lawfull or no and there is a great difference between a lawfull marriage and a holy pure marriage the marriage may be lawfull but not pure To the impure all things are impure but not unlawfull And their marriage being made when they were both unbelievers how can they question it now but they must question whether there was any marriage in the world ever lawfull unlesse they were both believers Secondly the Arguments the Apostle gives will none of them prove that the question was of the lawfulnesse of the marriage For first he saith the unbeleeving is sanctified to the beleeving doth this prove the marriage lawfull No certainly marriage of unbeleevers is lawfull yea altogether as lawfull as marriage of beleevers but their marriage is not so pure as of beleevers For a lawfull marriage doth not sanctifie unbeleevers one unto the other nor doth it sanctifie beleevers one to another for then it would sanctifie unbeleevers also but it doth not but their marriage remaineth impure though never so lawfull onely beleeving makes all things pure and so marriage unto them that beleeve but not more lawfull A second Argument of the Apostle is from hope of gaining the unbeleeving party Now what argument is in this to prove that their marriage was lawfull and that was their scruple Thirdly the Apostle would have every one to abide in his calling and state wherein God called him to faith and how will this prove the marriage lawfull or how if the marriage had been unlawful Not a word of all these arguments will prove that he said to be the question nor give any satisfaction unto it if it should bee the question But this was the question Whether they might continue in their lawfull married estate and not be polluted from the Infidell party This is cleare in the Text the arguments prove it to be the question and fully satisfieth the scruple ¶ 6 His sixth answer therefore concluding the holinesse here spoken of is meant of legitimacy and uncleannesse of bastardy is evacuated For what force is in this holinesse to prove the thing it is brought for by the Apostle for to invert his Argument This hee granteth Such a holinesse must be here meant as must prove an unbeleeving parent to be sanctified to the beleeving yoak-fellow But this holinesse of legitimacy cannot prove the unbeleeving parent to bee sanctified to the beleeving yoak-fellow therefore legitimacy cannot bee meant For two unbeleevers may be in a lawfull marriage estate and have children legitimate and not bastards yet for all this they are not sanctified each to other all things being impure to the impure Whereas he saith it must bee such a holinesse as is derived from all parents lawfully married which legitimacy is but the other holinesse stood for is not Reply I deny it but it must be such a holinesse as is derived onely from parents whereof one at least is a beleever now legitimacie is not such a holinesse as is derived onely from parents whereof one at least is a beleever But the other is such a holinesse But saith he it must be meant of such a holinesse as is derived from all parents lawfully married Because the Argument standeth in the children which were born before one of the parents came to the faith which therefore could receive from them unbeleeving no other holinesse but legitimacie in the course of generation Reply This holinesse here comes not by generation though concurring with it but flowes from the parents state of being in grace Secondly the Argument standeth not in regard of the children born before one was a believer but of those after as is clear from the Text For a believing person sanctifieth the unbelieving party else the children not born before either believed but born of a believer and an Infidell were unclean but now they are holy born of a believing and Infidel parent and therefore legitimacie cannot be meant here by holinesse because it is not necessary to make a childe legitimate that one of the parents be a believer It must be such a holinesse of children as is proper to children of believers at least one of them and this may also answer what hee further addeth that taking holinesse for legitimacie there can be no objection made why legitimacie should not prove the unbelieving yoke-fellow to be sanctified to the believing parent To which I adde this further that legitimacie will not prove that because legitimacie may be and is in the children of both parents unbelieving and lawfully married and yet it will not prove that they are sanctified one to another there being as much legitimacie in Infidels children as in Believers unlesse he will conclude that such marriages of Infidels are lawfull and all their children bastards legitimacie cannot be understood therefore here by holinesse but foederall holinesse as shall be further cleered afterwards and thus his refutation of my third argument is cleered to be of no validity I hope fully My fourth Argument hee thus sets down If baptisme succeed circumcision then as Infants were circumcised so Infants must be baptized But baptisme succeeds circumcision Ergo as Infants were circumcised so Infants must be baptized To this hee gives foure answers Denying the consequence that is that though baptisme succeed circumcision in a sense that therefore the same subjects are to be baptized now that were to be circumcised then In his first answer hee giveth divers instances to shew the weaknesse of the consequence in this by the inconsequences in them as the Gospel succeeds the Law The sons of Aaron were Ministers of the Law Ergo they are to be Ministers of the Gospel Baptisme succeeds circumcision grown males though they had no faith were circumcised Ergo males now having no faith must be baptized females were not circumcised Ergo females must not be baptized The Lords Supper succeeds the Passeover their little children eat it with the rest of the family in one house Ergo Infants may now eat the Lords Supper now with the rest of the family in one house And he asks if this be good reason and concludes that no objection can lie against these but will lie against mine also Reply First hee saith baptisme succeeds circumcision in a sense but setteth not down what sense it is that hee meaneth which had been necessary For
all these ends which he hath appointed it for and so for those ends it is to be administred and the omission of it is a grievous sin But none of these ends is to give them a visible being in a visible church but by way of signification and confirmation Ergo baptisme is not the form of the church A 5th Argument is from the nature of Baptisme as it is the seal of the Covenant if there be no visible Ordinance before Baptisme to note out their visible being in the covenant whereby they may be known then it is baptisme that doth it But there is no other visible ordinance before baptisme to note out their visible being in the covenant whereby they may be known Ergo it is baptisme that doth it and so it is the form of the Church Answ 1. If he really grant it is the seal of the covenant then it is not the covenant it self for which hee hath formerly argued Secondly it must be considered to whom baptisme must note out their visible being in the covenant if to themselves they may know it before for he that believeth hath the witnesse in himself if to others either Christians they must know it before or not baptize them or else the world and baptisme can no way notifie such a thing unto them they cannot take notice thereof nor will they they know them not because they have not known Christ nor the Father And if a man truly baptized fall off from his profession to whom doth it note that he is in the covenant though it be known he was baptized And our Saviour giveth a rule wherby all men shall know his Disciples not if baptized but if they love one another and keep his commandements and if any say he hath fellowship with God and doth evill hee lies and all the world may know it though they know he was visibly baptized Ergo baptisme cannot be the form of a church seeing it doth not note out their visible being in covenant which is notified before and by other means both before and after Last of all again he contradicteth himself in saying here that baptisme is the form of the church and yet before denying baptisme or the covenant either to be the form of it The 6th Argument is taken from the commission given to the first Matth. 28.19 where the Participle baptizing concurres to making them Disciples and Mark 16.16 Faith puts a man into the state of salvation before God Baptisme before men the reason runs thus If from commission to the first planters baptisme was required to make a person a Disciple in a visible state of salvation and stated in all other ordinances of Christs kingdom then baptisme so administred is that which gives being to a true visible Church I answer First the Scripture requires first that they be made Disciples and then being Disciples to be baptized and therefore baptisme doth not make them Disciples Again faith makes them Disciples in the state of salvation before God and profession of that faith and not baptisme doth make visibly and outwardly Disciples in the state of salvation before men Rom. 10.9 10. They that baptize any must know them to be visibly such before they baptize them else not baptize them as himself hath saith from Acts 2.21.8.12 Secondly Baptisme is required to state them in the observation of all the ordinances of Christs kingdome not by making them a church or member to whom only such ordinances yea baptisme it self doth belong but to make them fit to observe them being members and there are other things though they be baptized that may hinder them from observaton of those ordinances as in the old Testament circumcision did not make them a church but being a church they were to be circumcised without which they might not observe the Passeover but there were other things also which did hinder them from observation of the Passeover though they were circumcised And thus of his Position and the grounds of it That baptisme is the thing that formeth the church only if I understand his close hee flatly contradicts himself in saying baptisme is the means and thing that formeth the church and yet it is not the outward form of our church formed For either it formeth the church withan outward or inward but not inward before God Faith doth that and therefore the outward form it must be and so hee said in his last Argument baptisme puts a man into the state of salvation before men Again hee grants the church to be formed with an outward form without baptisme in saying baptisme is not that outward form of the church formed If a formed church it hath a form that formed it but the form is not baptisme Ergo he overthrows all that he hath argued for or else the church hath two outward forms one he grants the church hath without baptisme the other by baptisme which these six arguments plead for It were well if he agreed with himself Next he answereth the Reasons I set down as he saith to prove that baptisme is not the form of a visible church The first whereof is this That which giveth being to a church must be removed to make a church cease to be a church but Baptisme cannot be removed from a church whilest it remains a church Ergo. Hee answers It is as easie to remove baptisme from a church as to remove a church from being a church Reply First this is a very easie answer and toucheth no part of the Argument Again a church is unchurched not by unbaptizing the baptized as it must be if it were the form of a church but by destroying the church it self The church must first in reasan be made no church before ordinances can cease to be ordinances in that church but destroy the church and baptisme will not be baptisme as the Edomites circumcision was not circumcision when they were not the church the Jewes circumcision and all that they do are nullities to this day since they ceased to be a church A second Reason is this That which being wanting to a church constituted doth not cause the church to be no church that cannot be the form of the church but baptisme may be wanting to a church constituted and yet it be a church As circumcision to Infants seven dayes alwayes to all females to them in the wildernesse forty yeers Josh 5. Ergo Answ He denies the second Proposition That baptisme may be wanting to a church constituted his Reason because a church is constituted by baptisme and so Josh 5. hee saith that case was extraordinary having speciall dispensation from God himself supplyed by miraculous Sacraments during the time of their necessary forbearances of circumcision and the Passeover while in travells unlesse wee can shew a like case and supply of miraculous Sacraments we cannot conclude that a church is a church or men members of a church without baptisme by which they are constituted Reply First the Reason he gives
which he only seemed to have and no faith Christ c. can be said to remain being neither believer nor baptized nor member indeed because hee forsaking the grounds and ends of his baptisme he forsaketh baptisme which was administred upon these grounds and for these ends Fourthly hee that by the renewall of his repentance returneth to his faith again by which hee is to be restored to communion with the church again after excommunication returneth thereby to his baptisme and membership again Reply Granting the first Proposition that faith possesseth a man of Christ c. and likewise this in the second that some have faith in Christ c. really and saving in the truth of all but where he saith some have but seeming faith and yet baptized c. and seem to have Christ baptisme and membership but have none in truth I deny that these are seeming unlesse as opposed to saving spirituall and supernaturall thus indeed many have not nor can any have these things but only elect persons and so their saith and all is seeming But faith considered in it self it is certaine that many have that faith they professe they have as the devills and do believe as they say they do nor do I think that if a man knew one to be a reprobate unlesse in the case of fin unto death yet having and professing faith hee is not to be rejected without some speciall word of God Thus Abraham and Isaac circumcised Ishmael and Esau though they knew before they were reprobates And our Saviour put Judas into Apostleship when he knew what hee was to the full Secondly a man having such a faith is in Christ in a sense John 15. hath baptisme and church-membership indeed and in the truth of it though not spiritually and savingly I cannot say these are all or any of them seeming but in opposition to saving so they seem to be indeed but are not Heb. 6.4.9 they are really enlightened they tast of the heavenly gift and fall away and perish for ever but they had no part in those as accompanying salvation these are distinct one from another The one sort are acquired by naturall powers and are morall only those will never save them the other are infused spirituall supernaturall and alwayes accompany salvation To the third Proposition I say that a believer to salvation excommunicate for some sin is not deprived of the faith he had but that he is cut off from membership and so from baptisme if it be the form of his membership it is most certain as much as the other is and it is more then a seeming to be cut off being ratified in heaven his everlasting estate remaining with God inalterable and he that seemed to have saving faith c. but had not is not deprived of that faith he had by excommunication nor cut off otherwise from his baptisme and membership then the former in foro humano being things that hee had as really as the former though not of the same kinde nor to the same benefit And if all were but seeming in the Refuters sense certainly his excommunication will be but seeming roo and doth this seem to be a seemly thing to speak thus of the things of God To the fourth he that by repentance returneth to his faith again that is in true meaning to an intire standing in the profession of faith returns to his baptisme and membership again I grant that by renewall of repentance hee is to be restored from under the censure unto communion with the church again And hence I gather that faith and repentance professed are the means whereby hee was stated in the covenant and membership and therefore now required of him again to set him in his former state and not baptisme which certainly would have been under some prejudice by excommunication and must have been cleered as well as his profession if that had constituted his membership especially if he had but seeming faith baptisme and membership before for let mee put this case which certainly may and sometimes doth fall out that a seeming believer having seeming baptisme c. to speak his language is excommunicated and so is cut off from all that he only seemed to have he had no baptisme and membership indeed but seemed to have and from all that is really and wholly cut off nothing remaines this penson was not before really converted but under the state of censure he is really converted and gives full satisfaction to the church shall he be restored to his seeming baptisme and membership that he had before by his seeming faith rather he cannot be restored to that seeming state because he saith nothing remains Or shall hee have a new membership and reall in the truth of it for his reall faith and repentance but this must be by a new reall baptizing the former not remaining and therefore though repentance of him that was a true believer recovers his former standing in the covenant and so his baptisme which he was not really deprived of yet it must needs be that he that did not truly believe being now really converted can not receive his former seeming baptisme nor were it worth the recovering by his repentance but must have a reall baptisme added to him for his reall faith instead of that seeming baptisme that he had by his seeming faith The truth is neither true believer nor seeming as he speaks have either of them their baptisme taken away by censure but both their memberships really and not seemingly and by repentance are restored to their former rights and membership That therefore that must be to make a man a member and the destruction whereof makes a man no member and the renewing wherof must be to restore him to be a member again that is the form of a church-member and so of a church but baptisme doth not make a man a visible member nor is baptisme nullified to make him no member but remains still true baptisme nor is it to be renewed to restore him to his membership again therefore baptisme is not the form of the church For to make a thing to cease to be that it was must necessarily be by taking away of the form by which it was that it was for so long as that form remains you cannot make the thing to be any other or not that it was but in making a member no member there is a destruction of that form whereby he was a member that is a reall casting him out from being the Lords or having the Lord to be his and to be delivered up to Satan likewise a casting him out from being one of Gods people to be of the world again as Demas and the contrary hereunto must be reacted to restore a member Therefore this alone is the forme of a member and so of a Church And this is no other thing but a Covenant acted as before I described therefore a Covenant is the form of the Church This I affirmed
and he proceedeth to disprove setting downe a Proposition and the proofes of it that I alledged The Proposition is this An outward covenant acted between God and a company of beleevers to be one anothers and for the like among themselves is the form of the visible church I cannot say these were my expressions yet I shall justifie the Proposition That a visible Covenant according to my former distinction is the form of a visible church His answer to this is That the covenant of God makes the church but that any can be concluded to have an outward being in the covenant of the Gospel now without baptisme hee denieth requires me to prove it and saith he hath proved the contrary before To which with my answer to it I referre you Hee goeth on and saith Whereas I say a company of beleevers acting a covenant to become one anothers amongst themselves to be the form of the church He answereth By the same reason if without baptisme at present they may receive the forme of the church without administration of the Gospel for the future which he conceives will be absurd to affirm Reply First the administrations of the Gospel doe not concurre to the forme of the church and therefore she hath her forme without them nor could she bee partaker of them but being a church first They are necessary for her well-being not her being And if shee should neglect the administration of the Gospel and administer the contrary yet she should be a church still by her first constitution till God cast her off which without question in time hee will doe though she doe but neglect his Secondly a church receives her form to be a church for administrations sake and to enjoy those administrations to bee exercised therein according to Gods word and therefore shee will not be wanting to her self herein If I shall say If baptisme be the form of a church then by the same reason shee may receive the forme without all administration of the Gospel for the future I conceive it would be absurd to affirm it There is nothing in what hee said therefore worth answering And the same hath been said and answered before Secondly he saith God hath appointed no such thing for men to act such a covenant for any such end and therefore so to doe is will-worship invention of man and in Gods worship plain superstition and flat breach of the second commandement and therefore if it be the form of a Church it is a superstitious church which is so formed by such a superstitious action Reply I grant all humane inventions in Gods worship are sinfull superstitious and flat breaches of the second commandement and added to Gods worship doe pollute the same But secondly it doth not disanull a church that some inventions of men are joyned which ought not to be to Gods worship nor doe I thinke that himselfe thinkes as he saith that God hath not appointed men to act such a covenant for any such end because he hath said many times and granted a few lines before these words that the covenant of God makes the church Now a covenant of God is that which is acted between him and beleevers outwardly with whom he first makes it any other I suppose he understood not by it and so continued in by them following till God cut them off If thus then suppose it should be a mistake to say to become one anothers also that cannot so alter the covenant as to make it superstitious or a humane invention And when they baptize a man in yeares will they not first require him to take God in Christ to be his God and to submit to him in all things c. And is not this a covenant acted and the end of it to be to form him a church-member What invention of man is in this But if the proofe be found good this will be found his mistake so to say and therefore I shall stay till we come to them Thirdly he saith A covenant acted by beleevers to become one anothers cannot be a forme of a true visible church because it may be with ignorance both of the nature and duties of a true church as is proved by presupposing it to be the forme of the church before Baptisme Reply First I see no force in this reason for none ought to be ignorant of the nature and duties of a true church before they bee joyned but to be well catechised first nor is there any colour of reason to prove that such may be ignorant as are joyned by a covenant by presupposing it to bee the form of the Church before baptisme Secondly a covenant acted by beleevers and baptizing them are not supposed to be so distant in time as that they may not goe together but the covenant must proceed in order of nature and time baptisme being but the seale of it and is but an idoll with out it the covenant making them capable of baptisme and nothing else and baptisme being a visible and outward seale it must needs be an outward and visible covenant to which it is added and so maketh a member to be a formed member The Scriptures quoted by him 1 Cor. 1.15 c. to prove that all their externall relations must flow from their relation and union in baptisme are absurdly alledged and there is no relation and union in baptisme but by way of signification and confirmation The union must goe before if they doe not professe faith in Christ whereby they are united unto Christ before baptized they must not be baptized as himselfe hath often said and is truth But to come to the proofes I added to my proposition the first he saith was this If the Kingdome of heaven that is the Church state that we now have be the same that the Jewes had then if such a covenant as I have above expressed was the forme of that Church it is the form of ours now But the Kingdome of heaven that is the visible Church state that wee now have is the same they had Ergo If such a covenant was the forme of that church it is also the form of these now And the form of the Jewish Church was such a covenant Ergo. He answereth first If the Church state then and now bee not the same then the form of that is not the form of this and so my Argument grounded upon an IF is nothing But the Church state then constituted of a naturall seed was not that we have now constituted of a spirituall seed Ergo. Reply In denying the Church state then and now to bee the same he flatly contradicteth the Scripture Mat. 21.33 43. where it is clear that the Vineyard and Kingdome of heaven being the Church state they possessed is threatned to be taken away and given to other nations It is the same Vineyard and Kingdome taken away and given Secondly it is a grosse mistake to say that they were a Church stated of Abrahams natural seed
prove that it is the form of a church now Reply He denies not what I affirmed to wit that they could not stand in a right and pure church estate without renewall of their covenant hee denies that they could not stand in a church state without it and great difference there is between a church and no church a pure and impure church he saith nothing therefore to what I said and proved yet I am willing to heare what he saith First they were a church before and I say so too but much degenerated and much transgressing the covenant Secondly he saith they did no more then they were bound to doe by their circumcision Reply I have answered that Gal. 5. before that it did not engage them to keep the whole Law it being the seale of the righteousnesse of Faith nor did the seale bind them to any thing but as in relation to the covenant which onely bound them Hence Levit. 26. where God threatned to send a sword to avenge thequarrell of his covenant he did not plead with them about circumcision but for not beleeving circumcision of the heart as Jerem. 9. last and testifying their faith by obedience and so they did now mend this by attending to the covenant and thereby setting themselves visibly in a right church state again which therefore proves that the forme of the church was a visible covenant for that which makes a church impure to be pure according to the right constitution that is it which gives it the constitution but the renewall of the covenant maketh an impure church pure according to the right constitution Ergo the covenant giveth it a constitution Again if failing in the covenant causeth a true church to bee otherwise then according to constitution then the covenant gives her her constitution But the first is true Ergo the latter and circumcision the seal remains the same without any alteration As in mens covenants the seale annexed remains the same though the covenant to which it is adjoyned may in many things be violated My fourth and last particular to prove a covenant acted by them as beleevers was the forme of the Jewish church was this That which being taken away made that church cease to bee a church that was the form of that church But the dissolving of their covenant made that church cease to be a church Ergo. The first Proposition he meddles not with and I raise it on this ground That nothing can cease to be that hath a being but by annihilating the matter and form of its being nor can any thing cease to be that it is but by taking away that form of it whereby it is such a thing rather then another And therefore if any thing cease to be that it was it must be by taking away the form of it The second Proposition that the dissolving of their covenant made that church cease to be a church which I cleared from Zach. 11.10 14. take a view and you may see it clearly the chapter declares the rejection of the Jewes from being a church no man can deny it and that at Christs time and for rejecting of him and upon their rejection they ceased to be a visible church and Gods people as they had been First therefore it is to be observed how God will effect this that they shall be no church nor his people and that is by breaking his covenant with them vers 10. That I may break my covenant which I had made with this people Secondly this covenant had two branches one the staffe of Beauty and this is the covenant between God and them mutually called Beauty because God making a covenant with them did adorne them with all excellencie and comelinesse whereby they became beautifull above other people Ezek. 16.8 c. yea in the eyes of the Heathen v. 14. which could not be circumcision nor any invisible covenant but outward and visible The other branch of the covenant is called Bonds and that is the covenant on their parts one with another whereby they joyned together in a brotherhood to worship God called Bonds because they were thereby knit and bound together to be a compact body and brotherhood Ecclesiasticall Thirdly that God by breaking these two staves did break his covenant with them and thereby they ceased to be his visible people and a brotherhood amongst themselves all these are evidently foretold in the Text and accomplished after our Saviour his death when they were wholly rejected of God and never since enjoyed that estate From whence it followeth plainly that their constitution in that Church estate was by that covenant which being disanulled their Church estate and constitution is altogether annihilated Now let us see what hee answers to this reason First hee saith the covenant of Gods grace is eternall the Kingdome or Church state that comes by it cannot be shaken Heb. 12.28 baptisme the fruit of it a church constituted by it remaines eternally John 11.26 He that beleeves in Christ shall never die Reply First I grant that the covenant of grace is eternall and that as well in the time before Christ as since but I speak of it as it is made with men in which respect though it bee eternall in it selfe yet it is not eternall to all that it is made with but may and doth cease to this or that man to this or that Church Secondly the Kingdome shaken and that cannot be shaken is not the covenant of grace applied to the Jews or Gentiles but the manner of administration of one and the same covenant in it selfe but from the divers administration of it one way to them the old Testament another way to us now the new Testament the former is shaken and removed and changed into this that cannot be shaken or changed but shall remain till Christs coming 1 Cor. 15. yet this or that church may be shaken out of it and many have been and that this shaking is meant of the former manner of administration only is evident by the Scripture it self and not of the covenant else the covenant with them was not the eternall covenant of grace but a covenant of another nature this particular church therefore may be disanulled yet the covenant remains eternall and unshaken Again the kingdome of Heaven is taken two wayes in Scripture First as before for the manner of administration of the covenant and so it may be and hath been shaken and of this Heb. 12. Secondly for the church-estate and the covenant of grace by laying hold whereon a people became a church This can never be shaken so as that there should not be a visible church visibly in covenant with God and of this Matth. 21.43 which may be taken from one company and given to another as from the Jewes to the Gentiles but never cease to be with one people or other hells gate being not able to prevail against it Matth. 16. Thirdly baptisme the fruit of it or church-estate by partaking
and covenant Ergo a covenant acted is the form of a church His answer first granteth the comparison and proportion also But secondly denies that a covenant acted by beleevers or agreement mutually is necessary to form the church to be one body and concludes that persons may be united to Christ by faith and baptisme and so stated in the covenant of grace and members of the visible church proportionally as the form of the candlestick is the joyning together of the shaft and branches Reply First where he denies mutuall agreement or a covenant acted is the forme of the church hee doth it without any reason given which is an easie way of confuting for where he saith it may be by faith and baptism he should prove it is and must be or else he shewes himself to heare himself speak Secondly in saying faith in Christ and baptisme may unite them to Christ and so state them in the covenant of grace I affirm faith alone doth it But it is faith professed that may make a man capable of baptisme in those that they themselves will admit members and therefore it must be faith professed that unites a man to Christ visibly and so he is a member of Christ visibly before baptisme comes nor could be baptized without that visible union and therefore hee is not made a visible member of Christ by baptisme but is so before Thirdly though by faith professed a man is visibly united to Christ and may be so acknowledged yet this doth not unite him or make him a member of this or that particular church but there must be something whereby he may be united to this or that church and make him a member thereof rather then of another baptisme doth not so make him for then all baptized should be of one and the same church and not of Ephesus more then of Smyrna nor can they be any other things then mutuall agreement or covenant acted aâ— we know it to be certain in all consociations a mutuall covenant is the bond and form of them as in marriage common-wealths 2. Rev. 17.21 and so of other societies and bodies incorporate so also in this mysticall body of Christ a church visible being an Ecclesiasticall body politike consisting of many members consociated it must needs be by covenant acted mutually and by this comparison of marrying the Apostle sets forth the relation of Christ and the Church the bond tying the members each to other that uniteth them all to the head which is a marriage covenant Ephes 5. baptisme being but the seal of it And thus wee are come to the last Argument If the removing of the candlestick and so unchurching of a church be by dissolving the covenant and their fellowship as to them by dissipation Zach. 11. then a covenant acted is the form of a visible church But the removing of the candlestick is the dissolving the covenant and their fellowship thereby as to them by dissipation Ergo a covenant acted is the form of it To the second Proposition hee answereth two things First because the covenant in the new Testament established in Christs blood is everlasting and cannot be shaken and dissolved and differ from the covenant which was before Christ which was shaken dissolved and taken away therefore their kingdome of Heaven was shaken and church-estate was taken away but the kingdome and church-state now cannot be taken away Heb. 12.27 Matth. 21.43 Reply Here is nothing which is not said before and answered yet observe that he declines the true question which is of a visible church and flies to the invisible state for to visible churches there is an end many times of their visible state and yet the covenant of God remains eternall to all the elect of God and never is taken away from them nor indeed is the visible kingdome of Christ altogether taken away but it hath and doth remain somewhere upon earth though many particular churches are often ruinated and destroyed Again he speaks to the state before Christ and the difference of this since Christ whereas the Proposition speaks of this since Christ only and the argument is taken from the state of churches since Christ as the expressions fully declare Rev. 2. 3. where churches compared to candlesticks are threatened dissolution for their faults Ephesus Rev. 2.5 I will remove thy candlestick that is I will make thee no church Rev. 3.16 I will spue thee out of my mouth noting an utter undoing of them and an allusion was made to Zach. 11. to intimate the way how God would unchurch them not by taking away their baptisme but by destroying them and dissipating their fellowship in the covenant nor was that of Zachary any part of the argument that hee could have nor advantage from that to fetch in the state of the old Testament in his answer And whereas I say the destruction of the church of Ephesus or Laodicea was not by taking away their baptisme from them so that who so remains alive of them at the time of dissipation should not be accounted baptized persons having received baptisme though it will do them no good in the state they are in for let me put this case a whole church is dissipated and unchurched yet one or two of them that live still after a few dayes are truly converted from their hypocrifie and apostasie justifying the Lord and seeking the one to joyn to Philadelphia the other to Smyrna and each give such satisfaction to the church of their faith and repentance as they dare not deny the right hand of fellowship Shall these two be now anew baptized having received true baptisme before whilest they were members of Ephesus before shee was destroyed If any shall say as hee did before in his answer to the first Reason against baptisme being the form of the church that all before being but seeming was nothing indeed and so account he was not baptized at all and never had any capacity of being baptized truly till now Besides what hath been replied there I adde that the same state must be then of a man that is a member but an hypocrite in the church unknown so to be who in continuance of time by Gods Spirit in the Word is convinced of his unsound estate repents of it manifests this to the church and so cleers it that the church is satisfied that she was before mistaken and he was but seemingly a believer and so had but a seeming membership and baptisme I say likewise that this man also must be baptized if he were not before truly baptized And how fearfull a thing is it thus to dally in Gods matters and to make Gods ordinance descend upon our apprehension to be or not to be humanus intellectus non est mensura institutionum Dei the ordinance administred to such a man before was Gods ordinance and true baptisme but he did not receive it savingly which now upon this work of grace he doth and baptisme in it self applied
unto him is not truer baptisme now then it was before it proves only unto him more profitable But I go on further where he saith the covenant before Christ might be and was dissolved shaken and removed this covenant since Christ cannot be dissolved shaken or removed All may easily see that either wilfully or ignorantly hee confoundeth covenant and testament which are divers things for the kingdome before Christ spoken of Heb. 12. is not the covenant but manner of administration that before Christ the old Testament to be shaken and removed this since Christ the new Testament established and never to be shaken nor removed and this kingdome shaken was not taken away from the Jewes and given to the Gentiles but utterly abolished and a new kingdome given and set up that shall not be abolished nor end till Christ shall give it up to the Father 1 Cor. 15. Last of all the covenant before Christ was the eternall covenant of God and remains the same for ever and cannot be shaken this covenant God made with Abraham continued to the Jewes till Christs time and this also is called the kingdome of God Matth. 27.34 which cannot be altered nor was it disanulled nor abolished then but only taken away from the Jewes whereas kingdome in the other sense was utterly abolished and given to the Gentiles and a new or another but the same and therefore though the Jewish people were cut off yet the covenant and church-state remained and was given to the Gentiles yet so as that many of the Gentile churches have been cut off and may be and shall be cut off for the same cause that the Jewes were cut off viz. if they continue not in faith Rom. 11. His second answer is this the removing of the candlesticks and unchurching of them is only by discovery or manifestation of a people to be void of any participation in the covenant which formerly they professed were esteemed and had a name to have 1 John 2.19 Rev. 3.1 and not dissolving or taking away of covenant which once they had and enjoyed much lesse is it a dissolving of an outward covenant acted by believers such a covenant is will-worship and the churches constituted thereby meerly Antichristian the dissolving of such a covenant cannot be the unchurching of any true churches Jesus Christ having no true visible church so constituted Reply All hath been said and answered before that here hee speaks yet a word here If the removing of the candlestick and unchurching of such be nothing but only a discovery that they were in no covenant before then the Jewes before Christ were in no covenant but only seemed to be so c. Ephesus and the rest were in no covenant but had a name only to be in it who are long ago rejected nor were the Saints in Rome graffed branches into the true Olive but only were esteemed so to be and the cutting breaking off dissolving of all those and the like is but a declaration and manifest discovery that they were never in covenant and what great punishment is it for these and the like to have that taken away from them which they never had But I doubt not but that all that have any judgement to discerne of things aright will easily see as the unsoundnesse so the unreasonablenesse of what hee faith Secondly the places alledged by him are not to his purpose the first not speaking of their membership and state in the covenant which they had and departed from but of the soundnesse of their state therein and of saving grace from the Father election in Christ which they had not and hereby manifested that they had not in that they departed from the fellowship of faith The other place Rev. 3. speaks not of them as having a name to be a church for that they were and Christ so called them and would not have so acknowledged them had they not so been but it speaks of the condition they were in in this church-estate as having a name to be alive in faith and holinesse but indeed were in this respect dead and yet not quite dead but almost and therefore are bidden to strengthen the things that are ready to die these places therefore do not at all speak of their being in covenant or church-estate but only of the unsoundnesse of their estate in faith and godlinesse Thirdly whereas he opposeth a covenant and a covenant acted by believers as divers things or contrary if hee understood himself hee should have done well to expresse himself what he meant by them both that others might understand him For can there be a covenant and not outwardly acted Is not a covenant between two parties Or is it a covenant unlesse all parties agree there is no covenant of God but it is outwardly manifested to men and by visible means made known to such as hee would have to be in it nor is that a covenant made with them but as they outwardly receive it and by some visible act answer the Lord therein and so make themselves partakers thereof and visibly by visible participation which cannot be but by acting or passing consent to the covenant whereby God and they become one anothers and they visibly Gods people which being once done they remain a church and Gods people as long as this state continues and when it ceaseth then they cease to be Gods people forsaking each other again mutually which also is further evident in that God useth this expression to note out his dissolution giving them a bill of divorcement and so dissolving that marriage covenant which they were joyned together in Jerem. 13. I cannot but therefore conclude that hee doth speak unchristianly in saying an outward covenant acted by a company of believers is will-worship and churches so constituted are Antichristian or the dissolving of such a covenant cannot be the unchurching of any true churches because Jesus Christ hath no other true visible churches but those only that are so constituted A Discourse of the Verity and Validity of Infants Baptisme in it selfe considered As also it hath been administred in the Church of ENGLAND WHEREIN Besides the Arguments duly propounded and clearly explained for the proofe thereof occasionally The calling of the Ministers in England and here administring that ordinance Likewise the manner of administring it by sprinkling and not dipping is handled and justified AS it hath ever been the fruit of Satans malice to pervert the right wayes of the Lord and if not utterly to abolish yet greatly to corrupt the worship and ordinances of God So there have never wanted men of evill minds who give themselves to promote his sinfull designes A proofe whereof beyond exception is that man of Sin with all that Apostasie wherein the prevailing efficacie of Satan is not so much to be wondred at as the severe judgement of God is to bee adored who thereby punisheth the wanton spirits of men giving them up to make and beleeve lies because they
to believe and repent may and should be baptized and that none of yeers are to be baptized till they be converted and believe and repent nor doth the baptizing of Infants prevent the baptizing of men of yeers where any such are converted from Paganisme to Christianity no more then circumcising Infants of old prevented the circumcising of men of yeers which were converted from Gentilisme to Judaisme though it prevents the baptizing of believers children when they come to yeers because they are baptized Infants As the Jewish Infants circumcised when they were Infants could not be circumcised when they came to yeers It is a weak and feeble consequence to say where wee maintain baptizing Infants who do not actually believe that wee can never baptize any that do actually believe being only true of them that are baptized Infants and Infants of believers So wee come to the other sort of persons to be baptized viz. Infants where I shall indeavour two things 1. What Infants are to be baptized 2. That infants are to be baptized First Infants briefly are either of Infidels or believing parents The Infants of Infidels under which term I comprehend Jewes Turks Pagans and all but those that are true visible Christians are altogether strangers to the covenant of God in Christ and so can have no right at all to this ordinance yea though the parents consent much lesse against their consent Notwithstanding others undertaking for them I except only two cases 1. Slaves and servants bought with money these being Infants may be baptized for ought I know 2. When Infidell parents are converted and desire church-fellowship and thereby themselves and Infants are to be baptized I conclude in these two cases that Infants born of Infidell parents may be baptized and therefore I judge that Infidell Infants are in no wise to be baptized because they are unclean 1 Cor. 7.14 therefore such are to be deferred till they be converted and give testimony of their own faith and repentance Two Questions may be here resolved 1. In case of excommunicate persons Whether an Infant born of parents both under the censure of the church and the state of excommunication may be baptized if any will undertake for them I answer No. First because they are in that estate as Heathens and neither of them in visible covenant Secondly if by others undertaking why not Infants of Indians also Thirdly if by faith of fore-fathers as I see no Scriptures for it so where will you limit it Suppose a converted childe of Esau in Davids time could prove successively and to all evidently that hee came of Esau the son of Isaac whether should it have been circumcised as a Proselyte or as Isaac's seed A second Question is concerning Infants baptized of Heretikes whether lawfull I answer If the person baptizing had a true calling though stained with some corruption in the person or calling and in the administration of baptisme nothing essentiall omitted in matter or form those persons are not to be baptized again because baptisme is not to be administred twice to any But if any of the essentials were omitted such persons are to be baptized as not baptized before And now I come to the other particular that Infants of Believers and visible professors are to be baptized yea though but one of the parents be in church-fellowship which I shall prove after I have premised a few things 1. The Scriptures containing the books of the new and old Testament are full of perfection containing a most perfect rule of all things concerning faith and order So that in these respects nothing is to be urged as necessary nor allowed as lawfull but what is justly comprehended in them 2. There are two wayes whereby we may finde what Gods will is in all cases concerning the premises either in expresse terms or by just consequence drawn from thence So that whatsoever is not literally expressed or drawn from the letter by necessary consequence is to be rejected as not the Lords minde 3. Whatsoever can be collected by true deduction from any part of Scripture expounded in the largest sense is as truly contained in them as that which is set down in expresse terms and so is of the same force with that which is expressed So our Saviour urgeth the Devill Matth. 4. with that word only from Deut. which yet is not in the Text but truly drawn from thence So the Protestant urging justification by faith only oppose the Papists yet only is not expressed but necessarily drawn from thence For if there be but two wayes of justification as there is not and we be not justified by works as the Text saith then by faith only And Exod. 21.28 c. under the case of an Ox in all those particulars cleerly by consequence any other creature that may do hurt in the like case is intended as Cowe Dog Goat c. 4. The tender of immortality and happinesse of God to mankind hath been two wayes dispensed First to Adam and all mankind in his loynes by the Law upon condition of perfect obedience thereto in mans own personall righteousnesse Secondly Adam transgressing lost immortality and happinesse in himself and all man-kind and involved them and himself in sin and eternall wrath thereby God the Father for the praise of his grace having predestinated some to that adoption of son-ship in his Son and given them to his Son to be saved by him that hee might be glorified with the Father and hee receiving them at his Fathers hands because they were partakers of flesh and blood hee himself also took flesh and blood upon him and in that humane nature fulfilled the Law for them actually and so reconciled them all to the Father in himself that so God might be just and the justifier of the ungodly that should believe in Jesus From hence the Father maketh a new tender of life setting forth his Son to be a propitiation through his blood offering him and his righteousnesse in his humane nature and performed by it in obedience active passive to his holy will to all which shall believe and by that faith be found in him having his righeousnesse upon them accounting them thereby righteous and no sinners and making them from thence through the life of his Son manifested in them by sanctification of that holy Spirit partakers of life and immortality again This tender being one and the same in substance for ever from the first promulgation to Adam and Eve in Paradise till this day and to the end yet hath it admitted of variation in the circumstances thereof as is cleere from four severall and remarkable periods 1. From Adam fallen to Abraham under a promise of the seed of the woman to break the Serpents head Gen. 3.15 2. The second from Abraham to Moses time in the wildernesse in substance the same with the former yet differing from it First in promising the seed of the woman to proceed from Abrahams loynes according to the