Examination of Marshalls Sermon About Infant Baptism, Part 3 (3 of 4)
You say thus: Where the Apostles scope is to disswade the believing Christians from the rudiments of the world, and Jewish ceremonies and observations upon this ground, that we are compleat in Christ, and that in him, as in the head, the Church hath all perfections. All this is very right, and the thing very well expressed by Beza, Addendum fuit istud ut non tantum sibi, & in sese, sed in nostrum etiam usum statuatur Christus esse talis & tantus, ut nihil in ipso desideretur, & in eo uno omnia nanciscamur ad veram, & salvificam Dei notitiam requisita: Co…plementum igitur in Christo adeptis quorsum vel humana sapientia, vel vanis hominum commentis, vel ceremoniis, ullo denique extra Christum ascito sit opus? Annot. in Col. 2.10. where mark that Beza rightly makes us so compleat in Christ, that there is no need of any thing added out of Christ in stead of those ceremonies. You go on; and because he would take them wholly off from Circumcision, the use whereof engaged them to the use of the rest of Jewish ceremonies; he tells them that in Christ we are circumcised with circumcision made without hands, a better circumcision then the Jews was, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ. You say rightly: First, that the Apostle would take them off wholly from circumcision, therefore not teach them that they had another Ordinance in stead of it, by vertue of that command: Secondly, That the use of circumcision, ingaged them to the use of the rest of the Jewish ceremonies, and therefore that Baptisme succeeds not in the use of Circumcision: Thirdly, In Christ we are circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, a better circumcision then the Jews was, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, and therefore we have circumcision not in another Ordinance, but in Christ and his circumcision. You go on; and whereas the Jewish teachers would be ready to object, that the receiving of the inward grace of circumcision, did not make them so compleat as Abraham, and his seed was, because they also had an outward sensible signe whereby they might be further perswaded, comforted and confirmed. This is but a conceit that either the Jews were ready thus to object, or the Apostle intended to answer such an objection. The intent of the Apostle is to declare in what way and manner, and by what means they became compleat in Christ, to wit, Baptisme and Faith, whereby they had communion with Christ, and so were compleat in him. But you say, To this he answers, vers. 12. that neither is this priviledge wanting to Christians who have as excellent and expresse a Sacrament of it, being buried with Christ in Baptisme; the effect whereof he there sets down, and therefore they needed not circumcision as their false teachers insinuated, thereby directly teaching that our Baptisme is in stead of their circumcision. It is true, the Apostle teacheth them that they needed not circumcision, but not because they had Baptisme in lieu of it, but because all was in Christ now, who hath abolished all these rites, or taken them away quite, vers. 14. as being but shadows of good things to come, and the body is of Christ, vers. 17. in whom, and in that which befell him all was accomplished. And Aretius therefore in his Comment on Colos. 2. saith rightly in this; not a rem ipsam vindicari sanctis sine externo symbolo; quod tamen indesinenter urgebant advers…rii; s…c Rom. 2.29. & Phil. 3.3. Atque hoc beneficium in Christo habemus: est igitur perfectum organum salutis, note that the thing it self is asserted to the Saints without an outward symbole, which yet the adversaries incessantly urged: so Rom. 2.29. and Phil. 3.3. and this benefit we have in Christ, he is therefore a perfect organ of salvation; so that it is utterly against the Apostles scope and whole argument to say, that therefore they needed not circumcision, because they had another Ordinance in the room of it. For the Apostles intent is plain, to shew, that Christ is in stead of Circumcision, and all the rest of the Jewish ceremonies. and the truth is by this doctrine, that Baptisme is in stead of Circumcision, the Apostles argument for the disanulling the Jewish ceremonies, both here, and Hebr. 9. & 10.1. & 13. in the Epistle to the Galatians, chap. 3. & 4. and Ephes. 2. is quite evacuated, who still useth this argument to prove the abolition of the ceremonies of the Law, because they have their complement in Christ, not in some new Ordinance added in stead of them; for if there be need of other Ordinances (besides Christ) in stead of the old, then Christ hath not in himself fulnesse enough to supply the want of them, and this abolition is not because of Christs fulnesse, but other Ordinances that come in stead of the abolished. And indeed, Baptisme and the Lords Supper, though they be Ordinances of Christ that may imitate or resemble the Ordinances of the Jews, yet it cannot be said they succeed into the roome, place, or use of them: For Christ only, and that which he did, doth so succeed: So that if things be well weighed, this Text is against your Position, not for it, and so your Ordinance is turned against you. You go on; And the Analogy lies between two sacramentall types of the same substance [regeneration] to both Jews and Gentiles. I deny not but that there is Analogy between Circumcision and Baptisme, and so there is between the Deluge and Noahs Ark, or deliverance from the Deluge and Baptisme, 1 Pet. 3.21. they do resemble each other in some things. But we are not to conclude thence, that Baptisme succeeds into the roome, place, and use of Noahs Ark, or that therfore we are to baptize married persons only, because in Noahs Ark only married persons were saved: For in the administration of an Ordinance, we are not to be ruled by bare Analogy, either framed by us, or delivered by the Spirit of God, but the institution of God. But the truth is, in this place, Col. 2.11, 12. the Apostle rather resembles buriall to circumcision, then baptisme, and so makes the Analogy not between Circumcision and Baptisme, but circumcision and Christs buriall. And so Chrysostome on the place, and after him Theophylact, foreign, and what he calls circumcision, he again calls buriall. You proceed thus: And in truth, had not baptisme come in the roome of it, the Apostle could not have pitched upon a worse instance then Circumcision, which was so much valued by them, and was so great and usefull a priviledge to them. It is true, circumcision was a great and usefull priviledge to them, in that estate they were before Christs incarnation, in comparison of Heathens, who had not a School-master to bring them to Christ, yet absolutely it was a burthen and heavie yoak, Act. 15.10.28. and it would be a burthen, not a priviledge, for us to have an Ordinance in the roome, place, and use of it, now Christ is come, in whom we are compleat. And it is true, the Apostle pitched on circumcision, vers. 11. because the Jews much valued it, but not to shew, as you say, that Baptisme is in the roome, pl…ce, and use of it, but to shew, that in Christ we have circumcision, and are compleat in him. You close up this conclusion thus: Nor had there been any reason to have here named Baptisme, but that he meant to shew Baptisme to Christians was now in the roome of circumcision to the Jewes.
This is said with more confidence, then truth: For another reason is plain from the context; that therefore Baptisme is named, because it is one of the means by which Christians come to have communion with Christ, and to be compleat in him, which was the thing the Apostle intended in the 12th verse, and therefore he joynes faith with Baptisme, they being the two speciall means whereby we come to have communion with Christ, and to be compleat in him. And this is further confirmed by comparing this with other Scriptures: Gal. 3.25, 26, 27. the Apostle speaks thus: But after faith is come, we are no longer under a Schoolmaster, meaning Circumcision, &c. For we are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus: For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ; which Text is apparently answerable to Col. 2.8, 9, 10, 11, 12. And again, Rom. 6.3, 4, 5. Know you not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? therefore are we buried with him, foreign, by baptisme into death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead, by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newnesse of life: For if we have been planted together in the likenesse of his death, we shall be also in the likenesse of his resurrection. In which places you may easily perceive, that by putting on Christ, we come to be exempted from the Schoolmaster, that is, the Law, and so from Circumcision; that being planted into Christ, we walk in newnesse of life, that is, as Rom. 7.6. that now we are delivered from the Law, that being dead wherein we were held, that we should serve in newnesse of spirit, and not in the oldnesse of the letter; and that the means hereof, is by Baptisme by which we put on Christ, and are baptized into his death, and by faith, whereby we are no longer children under age, but sons come to their inheritance. Thus have I at last, waded through your third Conclusion, and the Text, Col. 2.11, 12. the misunderstanding of which hath been the ignis fatuus, foolish fire, which hath led men out of the way in this matter into bogs.
§.10. Of the notion under which, & the reasons for which persons were circumcised, shewing that all persons that were circumcised were not in the covenant of Grace.YOur fourth Conclusion followes; That by Gods own expresse order, Infants as well as grown men were in the time of the Jews to be initiated and sealed with the signe of Circumcision, whether Jews by nature, or Proselytes of the Gentiles, one Law was for them all; if they receive th… Covenant, they and their children were circumcised.
It is true, this was Gods expresse order, and it is as certain that this expresse order of God is now revoked, or repealed, Acts 15.10.20.26. Gal. 5.1, 2, 3. as belonging to that administration, which was before Christ came. That which you adde of the females virtuall circumcision in the males, hath been examined before. I passe on to that which followes: And whereas some, who see which way the strength of this Conclusion tendeth, do alledge, that though Circumcision was to be applyed to their Infants, yet it was not as a seal of the spirituall part of the Covenant of Grace, but as a nationall badge, a seal of some temporall and earthly blessings and priviledges, as of their right to the Land of Canaan, &c. And that Ishmael, though he was circum…ised for some temporall respects, yet he was not thereby brought under the Covenant of Grace, which was expresly said to be made with Abraham, in relation to Isaac and his seed.
They that thus object, speak that which is truth, only whereas you make the objectors say, That it was not a seal of the spirituall part of the covenant of Grace, I would say, to all that were circumcised; and when you say, but as a nationall badge, &c. that Ishmael was circumcised for some temporall respects, I would leave out those words, and say, because God commanded it. Thus did I expresse my self in my Latin paper, affirming, that not right to Euangelicall promises, I now adde, nor right to any other benefit by the Covenant made with Abraham, was the proper and adequate reason, why these, or those were circumcised, but Gods Precept: For as much as persons were to be circumcised, who had no right, either to the Euangelicall promises, or any other in that Covenant which was confirmed by circumcision; and I named Ishmael, concerning whom, though God heard Abraham in giving him some blessing upon Abrahams prayer, when he understood the promise was not intended for Ishmael, but to Isaac, Gen. 17.19, 20. yet he expresly added his determination to hold, vers. 21. that he would establish his Covenant with Isaac, not with Ishmael: and on the other side, all the females in the Covenant were uncircumcised, though some of them had right to all the promises in the Covenant; and the Text expresly makes the reason of what Abraham did to be Gods appointment, v. 23. and no other. Wherefore those that say, that Circumcision did not seal the spirituall part of the Covenant of Grace to all, and that Ishmael was not by circumcision brought under the Covenant of Grace, say no more, then what the Apostle saith, Rom. 9.6, 7, 8. Gal. 4.28, 29. and your self, pag. 13. where you say, only true believers are made partakers of the spirituall part of the Covenant. Now the end of this objection, is to prove that it followes not, because a person was appointed to be circumcised, therefore he was within the Covenant of Grace, or that because persons were within the Covenant of Grace, therefore they were to be circumcised. Let us now see what you answer to this. You say, I answer there is nothing plainer, then that the Covenant, whereof Circumcision was a signe, was the Covenant of Grace.
It is granted, that the Covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17. was the Covenant of Grace, though not a pure Covenant, but a mixt covenant. But what then? Doth it follow, that every one that was circumcised, was in the Covenant of Grace? It is true, the sacrifices did confirm the Covenant in Christs blood; but it doth not follow, that all that did offer sacrifices were partakers of the Covenant. The like may be said of Baptisme, the Lords Supper, Manna, &c. which they that did partake of, yet were not all of them in the Covenant, as the Apostle shews, 1 Cor. 10.5. Heb. 3.18, 19. It is one thing to be under the outward administration, another thing to be in the covenant of Grace. This is proper only to elect persons, the other is common to Elect and Reprobate, and depends meerly on Gods appointment without any other consideration. You go on, Abraham received circumcision, a signe of the righteousnesse of Faith: Very true, and the Apostle expoundeth this, when he saith, which he had, yet being uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised, that righteousnesse might be imputed to them also, Rom. 4.11. So that the Apostle makes Circumcision a seal of righteousnesse, but not to all, or only circumcised persons, but to all believers, whether Jews or Gentiles; so that according to the Apostles doctrine, Circumcision, in as much as it sealed to Abraham the righteousnesse of faith, which he had, being yet uncircumcised, i… a seal to the Gentiles that believe of the righteousnesse of faith, though they be never circumcised. So that it is so far from being true, that persons have the promise, therefore they must have the seal in their persons; that it followes, persons have the promise, therefore they have the seal in Abraham, though they never are, nor may be sealed in their own persons. You go on, and the Jewes received it not as a Nation, but as a Church, as a people separated from the world, and taken into covenant with God. If you take [as] with reduplication, it is true, that neither the Jewes received circumcision as a Nation, for then every nation should receive it, nor as a Church or people separated from the world, and taken into covenant with God, for then every Church or people separated from the world, and taken into covenant with God should receive circumcision, which is false, but they received it as appointed them from God, under this formall reason, and no other. But what is all this to the answering the objection, That it was not the seal of the spirituall part of the Covenant of Grace to all circumcised persons, and that circumcision was appointed to persons not under the Covenant of Grace, and that the reason why persons were circumcised, was not because they were under the covenant of Grace, but only Gods appointment? But you yet adde, It is true indeed that circumcision bound them who received it to conform to that manner of administration of the covenant which was carried much by a way of temporall blessings and punishments, they being types of spirituall things. It is right which you grant, that circumcision bound them who received it to conform to that manner of administration of the covenant, but then it is to be considered, that circumcision was a part of this administration; and that though temporall blessings, as of the land of Canaan, and rest in it, were shadows of the rest of Gods people, and so in a sort of administrations of the covenant of Grace, yet they were also part of the things promised in the covenant made to Abraham; and when you say, circumcision bound them who received it, to conform to that manner of administration of the covenant which was carried much by a way of temporall blessings and punishments; it is hard to shew in what sense they were bound to conform to temporall blessings and punishments: they were bound to conform to the sacrifices and offerings, and washings, &c. For these were their acts to be done by them, but how they were bound to conform to the administration by temporall blessings and punishments, it is hard to understand, sith they were Gods acts, not theirs. You adde, but no man can ever shew, that any were to receive the Sacrament of Circumcision, in relation to those outward things only, or to them at all, further then they were administrations of the Covenant of Grace. The truth is, no man was to receive the Sacrament of Circumcision in relation to these outward things only, or to them at all, either as they were temporall blessings or types of spirituall things, and so, as you speak, administrations of the covenant of Grace, but in this respect only, and for this reason, and no other, because God had so commanded; though I deny not circumcised persons were by faith to look on the covenant of Grace through these administrations, yet the reason of being circumcised was barely Gods command; so that if you abstract Gods command, notwithstanding the covenant, or any other administration of it, they were not to be circumcised: You go on: Sure I am, the proselytes and their children could not be circumcised in any relation at all to the temporall blessings of the land of Canaan, as they were temporall, because notwithstanding their circumcision, they were not capable of receiving or purchasing any inheritance at all in the land, sojourne they might as other strangers also did, but the inheritance of the land, no not one foot of it could ever be alienated from the severall Tribes to whom it was distributed, as their Possession by the most High: For all the land was divided into twelve Tribes, and they were not any one of them allowed to sell their lands, longer then till the yeer of Jubilee, Lev. 25. v. 3. &c. Yea, I m…y boldly s…y, that their circumcision was so far from sealing to them the outward good things of the land, that it occasioned and tyed them to a greater expence of their temporall blessings, by their long and frequent and chargeable journyes to worship at Jerusalem: This which you say may be granted, and the thing which you would prove by it, That they which received circumcision, did not receive it in relation only to these outward things, yet this overthrows not this Proposition, That the covenant made with Abraham had promises of temporall blessings, and that some were to be circumcised, who had no part in the covenant of Grace. You adde: And as for what was alledged concerning Ishmael, the Answer is easie; God indeed there declares, that Isaac should be the Type of Christ, and that the covenant of Grace should be established, and continue in his family, yet both Ishmael and the rest of Abrahams family were really taken into covenant untill afterwards by apostasie they discovenanted themselves, as also did Esau afterwards, though he were the son of Isaac, in whose family God had promised the covenant should continue. When you say, that Ishmael was really taken into the covenant, meaning, of Grace, mentioned in a few words before, you oppose both the Apostle, Rom. 9.7, 8. Gal. 4.28, 29. as I have shewed before, and Gods own speech, Gen. 17.19, 20. To which I may adde, that Isaac and Jacob only are said to be coheirs with Abraham of the same promise, Heb. 11.9. And when you say, that he and Esau were discovenanted by apostasie: you plainly deliver apostasie from the covenant of Grace, which I will not call in you Arminianisme, but in others it would, and that justly be so censured. But you will say, you mean that Ishmael and Esau were Abrahams seed by profession, and outward cleaving to the covenant, as you speak, pag. 14. But this is not to be taken into the covenant of Grace really, as you speak; for taking really into the covenant of Grace, is Gods act, either of election▪ or promise, or some act executing either of these; but profession and outward cleaving to the covenant is mans act; and therefore, how to salve your speech I know not. As for the objection, I see not that you have answered it, but that still it stands good, that persons were to be circumcised, who were not in the covenant of Grace, that Ishmael was appointed to be circumcised, though it were declared Gods covenant did not belong to him; and therefore the reason of circumcising persons, was not the covenant of Grace, but only the will and command of God to have it so. Your fifth Conclusion followes.
§. 11. Of the priviledges of Believers under the Gospel, and whether the want of Infant-Baptisme be want of a priviledge of the covenant of Grace which the Jews had.FIfthly, and lastly, the priviledges of Believers under this last and best administration of the covenant of Grace, are many wayes inlarged, made more honourable and comfortable then ever they were in the time of the Jews administration.
This Conclusion, with its Explication and Application, have all their vigour in ambiguity of speech; as the strength of the Coney is in its burrow; which, that I may uncover, I must distinctly declare, what is to be held in this matter, and then examine what you say. Priviledge is a Law term, the Etymologie is, Privilegium quasi priva lex, quia veteres priva dixerunt, quae nos singula dicimus: Priviledge, as it were a private law, because the ancients called those things private, which we call singular, Gel. noct. Attic. lib. 10. cap. 20. Joh. Calvinus Wett. in his Lexicon Juridicum voce privilegium. Privilegium alii sic definiunt, jus singulare in certae personae gratiam favoremve, others so define a priviledge, a singular right in favour of a certain person; so that a priviledge is a particular law, whereby some persons have benefit different from common right. Calvin ibid. Item beneficium dicitur privilegium quia benè facit iis quibus conceditur contra legem communem, likewise a priviledge is called a benefit, because it benefits those to whom it is granted, against the common law. If it do not benefit, it is not a priviledge; Priviledges therefore may be priviledges at one time, which are not at another time: and in comparison of some which are not priviledges in comparison of others. To have Christ personally present with the Disciples, was a priviledge for the time, but it was a priviledge that he was absent, when he went to heaven, and sent his Spirit to them: The Lawes delivered to the Jews were priviledges in comparison of the Heathen, but not in comparison of Christians. Priviledges of the covenant of Grace may be conceived, either in respect of the substance of the covenant of Grace, or the administration. Now, when you speak of priviledges of the covenant of Grace, some passages s…em to mean it in respect of the promises of grace in Christ, as when you say, Our covenant is established upon better promises, we as well as they are called a holy nation, &c. not only in the clearnesse of the administration, but also, &c. And those especially which you have when you say, pag. 31. We are inquiring for priviledges, which are branches of the Covenant of Grace, which every man that is in covenant with God, may expect from God, by vertue of the Covenant, which cannot be understood but of the promises. Now the promises of the covenant of Grace, are of the substance of the covenant, not of the administration: But other passages refer to the administration. That yoak, that hard and costly way of administration, which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear, is taken off from our shoulders, the glory of theirs had no glory in respect of ours, they were under the bondage of Infants under age, in comparison of our freedome; which things belong to the administration, pag. 10.12. Now, if you mean your conclusion of priviledges of the substance of the covenant of Grace, it is to be denied: For so the priviledges of believers are not now inlarged many wayes, or made more honourable or comfortable. Your self, pag. 9.10.12. say, they are the same to both Jews and Gentiles: but in respect of the administration, it is granted they are many wayes inlarged, made more honourable; and in this sense, I grant it, that many Scriptures speak of the inlargement of our priviledges, and particularly, those that speak of the removing the hard yoak, Acts 15.10. and bringing us into liberty to full age, Gal. 4.1. and greater glory, 2 Cor. 3.10. And it is true that those things were priviledges to the Israelites, but it is a benefit to us, that we are freed from them, and so no priviledge for us, either to have them or any other thing in lieu of them, but Christ already come, who is in stead of all. Now the thing that you drive at, is this: that whereas you conceive that you have proved before, that the Infants of those that are in the covenant of Grace, are covenanters with their parents; that Baptisme succeeds in the roome and use of their circumcision, that by Gods expresse order, Infants were to be circumcised. You lastly conclude, that our priviledges for our selves and children, are at least as honourable, large and comfortable, as theirs, and therefore our Infants are to be baptized. The answer to it is this: It is true, our priviledge is the same with theirs in respect of the substance of the covenant, but neither was that made to the Jews naturall posterity as such, nor is it made to ours. As for Circumcision, it was indeed a priviledge, but belonging to the manner of administration not to the substance of the covenant which is in variable, a priviledge to the Jews in comparison of the Heathens, but a burthen in comparison of us; and it is so far from being a priviledge to our children, that they should have either it or any other thing in the place and use of it, but Christ manifested in the flesh, that the truth is, it is a great priviledge to us and our children, that they have neither it, nor any other thing in the stead of it but Christ manifested in the flesh: And so parents loose nothing by denying Baptism to Infants in the place & use of circumcision; but it is indeed, if rightly considered, a benefit to them to want it, God not appointing it, nor making a promise of grace to be confirmed by it to the Infants of Believers. Having premised this, I shall examine the proofs of your conclusion, and see whether they make any thing against that which I have delivered. The thing you should prove, is one of these two: either that circumcision did belong to the substance of the covenant of Grace, or, that the want of Circumcision, or some Ordinance in the place and use of it, is a losse of priviledge of the covenant of Grace to us and our children. That which you alledge is this: Many Scriptures speak of the inlargement of their priviledges, not one for the diminishing or depressing or extenuating of them; that yoak, that hard and costly way of administration, which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear, is taken off from our shoulders. True, and by this, you yeeld that it may be an inlargement of priviledge to have somewhat removed that was a priviledge formerly. The Scripture to which you allude, is that, Acts 15.10. Now I pray you, what was this yoak, but circumcision, as your self declare, pag. 39. and all the legall ceremonies which were great priviledges to the Jews; but yet to us it is a priviledge that we are freed from them, and if it be a priviledge to be fre… from circumcision, it is a priviledge to be freed from any ordinance in the roome, place, and use of it. Lastly, in that Circumcision is taken off from our necks, it appears, that it belongs not to the covenant of Grace, which is invariable, and belongs to Gentiles as well as to Jewes, according to your conclusion. The next Scripture you bring, is Heb. 8.6. where our covenant is said to be established upon better promises. If this Scripture serve to your purpose, then the covenant of Grace now hath better promises then the covenant of Grace the Jews had: but this I know you will deny, who hold that the covenant of Grace is the same both to Jews and Gentiles. But that you may see how confusedly you thrust things together in this place, I pray you consider what covenant it is of which the Author to the Hebrewes speaks there, that it had not so good promises; Is it not expresly said to be that which God made, when he took the Israelites by the hand, to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which covenant they brake, vers. 9. Now, although Dr. Crisp, vol. 2. Serm. 2. calls the covenant of Aarons Priestood a covenant of Grace, though of lesse grace; yet you say thus, pag. 10. and four hundred and thirty yeers after the Law was added, with great terror upon Mount Sinai, not as a part of this covenant; and after, plainly in that giving of the Law there was something of the covenant of works made with Adam in Paradise, &c. So that you do grant there was a rehearsall of the covenant of works; though you do make it also to have something of the administration of the covenant of Grace. The truth is, the Scripture plainly makes it the covenant of works, Rom. 10.5. Gal. 3.10.12. Gal. 4.24. Heb. 12.18. though I deny not that which you say, that it was intended as a preparative and means to fit them for Christ, and therefore may not unfitly be called foedus subserviens, a subservient covenant, as Cameron in his Theses de triplici foed…re. But this being so, to what purpose do you tell us, that our covenant is established upon better promises; as if the Jewes covenant were no better then that on Mount Sinai, or as if the comparison concerning priviledges were between the covenant of Grace now, and the covenant of Works then; whereas the question is, as you say, page 31. which are branches of the covenant of Grace, and a little after, but were no part of the covenant of Grace, which God made to Abraham and his seed. Now the covenant of Grace is that made with Abraham, Gal. 3.15, &c. as your self alledge, pag. 10. and you say there, that covenant was for substance alwayes the same, and the substance as you recite it, is the promises and the condition; so that out of your own words it is clear, that we have no better promises in the covenant of Grace now, then they had then, only the administration of the covenant of grace is now better then it was to them; then it was mixt with other particular promises, which because they are not cōmon to al believers in the covenant of grace, therfore belong not to the covenant of Grace in Christ purely taken, such as the promise of deliverance from Egypt, setling in Canaan, &c. For though it is true, that godlinesse hath the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come, yet the promise of the life that now is, is not a particular promise of possession of such or such a land to us or our seed, or the coming of Christ out of our posteritie, as it was then, but only a generall promise of Gods providing for his children with persecution, Mark. 10.30. Then it was with expectation of Christ to come, now with assurance of Christ already come in the flesh, and accomplishing what was foretold of him; then Christ was shadowed in darke types, now wee see him unveiled in a plaine history. So that though it be true that the priviledges of believers are now many wayes inlarged in some respects, yet simply the Covenant of Grace is not inlarged in respect of the substance of it, the promises of Grace and the condition, they are still belonging to the Elect and believers, and to no other. The next Scripture you thus express. The glory of theirs had no glory in respect of ours; for this you quote 2 Cor. 3.10. But this passage is plainly meant of the Covenant at Mount Sinai, which is called the letter, ver. 6. The ministration of death written and ingraven in stones so glorious, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance, which glory was to be done away, ver. 7. The ministration of condemnation, ver. 9. Which I suppose you doe not understand of the Covenant of Grace, and therefore it is impertinently alledged. Your next is, they were under the bondage of Infants under age in comparison of our freedome. For this you alledge, Gal. 4.1. &c. But this is said of the administration in types and shadows and ceremonies, called the rudiments of the world, ver. 3. Concerning which it is confessed our priviledges are enlarged: but they are not branches of the Covenant of Grace, which every man who is in Covenant with God may expect from God by vertue of the Covenant. You goe on, We as well as they are called a holy Nation, a peculiar people, a chosen Generation, separated to him from all other people: It is granted we believers are such a holy Nation, &c. doth it therefore follow, that the priviledges of beleevers under this last and best administration of the Covenant of Grace are many wayes enlarged? You allude to that place, 1 Pet. 2.9. and Mr Blake, pag. 8. urgeth this text to prove a birthright priviledge of Christians, equall to the Nations of the Jewes. But it is answered, this passage is meant of the invisible Church, the living & lively members of Christ. To which he saith. The contrary to this in the Text is cleare. First, by looking back to the words that there precede: It is meant of all those who do not professedly with the unbelieving Jewes reject Christ. I have looked backe and finde no such thing there. It is true, there is mention of some who did reject Christ, ver. 7, 8. But that when Peter sayes, yee are a chosen Generation, a royall Priesthood, &c. it should be meant of any other then true believers, who alone can offer spirituall sacrifice acceptable to God through Jesus Christ, is an interpretation which I disclaime, much more that it should be meant of all those who do not professedly with the unbelieving Jewes reject Jesus Christ. For then it may be said, not onelyonly of Simon Magus, and other hypocrites, but also of all the salvages in the world that never heard of Christ, that they are a chosen Generation, a royall Pries…hood, an holy Nation, a peculiar people, that they should shew forth the praise of him, who hath called them out of darkness into his marvailous light. Mr Blake addes, Which will yet more fully appeare by comparing the words of S t Paul, Rom. 9.32, 33. I desire Mr Blake to revise his Treatise, and to examine whether this and many other passages answer to Mr Vines, and others commendation of it. To me the Text he cites Rom. 9.32, 33. compared with 1 Pet. 2.9. doe as well agree to prove that 1 Pet. 2.9. is meant of all those who doe not professedly with the unbelieving Jewes reject Christ, as a harp and a harrow doe consort to make musique. But perhaps wee may see more by looking forward. Secondly, saith Mr Blake, by looking forward to that which followes in the character which the Apostle (before he ends his description) addes: which in times past were not a people, but now are the people of God. A speech taken from the Prophet to set forth the case of the Gentiles, as it is also by S t Paul interpreted, Rom. 9.26. but the Gentiles thus called, and of no people made a people, have all a Covenant-holiness, and not alwayes inherent holiness. Sure the word nation and people, did so run in Mr Blakes mind, that he could thinke of nothing but a nationall Church like the Jewes; whereas if he had weighed the words, ver. 10. of having obtained mercy, and considered that both Rom. 9.25. & 26. are meant of the same, of whom he said ver. 23. that they were the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, he would have plainly perceived the people and nation to be meant of the invisible Church of the Elect, and so nothing in that Text for the holiness of a believing Nation, as some speake, communicating a priviledge of the seales to the infants of that Nation: which how absurd a conceit it is, may be shewed perhaps more fully in that which followes. You adde to whom as well as to them belongs the adoption, the Covenant, the promises. You allude doubtless to Rom. 9.4. but had you alledged the whole Text, ver. 3, 4, 5. you would then have seen that it speakes of peculiar priviledges of the Jewes, to whom the adoption, Covenants, that is, as Beza thinkes, the tables of the Covenant, the promises of their multiplying, having the Messiah from them, &c. were peculiar in the sense the Apostle there speakes: And so Mr Rutherfurd due right of Presbyteries, Chap. 4. sect. 5. pag. 192. That they had prerogatives above us is cleare, Rom. 3.1, 2, 3. Rom. 9.4. and that in other respects far more excellent we have prerogatives above them it is as cleare, 2 Cor. 3.7, 8, 9. Mat. 13.16, 17. So that even in respect of the Covenant made with Abraham it is plaine the Jewes had some priviledges above us, and therefore this place proves the contrary to your conclusion, and that the want of some priviledges they had, may be recompensed by some other priviledges we have: And therefore you may see how feeble a reason this is from the Jewish priviledge of infant-males circumcision to prove infant-Baptisme. But to follow you in your way. You say, we as well as they injoy him to be our Father, and with his dearest Sonne our Lord are made co-heires of the Kingdome of Glory. All this is granted, but to what purpose it is produced I see not. You adde, we have all these things with advantage, not onelyonly in the clearnesse of the administration, but in some sense in greater extent to persons with us; there is neither male nor female. This is true also, we have the substance of the Covenant of Grace, that is, justification, &c. with advantage not only in the clearness of administration, but in some sense in greater extent to persons with us. For now not only the small Nation of the Jewes, but also of all Nations, believers are brought into the Covenant of Grace. But this proves not your conclusion, or any of those things that may serve for your purpose. You adde. And there is neither male nor female. Why you adde this I know not, except you mean to insinuate, that in the Jewish Church there was male and female, because Circumcision was onelyonly of Males. But neither doth the Apostle, Gal. 3.28. intimate, that wee are better than the Jewes, as if their females were not within the Covenant of Grace, nor will you say it. Now that which you were speaking of, was the substance of the Covenant of Grace, that wee are made co-heires of the Kingdome of Glory, &c. not of the administration of it, and so there was no more distinction of male and female with the Jewes then with us, nor more priviledges of ours then of the Jewes in this particular. Thus have I examined all the proofes you bring for your fifth Conclusion, and thereby you may perceive how you have heaped together many places of Scripture, without any usefull order or distinction or pertinency to the thing in hand. You bring in next an objection thus; Some indeed goe about to shew, that in some things the Jewes had greater priviledges then we have, as that Abraham had the priviledge to be called the Father of the Faithfull, that Christ should be borne of his flesh; Mary had the priviledge to be the Mother of Christ, and the whole Nation this priviledge, that God will call in their seed againe, after they had been cast off for unbeliefe many hundred yeares; which priviledges, say they, none of the Gentiles have or can have.
It is true, that in answer to the argument from Circumcision, as it is popularly framed (which yet I perceive many that either are or should be scholars to examine things more scholastically, do or pretend to satisfie their consciences with) thus; If the children of believers be not to be baptized, then we have less priviledge then the Jewes; then the Grace of God under the new Testament, is straitned more then in the old. To this argument as being an argument of no weight, but onelyonly among vulgar and non-syllogizing capacities, among other things I said thus in my Latin paper above mentioned, Nec absurdum est dicere respectu aliquorum privilegiorum gratiam Dei contractiorem in novo Testamento, quàm in veteri, v. gr. Nulla familia habet privilegium quod Abrahami familiae concessum est, ut ex ea nasceretur Christus, nullus vir praeter Abrahamum pater fidelium, nulla faemina praeter unicam mater Christi, &c. Yet it is not absurd to say, that in respect of some priviledges the grace of God is more contracted in the new Testament, then in the old: For instance; no family hath now the priviledge that was granted to Abrahams family, that out of it Christ should be borne: no man besides Abraham is called the Father of the faithfull; no woman besides one, the mother of Christ. By which I would shew, that it is no absurditie to grant that the Jewes may have more priviledges secundum quid, in some things, then wee, and yet our case and condition, to speak simply, better then theirs, by reason of other priviledges we have above them, which recompence the defect of those priviledges, whether real or supposed, which is the very same which as Robinson did alledge, so Rutherford grants in the place above-named, and cites two Scriptures to prove it, Rom. 3.1, 2, 3. Rom. 9.4. And the truth is, priviledges are so arbitrary and various, that God gives them as he thinkes good, oft times without assigning any special reason, so that no argument can be drawne thus. God gave such a priviledge to the Jewes, Ergo, we must have such a priviledge too, except we can prove it is Gods will it should be so. And therefore this Argument is of no force, but rather an argument of arrogant presumption, without an institution to attempt to prove, that because the Jewes had a priviledge to circumcise infants, therefore we must have a priviledge to baptize infants, nor doe any of the many Scriptures you have alledged, prove that Baptisme of infants is a priviledge granted by God in lieu of Circumcision: But you take upon you to answer this objection. You say, but these things have no weight: we are inquiring for priviledges which are branches of the Covenant of Grace, which every man who is in Covenant with God, may expect from God by vertue of the Covenant, were he a Jew or a proselyte, not for any particular or peculiar favour to a particular man or woman, or family, or tribe: All these forementioned things, and many other of the like kind (as the ministery of the Tabernacle & Temple to belong to one Tribe, the Kingly office to one family, such and such men never to lacke a man of their house to stand and before God) proceeded indeed from free grace, but were no parts of the Covenant of Grace, which God made to Abraham and all his seed. For could every man in Covenant challenge these things at Gods hand, and that by vertue of the Covenant? Could every one of them promise that Christ should be borne of his flesh? or every one of their women that shee should be the mother of Christ? Could every one whom God owned to be in Covenant with him, promise by vertue of the Covenant, that their Children, if cast off by unbeliefe, should after many hundred yeares be againe called in? We speak onelyonly of such priviledges as were universall and common to all who were in Covenant, for which by vertue of the Covenant they might relie upon God. Though you say, the things objected have no weight, yet it may seeme they are so heavy & presse your conclusion so hard, as that you cannot well ease it of them. The things objected, you deny not: but you answer, that they are impertinent: you tell us why, because you enquire for priviledges which are branches of the Covenant of Grace, common to all in Covenant, which they may challenge at Gods hand by vertue of the Covenant, and such are not these. It is not materiall what you inquire after, men may sectari Aquilam in nubibus, follow after an Eagle in the Clouds. But sure I am the Scriptures you bring, prove not that believers now have more priviledges belonging to the Covenant of grace, which all may challenge at Gods hands, then the Jewes had. Yea your second conclusion contradicts your fifth, understood in this sense. Beside, Circumcision was not a priviledge common to all in the Covenant of Grace: For besides all the faithfull before Abraham, and those of his time, Melchisedeck, and Lot, and their households, and Job after his time, there was a sort of proselytes, called strangers, or of the gate, who were not circumcised, yet the Scripture reckons them among the worshippers of God. Such is Cornelius conceived to be by Mede in his discourse on Acts 17.4. by Selden lib. 2. de jure nat. & Gent. c. 4. who is said to be foreign, a godly or devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much almes to the people, and prayed to God alwayes, Act. 10.2. and therefore within the Covenant of Grace. Besides the priviledges alledged in the objection doe some of them at least belong to the Covenant of Grace as well as Circumcision, as to be Father of the faithfull, to be the Mother of Christ, and the last belongs much more to the Covenant of Grace then circumcision. And those Rom. 9.4. are priviledges which you alledge as belonging to the Covenant of Grace, to which I may joyne that Rom. 3.2. that to them were committed the Oracles of God, which yet were prerogatives of the Jewes, as Mr Rutherford rightly and according to truth. Lastly, the phrases, Rom. 11.21. of the naturall branches, ver. 24. of the wild Olive by nature, thou wast graffed in besides nature, these according to nature, doe seeme to me to import, not that the Jewes were in the Covenant of Grace by nature, but that they had this priviledge to be reckoned in the outward administration, as branches of the olive by their birth, by vertue of Gods appointment which the Gentiles have not. But you goe on. Let any m…n shew out of the Scripture, where our priviledges under the Gospel are cut short in any of these things, and be saith somewhat, and in particular for the case in hand, concerning our infants right to the Covenant of Grace, and the seale of it: Once we are sure the infant children of all Covenanters were within the Covenant, and the seale also belonged to them, and by vertue of the Covenant (which is still the same) we plead their interest in it. Let any man shew when and where this was taken away, when the infant children of believers were expunged out of the Covenant of grace. It is unreasonable to require men to shew what they doe not avouch; it were equall to exact this taske at the hands of those who doe expunge the infant children of believers out of the Covenant of Grace: we neither write in nor expunge out; but leave that to God onelyonly, from whom we learne, Esau have I hated, Jacob have I loved. Though you thinke your selfe sure, that all the infants of Covenanters were within the Covenant of Grace, yet I see no cause to believe you, for as much as I thinke God never shewed you the booke of life, that you may see who are written in, who expunged out of the Covenant of Grace, and St Paul who was as well read in that booke as you, saith Rom. 9.8. They which are the children of the flesh, are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted for the seed, which how to spell I have shewed above. But you adde. Certainly who ever will goe about to deprive them of it, to cut off such a great part of the comfort of believing parents, must produce cleare testimonies before they can perswade believers to part with either of them, either right to the Covenant, or to the seale of the Covenant. And you adde two reasons of it. You are now on your advantage ground, in a veine of Oratory, and on a subject, of all others, aptest to move affections, to wit, parents tendernesse to their children. But wee must not sacrifice truth to either of these. You insinuate that Antipaedobaptists goe about to deprive infant-children of believers of the Covenant of Grace. They may tell you, it were a madness for them to goe about such an impossibilitie, as the putting out or putting into the Covenant of grace, and that they hope so well of you, that you come not so neere the Papists, or Augustines opinion, as to thinke infants dying unbaptized, are out of the Covenant of Grace. And as for cutting off a great part of the comfort of believing parents, I pray you tell us what comfort is cut off by it, you cannot say that either an infant is certainly regenerated or saved by Baptisme, nor can you say, he is lost for want of it. What comfort then doe you give them indeed which the Antipaedobap…ists doe not give as well as you? Or, what discomfort in truth, do they give them, which you do not? All the comfort you can indeed give them, is that according to your Hypotheses, they do their duty: But if it be proved that they prophane the Ordinance of Baptisme by bringing Infants to baptisme (which there is great cause to think they do) it may rather bring discomfort to their conscience in fine, then comfort. But to Believers indeed, Gods glory will be more deare then their own comfort; and therefore they will be content to part with that which dishonoured God, though it seemed cause of comfort to themselves: they will imitate Abraham, who quieted himself in the will of God concerning Ishmael, though deare unto him; and Isaac, who perceiving Gods rejecting of Esau, yet submitted to his will. And for your two reasons, because they are only a piece of pathetick oratory, I passe them over. For though there be some strains that Logically examined will not endure the test, yet having learned the rule about reading the Fathers, not to account all their Rhetoricall expressions their Dogmaticall resolutions, I am willing to conceive the same of you. And as for your recapitulation of your conclusions, and your inference thereupon, how short they are of your conceit of them, I leave it to your self to consider, and proceed to that which you say is the main and only Objection remaining which hath any colour of weight in it.
§. 12. That the command to circumcise male Infants is not virtually a command to baptize Infants.YOu say the Objection is this: There is no comm…nd, no expresse institution, or cle…r ex…mple in all the new Testament of baptizing of Infants; and in the administratinn of S…craments, we are not to be led by our own reason, or grounds of seeming p…obabilitie, but by the expresse order of Christ, and no otherwise.
This you justly count the main objection; which if you could answer clearly, all the rest of your Discourse might be saved, and without answering it, all that you have said else is to little purpose. For, though it were proved that the children of Believers were in the covenant of Grace, Baptisme succeeds to Circumcision, our priviledges greater then the Jewes, yet all this cannot acquit the practice of baptizing Infants from will-worship, without an institution, by Precept or Apostolicall example. And therefore, as it concerns Smectymnuus, so almost all the Divines of the Assembly, and Preachers of the City, that have so often delivered in their Sermons at Westminster, now in print, and in the City, that in Gods Worship we must not medd…e a jot further then God hath comm…nded, to shew some institution of Christ, or example of his Apostles for it, otherwise the Prelatists will tell you, that they can shew virtuall command from Analogie of the Ceremoniall Law of the Jews, and tradition Ecclesiasticall as ancient as yours for Paedobaptisme, for their Prelacy, Holydayes, Surplice, &c. against which there have been so many, and those just Declamations. If then you do not stand to it here you may yeeld up your weapons. Let us then try it out on this ground: You begin thus; If by institution, command and example, they mean an expresse syllabicall command, &c. I grant that in so many words it is not found in the new Testament that they should be baptized: No expresse example where children were baptized. Sure this is a shrewd signe that you are not likely to make good your ground, when you have yeelded so much. But I grant, that if you make it good, by good consequence, you may recover all. Let us then consider what you say of that. But I also adde, that I deny the consequence, that if in so many words it be not commanded in the new Testament, it ought not to be d…ne; this is not true Divinity, that Christians are not tyed to observe that which is not expresly in so many words set down in the new Testament. True, but whose consequence is this? Infants are not to be baptized, because that which is not in so many words commanded in the new Testament, ought not to be done? The consequence rightly framed is this: In meer positive worship that ought not to be done, which hath not Precept, or Apostolicall example equivalent to a Precept, gathered by plain words, or good inference out of the new Testament: For, if it have none of these, it is wilworship. And Baptisme of Infants is such, therefore it ought not to be done. The ground of it is this, because all the ceremoniall or meere positive worship of the Jewes is now abrogated; and therefore a Precept of God to them is not a warrant to us now, if it were, it must be in one thing as well as another, and so we must bring on our necks the yoak of bondage of the Mosaical Law. Now let us see how you encounter this Argument: you answer by telling us; there is no expresse reviving of the Lawes, concerning the forbidden degrees of marriage in the new Testament, except of not having a m…ns fathers wife, 1 Cor. 5.8. No expresse Law against polygamie; no expresse command for the celebration of a weekely Sabbath; are therefore Christians free in all these c…ses? I answer, no, but withall I say, that the first instance is about a morall command, and yet there is for one branch of incest, an expresse censure in the new Testament, proving the unl…wfulnesse of it; whereas the businesse is now about a point of meer positive ceremoniall worship, and so theres not the like reason. Secondly, the same may be said of Polygamie, that it is a sin against a morall Precept, and yet there is good proof against it in the new Testament, from Mat. 19.5.9. And for the third, enough hath been said above, Part. 1. Sect. 8. to shew how little advantage you have in this instance. But you adde, yea in the point of S…craments there is no expresse command, no example in all the new Testament, where women received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, there is no expresse command, that the children of Believers, when they are grown, should be instructed and baptized by their parents; expresse command there is, that they should teach the Heathen, and the Jews, and m…ke them Disciples, and then baptize them, but no command that the children of those that are Believers should be baptized when they are grown men; nor any example where ever that was done: will any man therefore say, that Christian women are not to be partakers of the Lords Supper? I think none will be so absurd as to affirm it. If it be said, though these things be not expresly and in terminis in the new Testament, yet they are there virtually, and by undeniable consequence, I confesse it is true. You do in this perioch, give two instances of practice, warranted by command, or example, gathered by consequence in the new Testament, in the positive worship of the Sacraments, to wit, womens receiving the Lords Supper, and the baptizing of children of Believers, when grown persons, which you grant are virtually, and by undeniable consequence in the new Testament, though not expresly and in terminis, in terms. Now this thing you need not have proved, I readily grant it, that what ever in positive worship is commanded in the new Testament, though it be not in formall terms commanded, yet if it may be gathered by virtuall consequence, ought to be done. Neverthelesse, I observe: First, that you do well expresse the institution of Christ, Matth. 28.19. when you say, expresse command there is, that they should teach the Heathen and the Jews, and make them Disciples, and then baptize them, of which I may make further use afterwards. Secondly, that when you say, there is no expresse command, no example in all the new Testament, where women received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, you imply there is for males. Now, herein you, Mr. Vines and Mr. Blake, and generally others follow Zwinglius, whose conceit this was, if he were not the first inventor: And Mr. Blake expresseth himself thus, pag. 22. No particular president more then for this of Infant-baptisme. But I pray you tell me, is not that, 1 Cor. 11.28. foreign, Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup, an expresse command in formall terms? And doth not foreign comprehend both Sexes? When the Apostle sayes, vers. 23. I delivered unto you that which I received from the Lord, was not that a command, and that to the whole Church, women as well as men? when he saith, 1 Cor. 10.17. We being many, are one bread, and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread, and are not women as well of the body as men? And if so, here is an expresse example in formall terms for womens receiving the Lords Supper? The like may be said, of 1 Cor. 12.13. Acts 20.7. unlesse you will say, that foreign, himself, all, Disciples, comprehend not women, because they are of the Masculine Gender, which from you that have learned that Logica non curat sexum, Logick regards not sex, and that hundreds of places there be, where the Masculine Gender is put, the matter so requiring it, for both Sexes, I do not suspect. And for your other instance, as I do not remember any brings it but your self, so it is as little to the purpose as the other: For that which you say, that there is no expresse command that the children of Believers should be baptized when they are grown men. It is true, except they professe the faith; but there is an expresse command, as your self grant, to baptize Disciples, and so to baptize the childe of a Believer that professeth the faith, not otherwise; so that these your instances are brought to prove that which is not denied, and yet the instances are impertinent to prove it. You say further: So have we virtually, and by undenyable consequence, sufficient evidence for the baptizing of children, both commands and examples. This assertion is full, if you mean by children, Infant-children of Believers, prove this, and you need prove no more. But your fetching such a compasse about, makes me imagine your attempt will prove but a Parturiunt montes, the mountains bring forth, especially, when your proof is but from Analogy; concerning which, the rule holds, as Mr. Bowles in his Sermon on Joh. 2.17. Allegorica Theologia, (unlesse the Lord himself make the application) non est argumentativa, Allegoricall Divinity is not argumentative; but it is fit you should be heard. You say, For, first you have Gods command to Abraham, as he was the father of all covenanters, that he should seal his children with the seal of the covenant. I grant we have Gods command to Abraham, who is indeed called, the Father of the faithfull, no where that I know, the father of all covenanters, to circumcise his males of eight dayes old; and I deny not, but that this was a seal, that is, a confirming signe of the covenant God made with Abraham; whence Gods covenant was said to be in their flesh, Gen. 17.13. and 'tis called the covenant of circumcision, Act. 7.8. But you have need of the Philosophers stone to turn this into a command to baptize Infants of Believers, which you thus attempt. You tell us, Now this truth, all our Divines defend against the Papists, that all Gods commands and institutions about the Sacraments of the Jews, binde us as much as they did them in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant, and were not accidentall unto them. This is your foundation for your undeniable consequence, it had need then be very undeniable, and so you conceive it, because it is a tru…h all our Divines defend against the Papists. But this is no undeniable Axiome, that what all the Protestant Divines defend against the Papists must be truth undeniable, I do not think all the Divines in the Assembly will subscribe to it; I for my part do disclaim it, I give that honour only to the Holy Scripture, and have learned from Art. 21. of the Church of England, that Generall Councels have erred, and may erre, and consequently all the Divines in the world: And one Paphnutius is to be heard against a whole Oecumenicall Councel sometimes. And for this which you call a truth, all our Divines defend against the Papists, I marvell how you can averre it, unlesse you had read them all, which I think neither you nor any one else hath; and for this Maxime, I question whether any one leading Author have delivered that which you charge all our Divines with, because you direct not where they deliver it, it is in vain for me to make search; it were to seek a needle in a bottle of hay; but I will examine whether it be truth or no. You suppose, that there are comm…nds of God about the Sacraments of the Jews, which is granted: But then let me tell you, I do not assent to this, that Circumcision and the Passeover are all the ordinary Sacraments of the Jews; I do approve of the words of R. C. that is, as I learn from Mr. Selden, de anno civili veter. Judae. c. 2. Mr. Ralph Cudworth of Cambridge, (whom he there commends) in that book of his, which is of the true notion of the Lords Supper, chap. 2. styl'd by Mr. Selden, A witty and very learned book, where he saith, I know not what warrant there is for that divinity so m…gisterially imposed upon us by some, that the Jews had but two Sacraments, Circumcision, and the Passeover, and that it should thence follow by inevitable consequence, that the Lords Supper must foreign, answer only to the Jewish Passeover; sure I am, the Jews had many more; for not to instance in that of Paul, 1 Cor. 10.2, 3, 4. nor to examine all the other Sacramentall ceremonies which they had, that were almost as many Sacraments as Ceremonies, these feasts upon the sacrifices which we have all this while insisted on, were nothing else but true and proper sacraments joyned with sacrifices. I adde, that according to the received definitions of a sacrament, all the sacrifices that were propitiatory, were Sacraments, that is, visible sealing signes of invisible grace in Christ appointed by God to that end. Secondly, you suppose, that of those comm…nds and institutions of God, some did belong to the substance of the covenant, some were accidentall to them. This last expression is very ambiguous, whether you mean by [them] the Jewes, or the Sacraments, which seems most likely; or, whether you would, as the law of opposion requires, say accidentall to the Covenant. Again, you here contradistinguish the substance of the covenant, and that which is accidentall to it, which I construe in the same sense that you distinguish between the substance of the covenant and the administration of it, pag. 10. Conceiving by your explication that you call the substance of the Covenant that which is invariable, and that which is accidentall that which is variable. Substance doth not agree to Covenant, which is an action in proper sense; but in Schoole… it is usuall to distinguish between the substance of the act, and the circumstances of it, the essence and the accidents, but I do not remember that Logicians do oppose the accidents of an act to the substance of it, and so your expression of the substance of the covenant, and that which is accidentall, is not in my apprehension, after the usuall speech of the Schooles, and therefore I cannot well tell what sense to make of it. If [them] referre to the Jewes, then it is said, something of the Sacraments was accidentall to the Jewes, but I know not how to make any handsome sense of this. If you referre [them] to the Sacraments, you make something commanded by God, accidentall to the Sacraments, which may be yeelded you in this sense; that there might something have the essence of a Sacrament without such accidents, as it might be true Circumcision, though it were not the eighth day; it might be a true Passeover, though not on the right night. Yet, in this sense it cannot be yeelded that it was so accidentall, that it might be omitted without sin, any more then the thing it self: For, it was as well a sin, not to circumcise the eighth day, or not to keep the Passeover on the night appointed by God, as not to do these acts at all, since a command was broken in one as well as the other: For these reasons, I cannot well tell how to deny or grant that which you suppose, that some commands of God about the Sacraments of the Jews, were accidentall to them. But that which is supposed, that some of the commands of God about the Sacraments of the Jews, did contain things belonging to the substance of the Covenant, meaning, of the covenant of Grace, I can in no wise assent unto it: For, if either you mean by substance the essence of the covenant, I utterly deny that any of the Sacraments of the Jews were of the essence of the covenant, Gods Covenant was, and might be without them: If you mean by substance, that which in no case might be varied, I deny it in that sense also; Nothing of the sacraments of the Jews was morall and invariable. And it is most true, that as the sacrifices, so Sacraments (according to the common distinction) were belonging to the administration of the covenant for the time, but never of the substance of the covenant; for that consists only in the things you expresse for the substance, pag. 10. And for the maxime which you f…ther on all our Divines, which I can hardly believe any one of our Divines have delivered, as you have done, I utterly deny it, to wit, that all Gods commands and institutions about the Sacraments of the Jews bind us as much as they did them, in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant, as being contradictory to those words, Art. 7. of the Church of England. Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, and on the contrary, I affirm, that they are all abrogated, subst…nce and circumstance, whole, and part; and I thus prove it: First, those things bind us not which had their complement in Christ, but all the Sacraments of the Jews had their complement in Chtist, Ergo. The Major is the force of the Apostles prohibition; and the reason of it, Col. 2.16, 17. the Minor is delivered, 1 Cor. 5.7. Col. 2.17. Heb. 9.9. Heb. 10.1. And Beza in Annot. in Col. 2.14. Hoc respectu ut Euangelicae gratiae adhuc exhibendae, foreign, ceremoniis finis erat impositus ipsius Christi, id est veritatis, quam antea adumbrarant exhibitione, by the exhibition of Christ himself, that is the truth, which before they shadowed, there was an end put to ceremonies in this respect, as being seals of Euangelicall grace yet to be exhibited. Secondly, those things bind not us now, which were taken away by Christs death; this I suppose you will not deny, lest you evacuate the effect of Christs death: But Christ hath by his death abolished all the sacraments of the Jews, comprehended under the law of commands in ordinances or rites, Ephes. 2.15. Col. 2.14. therefore they bind not. Thirdly, those commands which were only to continue till faith came, those bind not now faith is come: But the commands of the Sacraments of the Jews were such, therefore they bind not now: The Major and Minor are delivered, Gal. 3.23, 24, 25. Gal. 4.1, 2, 3, 4. Act. 15.9, 10. Fourthly, those commands bind us not, which were a partition wall between Jews and Gentiles; but all the Sacraments of the Jewes in whole and in part, were a partition wall between Jews and Gentiles, therefore they bind us not. The Major and Minor are delivered, Ephes. 2.14. Fifthly, those commands which were unprofitable, and weak rudiments of the world, contrary to Christ, beggerly rudiments, these bind not a Christian now; but such are the Jews sacraments, Heb. 7.18. Col. 2.8.20. Gal. 4.3.9. therefore they bind not. Sixthly, those commands that belonged to another Priesthood then Christs, bind not Christians, but the Jews sacraments belonged to another Priesthood then Christs, therefore they bind not. The Major and Minor are both delivered, Heb. 7.12.16. Heb. 9.10. Seventhly, those commands that belonged to another covenant then that which now in force, bind not; but such are the commands of the Jews sacraments, Heb. 8.13. Heb. 9.1. therefore they bind not. Eightly, those commands which were proper to the Jews, bind not us Christians; but the sacraments of the Jews were proper to the Jews, so was Circumcision, the Passeover, the Sacrifices; therefore they bind us not. Ninthly, If one part bind us, then all the commands bind us; and if we be obliged to any one rite, then to all, for they had all the same authority; nor hath that authority dissolved any one part more then another. Now it is a sure rule, that ubi lex non distinguit, non est distinguendum, where the law distinguisheth not, we must not distinguish; therefore, either none binds us, or else we must revoke Judaisme. And indeed, to say, so far a command of God binds, and so far not, without a plain declaration of Gods will, is an high presumption, whereby man takes on him to release or dispense with Gods Law, which is of equall authority with the making of a law. Lastly, those commands bind us not, which the Apostle would not have us subject to, no not in part, but such are the commands of the Jewish sacraments, Col. 2.16.20. Gal. 5.1, 2, 3. and your self say, pag. 27. the Apostle would take them off wholly from circumcision; therefore they bind us not: Yea, it is to overthrow utterly our Christian liberty by Christ, which the Apostle was so stiffe in maintaining that he would not yeeld, no, not one hou…, and blamed Peter for di…sembling this liberty, Gal. 2.5.14. to maintain that all the commands and institutions of God about the Sacraments of the Jews bind us as much as they did them in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant, and were not accidentall to them. But you endeavour to make good your Maxime by instances, and accordingly you say thus: As because Circumcision is called a seal of the covenant, therefore our Sacraments are seals of the covenant; though circumcision no where that I know, be called the seal of the covenant, but only the seal of the righteousnesse of faith, Rom. 4.11. yet, because it is called a signe or token of the Covenant, Gen. 17.11. it may well be called a seal or confirming signe of the covenant with Abraham, and so of the covenant of Grace; and our Sacraments may be so called likewise, they being confirming signs of the new Testament, Luk. 22.10. Acts 2.38. but not because Circumcision was called so, but because that phrase expresseth the truth of the thing. But what is this instance to your purpose? Is there a command or institution of God, binding the Jews to call Circumcision so? or a command or institution for us by vertue of the command to the Jews to call it so? though I should oppose him that should deny our Sacraments to be seals of the covenant, because he should deny a truth, yet I should not say he did sin that did not call them so. Your next instance is, be…ause Circumcision might be administred but once, being the seal of initiation, therefore Baptisme being also the seal of initiation is to be administred but once. However I conceive no necessity of circumcision or Baptisme above once, yet I professe my self unsatisfied in this, that there is either a command, that a person be but once circumcised, or a person once only baptized: However, if there were a command that a person should be but once circumcised, and it could be proved that a person should be but once baptized, yet I utterly deny, that the command to circumcumcise but once, is a cammand to baptize but once; and therefore what ever any Divines may dictate Magisterially, yet I do not think my self in Pythagoras his School, that foreign, he said it, should be my rule. You adde: but that circumcision was to be administred on the eighth day only, was an accidentall thing, and therefore bindeth not. I see no reason why once circumcising should belong to the substance of the covenant, and to be circumcised on the eighth day should be accidentall; yea, if reason may rule the roast, there is more reason that circumcising on the eighth day should belong to the substance of the covenant, being commanded by God expresly, and as many of the Ancients conceive, particularly Cyprian, Ep. 99. ad finem, typifying Christs resurrrection on the eighth day, then that to be circumcised but once, should be of the substance of the covenant, which is neither commanded, nor is found in Scripture to typifie any thing belonging to the Covenant: So vaine are mens conceits, without the light of the Word.
But you go forward in the other Sacrament. The Jewish Passeover being to be yearly repeated, binds us to have a repetition of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, which came in roome of it, because this belongs to the substance of the Covenant; both of them being Sacraments for spirituall nourishment, growth, and continuance in the Covenant: (as the other was, for birth and entrance) but that their Passeover was to be e…ten in an evening, and upon one set evening in the yeare, was accidentall, and so binds not us. Here is a heape of dictats without proofe. I grant the Jewish Passeover was to be yearly repeated, because God so commanded it, but tha… either this belonged to the substance of the Covenant, or that this command binds us to the frequen… use of the Lords Supper, I deny it: if it did, it were a very good plea for the superstitious custome of keeping Easter, and receiving the Communion once a yeare on that day, which I thinke you will be ashamed of, though you lay the egge out of which it may be hatched. I grant the Lords Supper is to be repeated often, not because the Jewish Passeover was to be yearly repeated, or because it is the Sacrament for spirituall nourishment, growth, and continuance in the Covenant (as the other was for birth and entrance) but because it may be plainly gathered from the Institution or Command of Christ, and the Apostles declaration thereupon, 1 Cor. 11.25, 26. for foreign doth imply foreign, as oft doth imply, not obscurely but plainly, a frequency, and if example must be a rule, as it is conceived in many cases lesse cleare, and that have lesse reason; that example Acts 20.7. should binde that on the first day of the weeke, when Disciples come together they have the Lords Supper, for the which the meeting then was intended, and that action gave denomination to the whole service; and by the relation of Justine Martyr (if my memory deceive me not) and others, it was so in the primitive Church of Christians; but I desire to be sparing in matters of command on mens consciences. As for that you make the Evening accidentall to the Passeover, and so not binding us in the use of the Lords Supper, it's but a dictate. The Evening of the Passeover is no more accidentall then the day it selfe, they being commanded both together. And for the Lords Supper, how we can be loose to receive it in the Morning or Evening after Supper, when the Apostle doth so distinctly mention in this relation of the Institution, 1 Cor. 11.23. that it was done in the night; and vers. 25. foreign, after he had supped; I leave to your Assembly to cons…der; Especially those of you that are so stiffe for the sitting together at the Table, which is not mentioned or hinted in the Apostles relation, and therefore may seeme as much occasionall as the other. And for that which you intimate, as if Baptisme were not the Sacrament for spirituall nourishment, growth, and continuance in the Covenant, as well as for entrance; I take to be but a dictate like the rest, which upon exact examination will not hold: it seems to me somewhat neare of kinne to that of Bellarmine and other Papists, that the efficacy of Baptisme extends not to the remission of the sinnes of our whole life, but of originall sinne onelyonly.
But you have yet one more Instance, and thus you speake; The like Instance I give in our Christian Sabbath; the fourth Commandement binds, as for the substance of it, as much as ever it bound the Jewes, there God once for all, separated one day of seven to be sacred to himselfe, and all the world stood bound in all ages to give unto God that one day of seven, which should be of his own choosing. Now untill Christs time, God chose the last day of the seven to be his Sabbath; and having by the death and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus, put an end to the Saturday Sabbath, and surrogated the first day of the week instead thereof to be the Lords day, wee need no new Commandement for the keeping of the Lords day, being tyed by the fourth Commandement to keep that day of seven which the Lord should choose; the Lord having chosen this, the fou…th Commandement binds us to this, as it did the Jewes to the former; so in like manner, I say in the Sacrament of Baptisme. What I conceive about the Lords day, I have before declared Part. 2. Sect. 8. where also I shewed you how different the case of Paedobaptisme is from it, which I shall not now repeate; OnelyOnly whereas you bring the Sabbath for an Instance of a Command of God, about the Sacraments of the Jewes, binding us as well as the Jewes; you forget the marke at which you shoote, the Sabbath or Lords day being not to be reckoned among the Jewes Sacraments, or ours, according to the usuall Ecclesiasticall acception and definition of the word. You see now your maxime, which is the foundation of your undeniable consequence undermined, I presume you may see quickly the superstruction it selfe overturned: one blow more will doe it. You piece things together thus; When God made the Covenant with Abraham, and promised for his part to be the God of him and his seed; what God promised to Abraham, wee claime our part in it as the child…en of Abraham, and wh…t God required on Abrahams part for the substance of obedience, wee all stand charged with, as well as Abraham; Wee as Abraham are tyed to beleeve, to love the Lord with all our heart, to have our hearts circumcised, to walke before God in uprightnesse; to instruct our children, and bring them up for God, and not for our selves, nor for the Devill, to teach them to worship God according to his revealed will, to traine them up under the Ordinances and Institutions of Gods own appointment. All these things God commanded to Abraham, and charges upon all the children of the Covenant, though there were no expresse reviving these Commands in any part of the New Testament. And therefore consequently, that Command of God to Abraham, which bound his seed of the Jewes to traine up their children in that manner of worship, which was then in force, binds the seed of Abraham now, to traine up their children in …onformitie to such Ordinances as are now in force. Supposing you meane by what God promised to Abraham, the spirituall part of the Covenant, and the persons claiming to be beleevers: I grant this passage to be truth; for these duties are morall duties, and binde at all times; but that which follows, I cannot tell how to take for any other then plain Judaisme. You say, And the s…me Command which enjoyned Abraham to seale his children with the seale of the Covenant, enjoynes us as strongly to seale ours with the seale of the Covenant, and that Command of God which expresly bound Abraham to seale his with the signe of Circumcision, which was the Sacrament then in force, pro tempore, for the time, doth virtually binde us to seale ours with the signe of Baptisme, which is the Sacrament now in force, and succeeds into the roome of the other by his owne Appointment. This is your undeniable consequence, inferred from a Judaizing principle, without so much as one Scripture to prove either the principle or conclusion; Whereas … have brought ten arguments most of them out of the Scripture against your principle; and for the Conclusion, what construction can be made of it, but this, that the Command of God to Circumcise, binds us still? for that was the seale of the Covenant God enjoyned to Abraham, and so the Law given by Moses as touching Ceremonies and rites, binds Christian men, contrary to Art. 7. of the Church of England. Then must wee Circumcise our Males at the eighth day, as they did. But you say, it binds us virtually only to seale ours with the signe of Baptisme; I pray you then what meane you by this virtuall binding? The opposite Member was expresly, and in Terminis, in termes. Is this then your meaning, that it doth not binde expresly and in terminis, but virtually, that is, implicitely, and by Interpretation? Tell us then, I beseech you, by what rule of Divinitie, Logick, Grammar, or Rhetoricke, is a man to conceive this Command, Cut off the foreskin of the secret part of all the Males in thy house the eighth day. That is, let a Preacher of the Gospel wash with water at any time after birth the young Infants, male and female of Beleevers all over, or on the face. You call this undeniable Consequence: if so, it's either Demonstrative from the cause, or effect, or definition, or propertie, or the like; or it's onelyonly Topicall, and then not undeniable; you say, 'tis by cleare consequence, you may as well say, this is good consequence, Tu es Petrus & super hanc Petram, Thou art Peter, and upon this rocke; Ergo, the Pope is Monarch of the Church; or with Baronius, Arise Peter, kill and eate; Ergo, the Pope may deprive Princes; if you can apprehend cleare consequence in it, you may enjoy your conceit; Nos non sumus adeò sagaces, wee are not so quick-witted. I passe to the next Command, which you thus expresse.