Answer to a Treatise Entitled The Vanity of Childish Baptism, Tract · Answer to tract · Part 5 (2 of 3)

Answer to a Treatise Entitled The Vanity of Childish Baptism · Tract · Answer to tract · Part 5 (2 of 3)

p. 58You goe on and ſay. If it be objected that in reſpect of juſtification it (viz, federall holyneſſe) availeth nothing but to baptiſme it may; to which you anſwer. That which availes to juſtification and ſalvation, doth according to the rule only availe to baptiſme. For if thou beleeveſt with all thy heart, thou art juſtified, p. 59Rom. 10.10. ſhalt be ſaved, Acts 16.31. and maieſt be baptized upon the ſame and no other grounds. Act, 8.37.

Anſw. If the ſame be the rule or ground for juſtification and ſalvation, and for baptiſme: then muſt Miniſters have no rule for baptiſme, unleſſe they can know the heart, as God who juſtifies and ſaves; and ſo conſequently the baptizer muſt either be (foreign) the knower of the heart, that is God alone;Act 1.24.Acts 1:24 or baptize beſide or without rule, that is unlawfully; for the true holyneſſe that accompanies the new creature and ſaving faith, is known to none but God and the ſpirit of man which is in him.1. Cor. 2.11.1 Cor 2:11

You proceed bringing us in objecting and ſaying, that all that were baptized by the Apoſtles themſelves were not ſaved, therefore what you anſwered to our objection, viz. that [that availes to baptiſme, which availes to juſtification and ſalvation] is not ſo. To this you anſwer by diſtinguiſhing between the rule which is infallible, & the judgments of men which are fallible, and may be deceived in applying the rule; yet it followes not but that the rule being of God, is ſtill as infallible as God himſelfe. For all that beleeve ſhall be ſaved, which is true as God himſelf is true: but all who are judged by beleevers to be beleevers, doe not beleeve; and therefore are not ſaved. This failing therefore is not in the rule, but in their judgements that are but men.

Anſw. To what purpoſe is it, to ſay, this is an infallible and eternall rule, Whoſoever beleeves ſhall be ſaved: unleſſe you prove the other, that is in queſtion. viz. that ſaving faith is the only rule of Baptiſme, and that none might be baptized, but they that did actually beleeve, with the faith that accompanies the new creature, and that this rule is true as God is true? which yet I conceive you will not be ſo bold as to ſay (which unleſſe you ſay, you ſay nothing to purpoſe.) For hence it would follow, that all whom Iohn and the Diſciples, &c. regularly baptized, had true faith, and conſequently were ſaved, that they failed, yea were raſh and preſumptuous and ſinned grievouſly (as going beyond commiſſion) when they baptized any hypocrite; that ſuch an one after he came to repentance, muſt neceſſarily be baptized againe; for his former baptiſme was applied beſide the rule, and ſo was a falſe baptiſme. Yea if faith be the rule both of baptiſme and juſtification alike, it will follow that as all and only beleevers were juſtified, and all and only the juſtified were beleevers: So all and only the faithfull p. 60muſt be baptized, and all and only the baptized are faithfull, and conſequently whoſoever is baptized is a beleever and a juſtified perſon, and whoſoever is not baptized is neither beleever nor juſtified. But to leave theſe abſurd conſequences that neceſſarily follow upon your abſurd opinion; It is evident that God never appointed ſaving faith to be the rule of baptiſme, by which his Miniſters ſhould be directed in adminiſtring baptiſme. For it is impoſſible for a Miniſter to know infallibly whether another ſavingly beleeveth, and ſo whether he may baptize him according to the rule (if faith be the rule.) That cannot be a rule to us to worke by, which we muſt neceſſarily be ignorant of. God never ordained ſuch an uncertaine, yea incomprehenſible rule for his ſervants to worke by.

You proceed. But in baptizing of Infants the caſe is farre otherwiſe, yea quite contrary, who will or can faile in judging an Infant to be an Infant.

Anſw. There is no more danger of failing in judging an Infant to be an Infant, then in judging a man to be a man. But there may be failing in judging an Infant to be truly and really holy and in Covenant, though all the children of Chriſtian parents are called holy: aſwell as there might be failing in judging this or that man in the Corinthian Church to be a ſaint indeed; though the whole Church were called ſaints. For as the Apoſtles did according to the rule of charity, judge men to be beleevers, and ſo baptized them, when they made a profeſſion of faith, and did not manifeſtly diſcover the contrary; though afterwards many proved otherwiſe: So we are to judge Infants of Chriſtian parents to be holy, and ſo within Covenant, and to be baptized, becauſe Gods word teſtifies that they are holy, (and neither your ſhifts and ſophiſticall evaſions, nor all the policie of Satan can diſprove it) though afterwards ſome of them are proved to have been only outwardly, not inwardly in Covenant.

Here you bring in ſome authours teſtifying, that baptiſme of children is but a tradition, a cuſtome of the Church, invented by the Pope &c. Which teſtimonies I cannot for the preſent examine, as not being furniſhed with the bookes of the authours. Though if one ſhould caſt away ſo much time as to follow you, in examining theſe teſtimonies: in probability you would bee found no honeſter in citing them, then you have been in citing many ſcriptures. For he that will be ſo bold as to pervert, and abuſe p. 61Gods word, will not ſpare mans. But becauſe we are not bound to ſtand to the teſtimony of humane authors, neither will you as I conceive. I will anſwer no more at this time to your humane authorities, but theſe two things: Firſt, that if you would ſtand to the verdict of authors; I make no queſtion but more and more approved authors might eaſily be brought againſt you, then thoſe you have brought for your ſelfe. Secondly, what credit is to be given to your authors, who manifeſtly contradict one another? In a word to give a touch, Origen the prime and ancienteſt of thoſe whom you cite, which lived about 200. yeeres after Chriſt, overthrowes what you bring out of him, or other authors for your purpoſe. For whereas you ſay he calls it a ceremony or tradition of the Church, (which yet it may be well called, and withall be of divine inſtitution, as being delivered to, and uſed by the Church, in which ſenſe Baptiſme in generall, and the Lords Supper may be called Ceremonies and traditions of the Church which is the keeper and uſer of them, not the author or inſtitutor of them) elſewhere he ſpeaks of it, as an unqueſtionable practiſe of the Church in his time, thus, in his ſecond tome and 14. homily on Luke, cited by**Parvuli baptizantur in remiſſionem peccatorem. Quorum peccatorum? aut quo tempore peccaverunt? aut quomodo poteſt ulla lavacri in parvulis ratio ſubſiſtere, niſi juxta illum ſenſum de quo paulo ante diximus? Nullus mundus a ſorde, nec ſi unius dici quidem fuerit vita ejus ſuper terram. Et quia per baptiſmi ſacramentum nativitatis ſordes deponuntur, propterca baptizantur & parvuli, Orig. Tom. 2. Hom. 14. in Luc. citat. Polan. Synt. Tom. ſecundo lib. 6. cap. 55. Polanus in his Syntagme, Little ones are Baptized for the remiſſion of ſinnes. Of what ſinnes? Or at what times have they ſinned? Or how can there be any reaſon of waſhing in little ones, but according to that ſenſe of which we ſpake a little before? There is none cleane from filthineſſe, no though he hath lived but one day on earth. And becauſe by the Sacrament of Baptiſme, the filthineſſe of birth is put away; therefore little ones are alſo Baptized. Wherein this Authour ſeems (for I have not his Booke) from the Baptizing of Infants, as from an unqueſtionable practiſe of the Church in thoſe Primitive times, to demonſtrate as from a cleare principle, that Infants even of one day old were polluted with ſinne: And yet you ſay Luther ſaith that for one thouſand yeares ſince Chriſt and the Apoſtles it came to be in uſe in the Church, and was eſtabliſhed by Pope Innocentius. Surely your Authours are honeſtly cited by you, or worthy credit with us, when you bring them ſpeaking ſuch flat and irreconciliable contradictions.

But you returne now to the queſtion. What is meant by holyneſſe which children are ſaid to have 1. Cor. 7.14. In anſwer to which queſtion (you ſay) I ſhall only ſhew you what I conceive it to be, and then leave it to the judgment of the wiſe.

p. 62Anſw. It is well yet that you give leave to wiſe men to uſe their owne judgement, and doe not tie them upon neceſſitie of ſalvation to ſubſcribe to your fancies.

You goe on, I ſay then it is ſuch an holyneſſe as is oppoſite to ſome kinde of uncleanneſſe, which holyneſſe I take to be this; as if when they are ſaid to be holy, it is no more then to ſay they are not uncleane, (to wit) no baſtards.

Anſw. Who ever before (but**Note reader that this is Bellarmines interpretation of this place. Liberi tales dicuntur, non inmundi, i. e. infames & ſpurij, ſed ſancti, i. e. legitimi & liberi a civili ignominia. Whether A.R. borrowed this anſwer of Bellarmine, or invented it of himſelfe (as it is the hapineſſe of the good wits and holy affections of Ieſuiticall and Anabaptiſticall heads & hearts to jumpe in the ſame thing) let others judge. Bellarmine or ſuch Ieſuiticall perverters of Scriptures) tooke it ſo, putting uncleane for baſtards, or holy for legitimate?

But you come to ſhew your ground from opening of the text, and therein ſpend many lines.

Anſw. But let any man that is not given over to ſtrong deluſions to beleeve lies, judge whether there be any ſyllable favouring this interpretation, or proving that by holy muſt be meant only No-baſtards, or whether you can with all your cunning, wrack the Apoſtles ſpeaches to ſpeak any thing for you, yet now we muſt take your word for it, becauſe you ſay it clearely appeares to be ſo.

Further; This (you ſay) may likewiſe appeare, Mal. 2.14, 15, &c. In which words it plainly appeareth, that the ſcope of the place is, that thoſe children which are generated by one man and one woman lawfully married, are a godly or an holy feed, and thoſe that are generated otherwiſe, are not ſo, but baſtards. And the reaſon of this holineſſe, ariſeth not here from any relation they had to the Iewiſh State, not from any Church covenant; but meerely from Gods firſt inſtitution of marriage in the creation, and his then providing one woman for one man; and which therefore is of univerſall concernment to all mankind, by the law of creation.

Anſw. No ſuch thing plainly appeareth, as you would beare men in hand. For the ſcope of the Prophet in that of Malachi, ſeemes to be this, which in the 16. verſ. he concludes; viz. that God hates putting away, that is, divorcement; whereby the Iſraelites alienated their owne wives that were Iſraelites, that they might marry ſtrangers: and this he proves by divers reaſons, to be odious before God. Firſt, becauſe by this meanes they prophaned the holineſſe of the Lord, in breaking his covenant, by putting away their owne wives, that were Iſraelites; and marrying the daughters of ſtrange gods; viz. heatheniſh p. 63wives, which God in his covenant had forbidden: by which meanes they would ſoone grow out of covenant, and ceaſe to be an holy people, verſ. 11. Secondly, becauſe by this meanes they cauſed the Altar of the Lord to be covered with teares ſo that no ſacrifices were acceptable, (which ſhould have beene offered in joy) becauſe the poore ſorrowfull wives that had been put away, could not but teſtifie before the Altar the ſorrow for the wrong that had been done unto them, verſ. 13. Thirdly, becauſe in ſo doing they dealt treacherouſly againſt the wife of their youth, which was the husbands companion, and the wife of his covenant, verſ. 14. Fourthly, becauſe God had made them one, verſ. 15. In the firſt inſtitution of marriage appointing that two onelyonly ſhould be made one fleſh by marriage, appointing alſo that they ſhould be of one ſtock, viz. of the Tribe of Iſrael of one Religion, viz. worſhippers of the true God of Abraham, inclining by his ſpeciall providence theſe couples to make choyce of one another. So that now for them to divorce their wives, is to caſt away part of themſelves. In all theſe reſpects it may be ſaid that God made them one, viz. in regard of the firſt inſtitution of marriage, in regard of lineage, Religion, their mutuall choice one of another, whereby they became one; and in regard of the nature of marriage, which is to make one man, and one woman no more two, but one fleſh. And though God had the reſt of the ſpirit, that is, the diſpoſition of all perſons, and the inclination of their hearts, in his power; yet as to Adam he gave but one wife, ſo to theſe that are here reproved he gave to each of them but one wife, with whom their ſeverall husbands ſhould become one; inclining their ſpirits at their firſt choice, to mutuall and conjugall affection one to another: though it was in his power, to have given them other yoke-fellows, if it had ſeemed fit to him. Therefore they are bidden to take heed to their ſpirits, verſ. 15. & 16. that is, looke to their hearts that they ſhould not wander after adulterous luſts. Fifthly, the fifth Reaſon or Argument, to ſhew that this putting away was odious to God, which the Prophet brings is: Becauſe God therefore made them one, as in other forenamed reſpects, ſo principally in Religion, (for that he ſpeaks principally, if not onelyonly, of this, appears in that he complains of marrying the daughter of a ſtrange god) to the end that he might ſeek a godly ſeed, or ſeed of God: that is,foreign that there might ſucceſſively proceed from them, a ſeed in covenant with God: whereas otherwiſe p. 64the holy ſeed would be ſtained, and God provoked, to diſcovenant them, and their poſteritie, ſo many as ſhould marry idolatreſſes. This ſeemes to be the meaning and ſumme of this Scripture, whereon I have ſtood the longer, becauſe it is ſomewhat obſcure. But howſoever A. R. will gather that the godly ſeed here, or holy ſeed, as he will metaphraſe it, muſt needs ſignifie a ſeed onelyonly legitimate, or borne in lawfull matrimony; and ſo conclude that no more is meant by holy, 1 Cor. 7. His ground I can ſee to be none other, but becauſe God is ſaid to make one ſeeking an holy ſeed. But I anſwer: Firſt, that this place is too farre fetcht to gather clearly therefrom, that all children begotten in lawfull matrimony are an holy ſeed; and that unholy ſeed is ſo called in reſpect of the firſt inſtitution onelyonly of marriage, which is the ground of the marriage of Heathens and Infidels. Secondly, I have ſhewed that in divers other reſpects, God may be as truly ſaid to have made them one; as in reſpect of the firſt inſtitution of marriage, which may as pertinently to this place, and agreeably to the ſcope of the H. G. & to the truth it ſelf have place here. Thirdly, I ſhewed that the ſcope of this Scripture imports that oneneſſe in Religion muſt needs here be meant (whether with or without the other ſignifications, I ſay not) which quite overthrowes his ground; for if unitie in the true Religion muſt needs concurre in parents, (at leaſt as the caſe ſtood with them) to make an holy ſeed, then they that are of a falſe religion cannot produce an holy ſeed, let their marriage be never ſo lawfull. Fourthly, though I ſhould grant (which yet you can never prove, nor will I yeeld) that this making one to ſeek a godly ſeed, were to be referred onelyonly to Gods firſt inſtitution of marriage: yet will not your concluſion at all follow, Therefore all children borne in lawfull matrimony of what Religion ſo even, are an holy ſeed. For if God at firſt intending to have a holy ſeed from Adam and Eve, and ſo ſucceſſively, that ſhould be in covenant with him, appointed that one man ſhould have but one woman; and ſet down this as a law of nature to be obſerved by their poſteritie; to the end that they ſhould not pollute themſelves with promiſcuous copulation, and ſhould be diſcerned from other people; as by other pious converſation, ſo by their chaſtitie in marriage, and avoyding of polygamy and wicked divorces: will it hence follow that what parents ſoever avoyd polygamy and live chaſtly in marriage, generate a godly feed? in no wiſe: For that a people may be Gods people, and p. 55their ſeed a godly ſeed, or ſeed of God, many things are required, as that they be worſhippers of the true God, that they be no idolaters, no witches, blaſphemers, murderers, &c. and divers things more both affirmative and negative, are required in the covenant. Whereof if a man performe one or two, he is not forthwith in covenant, nor his ſeed a godly ſeed. Beſides, what an abſurd collection is it which you make hence, that all legitimates or not baſtards, are a holy or godly ſeed? for now you that pleaded againſt the holineſſe of Chriſtians children, will have all children, though of Turkes, Indians, and moſt groſſe Idolaters to be holy, ſo that they be borne in lawfull matrimony, which you grant may be (and it is plaine commonly is) among the heathen. You ſay, This that is here ſpoken of a godly ſeed is of univerſall concernment to all mankind by the law of creation. But I anſwer. It is plaine that the Iſraelites onelyonly in regard of the covenant with God, were called the holy ſeed, Ezr. 9.2.foreign Semen ſanctitatis, or ſemen ſanctum, i. e. vocatum ad ſanctitatem & Dei gratia ab aliis ſeparatum. Trem. & Jun. For they have taken of their daughters for themſelves and for their ſons; ſo that the holy ſeed have mingled thēſelves with the people of the Lands; yea, the hand of the Princes and Rulers have been chiefe in this treſpaſſe. So Ezek. 16.20, 21. The little ones which the Iewes had offered to idols, and cauſed to paſſe through the fire, were borne unto God and were Gods children; ſo that theſe places ſpeaking of a godly ſeed, an holy ſeed, children born to God, Gods children; to wit,foreign thoſe that were borne of a people in covenant, make directly againſt you, as ſetting forth the ſinne of the Iſraelites, who being a godly ſeed by covenant, would mingle themſelves with the heathen that were out of covenant, and ſo profane and diſcovenant their ſeed, and offer thoſe children to idols, which by vertue of the covenant were dedicated to God: which places ſhew clearely how that in Malachi is to be underſtood.

You adde. In the ſame ſenſe is that to be taken, Heb. 13.4. Marriage is honourable in all, but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. And gather hence, if marriage be honourable, & the bed undefiled; then the iſſue of the bed muſt needs be undefiled, that is, cleane and holy: on the other ſide, the iſſue of unlawfull conjunctions are unclean, illegitimate, and baſtards. Now this holineſſe or unholineſſe of children, proceeds not from the holineſſe or unholineſſe of parents: but from the lawfull or unlawfull conjunction of parents, in the begetting of p. 66children; for the Apoſtle in this place ſpeakes of all men univerſally.

Anſw. Let any indifferent man judge, whether this be not an uncleane, illegitimate, and ſpurious interpretation of, and drawing concluſions from the Scripture. For firſt; What comfort or reſolution had this beene in the ſcrupulous parent, to tell him that his children were holy, that is, legitimate and no baſtards, but legitimates becauſe they were begotten in lawfull matrimony that had beene contracted before converſion; whereas by your interpretation of theſe Scriptures, if they had continued ſtill unconverted both of them, their children had beene as holy, that is, legitimate and no baſtards? Secondly, how can this place [Marriage is honourable in all, &c. and the bed undefiled] be underſtood of all men univerſally (as you ſay) viz. unbeleevers as well as beleevers?Tit. 1.15.Titus 1:15 When the Apoſtle ſaith: VntoUnto the pure, all things are pure; but unto them that are defiled and unbeleeving, is nothing pure, but even their mind and conſcience is defiled; how can the marriage bed then be undefiled to ſuch? It is evident therefore, (that we make not the Spirit of God contradict it ſelfe) that the univerſall note (all men) is to be reſtrained to the ſubject matter, viz. all ſorts of beleevers, (for to ſuch he wrote) of what qualitie, condition or calling ſoever.

Thirdly, But I pray you ſee (and if you will not, let others conſider) how all this while in interpreting this Scripture, 1 Cor. 7.14. and wreſting, wiredrawing, and pulling in (as it were, obtorto collo) other Scriptures which you would force to favour your interpretation, you have directly and manifeſtly contradicted the Apoſtle, and corrupted the Text. The Apoſtle tells the beleeving yoke-fellows, that their children are holy, though their yoke-fellows were unbeleevers: becauſe they are ſanctified to them; (viz. by their faith) you ſay, therefore the children are holy, becauſe their matrimonie was lawfull: If the Apoſtles meaning were that which you would have it, he ſhould have ſaid, You were lawfully married, therefore are your children holy. But he ſaith, The unbeleever is ſanctified by (or to) the beleever, elſe were your children uncleane, let their marriage be never ſo lawfull. Paul gathers the holineſſe of children from grounds peculiar to the faithfull: viz. the faith and being in covenant at leaſt of one of the parents, ſhewing plainly that were it not for this, the children muſt needs be uncleane. You would draw it from p. 67grounds common to Infidels, viz. lawfull matrimony; affirming that whoſoever is borne of parents (though infidels) lawfully married, is holy in the Apoſtles ſenſe. Thus when men ſet themſelves to maintain errours, they are not afraid nor aſhamed plainly to contradict the Spirit of God.

You have ſomewhat further which you call an objection: It ſeems then that the holines here of the children ariſeth not from the holineſſe or faith of the parents; but meerly from the lawfull marriage and conjunction of the parents; and then you anſwer: It is even ſo, and goe on to repeat what you have ſaid, and adde ſuch like ſtuffe not worth reading.

Anſw. It is even falſe (though you dictate it as è cathedra, or è tripode) and a manifeſt contradicting of plain Scripture, as hath beene before demonſtrated. Your two next objections doe not concern us; and therefore I paſſe them by.

Yet one more objection you bring us in making: Have the children of beleevers no more priviledge then the children of Heathens, Turks, and Infidels? you anſwer. In reſpect of the Covenant of grace and ſalvation, none at all; and bring thoſe Scriptures, Ioh. 3.7, 8. Act. 10.34, 35. to ſhew that the Covenant of grace cometh not by any naturall birth, but by a new birth. OnelyOnly their priviledge (you ſay) is in reſpect of the meanes of ſalvation; for beleeving parents may be a means to bring their children to the knowledge and faith of Chriſt.

Anſw. What Chriſtian heart doth not abhorre this aſſertion as being directly contrary to the tenour of Gods Covenant, Gen. 17. (of which more hereafter) and repugnant to Gods gracious promiſes frequently inculcated in Scripture, Exod. 20.5, 6. Act. 2.39. Eſa. 59.21? Doth not this ſtrike at a maine pillar of a Chriſtians comfort grounded on thoſe precious promiſes? ſo that by this tenet, if the children of Chriſtian parents die before they be capable of the outward meanes of ſalvation, or their parents be taken from them before they come to yeares of diſcretion; they muſt be parted with as the children of Turkes or Infidels, as being out of the ſtate of ſalvation, as being in a loſt and hopeleſſe condition, as having no right to the Covenant, notwithſtanding all the gracious promiſes that God hath made to the faithfull to be their God, and the God of their ſeed, to ſhew mercy to their poſteritie, even to thouſands, that the promiſes doe belong unto them and their children, that his word and Spirit ſhall abide on p. 68their ſeed, and their ſeeds ſeed. Let men judge whether the father of lies can ſpeake more contradictorily to Scripture, for the extenuating of Gods rich grace, and daſhing the comfort of Gods people.

Thus have I vindicated the ground of my third argument. Yet notwithſtanding all ſhifts we ſee this truth remaines firme, that the children of Chriſtian parents are faederally holy, and members of the Church, and ſo have right to the ſeale of admiſſion into the Church.

4. Arg. 4. Arg.To thoſe that are in Covenant with God, the Sacrament or ſeale which God hath inſtituted to repreſent and ſeale admiſſion into Covenant, is to be adminiſtred, Gen. 17.10, 11. Exod. 12.48.

But children of beleeving parents are in Covenant with God, Gen. 17.7. Exod. 12.48. Eſa. 59.21. Therefore children of beleeving parents are to be admitted to the ſeale of entrance into the Covenant, which now is baptiſme in the time of the Goſpel.

For the confirmation, and explication of the former propoſition, I conceive it is hardly queſtioned but that when God hath made a Covenant with his people, and appointed a ſeale to ſignifie and repreſent admiſſion into the ſame; then the ſeale or ſigne belongs to thoſe which have entred into Covenant under what kinde of adminiſtration ſoever the Covenant be diſpenſed. So Philip reaſons, If thou beleeve with all thine heart, thou maiſt be baptized. So Peter, Can any one forbid water that theſe ſhould not be baptized, &c. For actuall faith, at leaſt in profeſſion, was neceſſary to thoſe that at firſt entered into the new covenant, and received the ſign or ſeale thereof; to wit, baptiſme: as well as it was neceſſary to Abraham who entered firſt into the old Covenant which was ſealed by Circumciſion, though actuall faith was not required of his poſteritie as neceſſarie to their being in Covenant. Neither for ought that I ſee doth the Adverſarie deny this propoſition. Yet if it be queſtioned, it is fully proved in Abraham, Gen. 17.10, 11. with whom we read that God firſt made an expreſſe and formall Covenant, and inſtituted a ſigne or ſeale to ſignifie enterance into that Covenant, and diſtinguiſh the Church from other Societies. And this was not required of Abraham alone and his family: but of all foreiners alſo, that ſo ſoone as they ſhould enter into covenant, they ſhould have this ſigne and ſeale of admittance,, Exod. 12.48. And ſtill in the New-Teſtament as p. 69ſoone as men had given evidence of their entrance into the new Covenant, they were baptized.

Now here is to be noted, that the Covenant of grace was ever one and the ſame for ſubſtance; though for the manner it have beene variouſly diſpenſed, Heb. 11. through the whole Chapter, and Heb. 13.8. Epheſ. 4.5. as ſhall be ſhewed (God willing) more fully hereafter.

Secondly, before Abrahams time we read not of any diſtinct and full manifeſtation of the Covenant of grace expreſly in the termes of a Covenant, nor of any gathering of a Church out of the world, as a diſtinct body whereunto the faithfull were to joyn themſelves; nor of any viſible ſeale or ſacred ſigne of admiſſion into Covenant with God; though God had a people in covenant from the beginning, yet the covenant was more ſparingly, obſcurely, and implicitly revealed, and no diſtinctive outward note of entrance into covenant (that we read of) appointed.

Thirdly, ſince the Covenant was made with Abraham, and the ſigne of circumciſion inſtituted, in the old and new Covenant, there hath ſtill beene a ſolemne ſigne or Sacrament of admiſſion, to which all that were in Covenant had right; ſo that Abraham that was the firſt expreſſe Covenanter is called, the father of the faithfull, or of thoſe that were in covenant with God; and is to be imitated by the faithfull in all thoſe things that are eſſentiall to the covenant.

For the Aſſumption. The words of the Text are cleare. Firſt, that God made the Covenant with Abraham and his ſeed, Gen. 17.7. Secondly, that we ſhould not thinke that that externall covenant belonged onelyonly to thoſe that imitated his faith, it is made with his naturall ſeed, all that ſhould be begotten of him, Gen. 17.10. Even all that ſeed wherein God promiſed to make Abraham fruitfull, ſhould ſo farre be in Covenant, as to have right to the onward ſigne, untill they ſhould fall away from the outward covenant by wilfull Apoſtaſie, verſ. 6, 7, 10. Thirdly, that you may ſee this was not peculiar to Abraham and his poſteritie alone that proceeded from his loines; the ſame is commanded concerning his ſervants borne in his houſe, or bought with his money, that the males who onelyonly were capable, ſhould receive the ſeale of the Covenant, verſ. 12, 13. Fourthly, that you may know that this did not belong onelyonly to Abrahams family, but was a thing common to all that ſhould enter into covenant, viz. that their children p. 70ſhould be acknowledged to be in Covenant alſo, by having the ſeale of entrance adminiſtred to them; ſee Exod. 12.48. Laſtly, that we may underſtand that this was not proper to the old covenant in the Legall diſpenſation, but common to the Covenant of grace under whatſoever diſpenſation, as well Evangelicall as Legall; a promiſe of the ſame priviledge is made to beleeving parents, even from the time of the Goſpel, Eſa. 50.20, 21. compared with Rom. 11.26, 27.

A. R.Now I come to your anſwers, which is: That neither Abraham nor his ſeed was circumciſed, becauſe the Covenant was made with him.

Anſw. Who denies this? or what is this to the purpoſe? we know that God might have made a Covenant without a ſeale, if it had pleaſed him. They were circumciſed, becauſe God did inſtitute circumciſion for a ſeale, and appointed it to thoſe that were admitted into Covenant. The faithfull we know were in covenant before Abrahams time; though there be no formall or full expreſſion of the covenant, nor of any ſigne or Sacrament of entering thereinto.

You adde a reaſon of your aſſertion. For the covenant was made with Abraham above twenty yeares before circumciſion was inſtituted, as may appeare by comparing Gen. 12.2. & 3. with Gen. 16.3. & 17.25.

Anſw. No ſuch thing appeareth in the places cited. It appeareth indeed that God had made a promiſe to Abraham long before of making him a great Nation, and bleſſing him; but there is no word of the Covenant, or that God would be a God to him and his ſeed, in thoſe places before, Gen. 17.2. (though we know that Abraham from his firſt call was in covenant with God; as were Abel, Enoch, Noah, and all the faithfull before Abraham, as the covenant is generally taken. But here we ſpeake of the Covenant in regard of its expreſſe manifeſtation and ſpeciall adminiſtration, with Abraham, and afterward, ſince the inſtitution of a ſeale thereunto.) And it appears that in Gen. 17. verſ. 2. is the firſt expreſſion of Gods making a covenant with Abraham, at which time alſo circumciſion was inſtituted. And if God had made a covenant never ſo long before with Abraham, neither he not his ſeed muſt have uſed circumciſion untill God had inſtituted it. But after God had appointed it, all that were in covenant p. 71were to be circumciſed, that were capable, even all males of eight dayes old and upward.

You ſay, The covenant was not made with Abraham for his being a faithfull man; but for his being ſuch a faithfull man whom the Lord was pleaſed to chuſe and ſet out as a patterne to all beleevers, Rom. 4.23, 24. and to be a father of many Nations, Rom. 4.17, 18. and in whoſe ſeed all the Nations of the world ſhould be bleſſed, Act. 5.25. & 13.23. to wit, in Chriſt, who was to come of his fleſh.

Anſw. We know that the Covenant was not made with Abraham for his being a faithfull man; neither yet for his being ſuch a faithfull man, &c. as you would have it. But Abraham was made by God a faithfull man, and taken into covenant of Gods free grace, that he might be a patterne to future beleevers, and a father of many Nations, &c. Abrahams faithfulneſſe ſo qualified, was not the cauſe why God took him into covenant. But Abrahams faithfulneſſe, acceptance into covenant, and being a patterne of beleevers, a father of many Nations; in whoſe ſeed all Nations are bleſſed, were effects of Gods good pleaſure, and free grace. Secondly, neither doe thoſe places of Scripture produced by you yeeld the leaſt ſhew of proofe, that Abraham was taken into covenant and his ſeed for being ſuch a faithfull man as God was pleaſed to chooſe and ſet out a patterne to all beleevers, &c. Thirdly, ſeeing Abraham was taken into covenant, that he might be, or at the moſt, as being (I dare not ſay (with you) for being) ſuch a faithfull man, whom the Lord was pleaſed to chooſe, and ſet out a patterne to all beleevers, and to be a father of many Nations; and in whoſe ſeed all the Nations of the world ſhould be bleſſed: then it is the dutie of all that are beleevers, children of Abraham, and will be bleſſed in Abrahams ſeed, that is, Chriſt, to imitate Abrahams example, in laying hold on the covenant for themſelves and their children; and giving them up to God even in their infancie, by requiring the ſeale of the Covenant to be adminiſtred unto them, and not to looſe any part of that inheritance that God entayled upon Abraham and his children: ſeeing as it hath been proved, it is no peculiar priviledge of Abraham to have his ſeed in covenant; nor his peculiar dutie to lay hold on the covenant for his children: but the common priviledge and dutie of all the faithfull.

You proceed. Therefore though the promiſes were made to p. 72Abraham and his ſeed; yet the conſequence will not follow, that the covenant is likewiſe made with all beleevers and their ſeed; for beleevers onelyonly are the ſeed, and the ſeed onelyonly; and none of them a father in the Goſpel ſenſe, nor any other; ſave onelyonly Abraham, to whom and his ſeed the covenant and promiſes were made.

Anſw. Firſt, If the conſequence will not follow, Becauſe God is the God of Abraham and his ſeed; Therefore he is, to all the faithfull, and their ſeed: how is Abraham a father of the faithfull and patterne of beleevers? Or how will it follow that Abraham performed any dutie, or received any priviledge; Therefore all beleevers ought to doe thoſe duties, may receive thoſe priviledges? Secondly, your reaſon that you bring for your deniall of our conſequence, is a bold aſſertion manifeſtly repugnant to plain Scripture: as Exod. 20.5.6. Where God having laid downe the ſumme of the covenant, verſ. 2. bindes his people to his true worſhip, and to avoid Idolatrie, with a promiſe of mercy unto thouſands of thoſe that ſhould love him, and keepe his commandements. Now theſe thouſands are meant of the godly mans poſteritie, as appeareth by the Antitheſis of verſ. 5. viſiting the ſinnes of the fathers on their children, unto the third and fourth generation, &c. Doth not this promiſe belong to all that are in covenant with God, and are bound to the obedience of the morall Law, and to the pure worſhip of God, and abſtinence from idolatry? ſo Eſa. 59. laſt verſ. Act. 2.37. What is meant by Gods ſhewing mercy to a thouſand generations, making a covenant that his Spirit, and word ſhall be continued to their ſeed, and ſeeds ſeed, that the promiſe is made to them whom the Lord doth call and their children; but the ſame that God promiſeth unto Abraham, that he will make a covenant with him and his ſeed; be a God to him and his ſeed? So that this anſwer to your boldly-affirmed, but never-proved aſſertion, (that to Abraham and his ſeed onelyonly the promiſe was made) may ſuffice to overthrow the inferences you bring thereupon, and your abſurdities that you would father upon us mingled with divers untruths (as may appeare to any intelligent Reader) not worth anſwering. OnelyOnly that which you lay downe in the beginning: For beleevers onelyonly are the ſeed; and in the concluſion, Abraham hath not two ſorts of ſeeds in the ſenſe and acceptation of the Goſpel. VponUpon which as upon a ground-work of all, your reaſoning is built; p. 73that the rottenneſſe of the foundation being diſcovered, it may appeare how eaſily the ſuperſtruction will come down of it ſelfe. I anſwer therefore:

Anſw. We read in the Goſpell or new Teſtament, of three ſorts of Abrahams ſeed: Firſt, Chriſt is called his ſeed, Gal. 3.16. Secondly, the faithfull of what Nation ſoever are called his ſeed, Gal. 3.29. Thirdly, thoſe who naturally deſended from his loynes, Iohn. 8.37. 2. Cor. 11.22. And in this laſt kind to be Abrahams ſeed, was ſufficient to intreſſe men to the outward Covenant, and the ſeale thereof; and the promiſe was made to Abraham, Gen. 17. literally and properly in this laſt ſenſe, not in the firſt or ſecond, as is apparent by the text. For with that ſeed God made the Covenant in Abraham; and to that ſeed God became a God, which was to be circumciſed at eight dayes old, in reſpect of the males, & (as you ſay) the females in the males. But the natural iſſue of Abraham was to be circumciſed at 8 dayes old, in reſpect of the males, & in them the females: See Gen. 17.7.10.11.12. for proofe of both propoſitions. Therfore the naturall iſſue of Abraham, is the ſeed to which according to the litteral and proper meaning of the Scripture, God promiſes to be a God in Covenant. And ſo it appeares to be falſe which you ſay; that beleevers only were the ſeed of Abraham, ſith many naturally deſcending from Abraham, and circumciſed, and ſo outwardly in Covenant, were unbeleevers.

You add that wee ſay, Infants were then members of the Church, and demand when they were caſt out: to which you anſwer, that they were caſt out when the Iewes Church-ſtate, and old Covenant was abrogate by the comming of Chriſt, and preaching of the Goſpell, and planting of other Churches farre different from that of the Iewes in many reſpects.

Anſw. But I hope Gods people are not ſo ſimple as to beleeve your bare words, againſt Gods expreſſe truth, (though you were an Angell from heaven or an Apoſtle,Gal. 1.….Gal 1 much leſſe being as you are diſcovered) and to think that in former times indeed Infants were in Covenant with God, but now are excluded, that now all Infants of chriſtian parents dying without actuall faith, and under yeares of diſcretion, muſt certainly periſh as aliens from the Common-wealth of Iſrael, and out of Covenant with God; that grace is ſo farre ſtraitned under the Goſpell in compariſon of what it was under the law, that whereas God was then a God to parents and to children even to many generations, yea p. 74to the children of Proſelytes, Exod. 12.48. of what Nation ſoever; now the holyeſt Chriſtian parents can apprehend no benefit from the Covenant for their children, at leaſt till they come to yeares of diſcretion and actuall faith; and till then muſt accompt them infidells and wholly under the power of the devill. Is this to advance Gods Grace, to extoll the Goſpell and glorifie Ieſus Chriſt? Or rather is it not a tricke of the devill greatly to obſcure, and indeavour the utter extinguiſhing of the glory of Gods grace, the virtue of Chriſts death, the luſtre of the Goſpell, and the comfort of a Chriſtian all at once? They that will hearken to ſuch deceits as theſe, let them make account at the laſt to be cheated of all grounds of comfort in Gods word.Act. 2.39.Acts 2:39 Doth not the Apoſtle ſay, the promiſe is to you and your children, and to them that are afarre off, &c. when the Iewes Church-ſtate and old Covenant were abrogated.

But let us come to conſider the many reſpects wherein you ſay that the Church of the Goſpell differs from the Iewiſh ſtate or old Covenant, whence you would prove that Infants are now caſt out of Covenant: wherein becauſe you repeat for ſubſtance ſome toyes and fancies of your owne braine, that you have vented before, I will not think it burdenſom to anſwer you, though in ſome things the ſame for ſubſtance that hath been ſaid before.

That (you ſay) viz. the Iewiſh Church-ſtate and old Covenant, being conſtituted upon nature and the naturall ſeed of Abraham.

Anſw. I pray you, can you tell what you meane when you ſay that the Iewes Church-ſtate was conſtituted upon nature and the naturall ſeed of Abraham? I am ſure you ſpeake not according to Scripture (that I ſay not, nor according to ſenſe or reaſon.) As far as I can apprehend, when you ſay it was built upon nature (If you have any meaning in theſe words, and doe not let them fall from you at randome) it muſt be underſtood either, firſt, that nature was the ground & cauſe of this covenant; or ſecondly, that naturall bleſſings were onelyonly beſtowed in this covenant; or thirdly, that this covenant was made onelyonly with the naturall children of Abraham: all which are manifeſtly falſe. For firſt, if your meaning be that this covenant was grounded on nature, ſo that nature was the cauſe of it; you muſt either meane the nature of God as contradiſtinguiſh't to his will and good pleaſure: or the nature of Abraham. The nature of God was not the cauſe of it, p. 75for what God doth by nature (his nature being the cauſe) he doth eternally, neceſſarily, unchangeably, ſo as he cannot but doe it; as to know himſelfe and all things knowable, to love himſelfe. Or if you meane that the nature of Abraham was the ground of this covenant, it is as falſe; for there was nothing in Abraham by nature, that put difference between him and others, Deut. 7. Ioſh. 24. Rom. 4. Or if you meane God onelyonly beſtowed temporall bleſſings in this covenant, that is palpably and execrably falſe alſo. God was their God in the old covenant, circumciſed their heart to love him, feare him, and obey him, and truſt in him; he gave remiſſion of ſinnes and ſanctification under that Covenant, which were not naturall bleſſings. Or thirdly, if you meane that that Covenant was made with Abrahams naturall poſteritie, there is no appearance of truth in it; for bond-men and thoſe that were bought with money, and Proſelytes of any nation or ſtock whatſoever, were admitted into this Covenant, Gen. 17. Exod. 12.

You adde. This (to wit, the Chriſtian Church-ſtate) upon grace and the ſpirituall ſeed of Abraham.

Anſw. So was the old Covenant (to uſe your phraſe) conſtituted on grace, Gods free favour was the cauſe of it, and the graces of the Spirit beſtowed as truly under it (though not ſo plentifully, and clearely as now) as theſe phraſes expreſſe:Gen. 17. Deut. 30. Mal. 2.5.Gen 17Deut 30Mal 2:5 I am God all-ſufficient. I will be thy God. I will circumciſe thy heart, and the heart of thy ſeed, to love the Lord thy God, &c. My Covenant was with him of life and peace. Secondly, if you meane by the ſpirituall ſeed of Abraham, Ieſus Chriſt the ſeed of the woman that was to breake the Serpents head,Gen. 3. Joh. 8. Rev. 13. 1 Tim. 2.3 John 1:8Rev 131 Tim 2 in whom the Covevant was made with our firſt parents fallen; at the ſeeing of whoſe day Abraham rejoyced, in whom God promiſes, that all the Nations of the earth ſhould be bleſſed: the old Covenant was made with Abraham in him; who is the Lambe ſlaine from the foundation of the world; who is the onelyonly Mediatour between God and man, and by whom alone, Abraham and all the faithfull have had communion with God.

You adde. That therefore termed Iſrael according to the fleſh, and of the circumciſion of the fleſh, this Iſrael according to the ſpirit and of the circumciſion of the heart, Rom. 2.28, 29. & 4 6, 7, 8. Col. 2.11.

Anſw. No ſuch thing appeareth in thoſe Scriptures. Take heed how you falſifie Gods word, would you perſwade men, that God p. 76gave not circumciſion of heart under the old Covenant? that becauſe all were not right Iſraelites that were Abrahams ſeed, therefore none were? that becauſe he is not a Iew that is one outwardly: therefore none under the old covenant were inwardly Iews? becauſe true Chriſtians are circumciſed with a circumciſion without hands; therefore the Iewes were not circumciſed but onelyonly with hands, not ſpiritually. Let any man examine thoſe Scriptures, and ſee whether from thē it can be gathered, that all under the old covenant had onelyonly circumciſion of the fleſh, and that all under the new covenant have circumciſion of the ſpirit. It will appeare to any judicious Reader, that here are two or three notorious falſehoods, with a groſſe perverting of Scripture in this ſhort ſentence. The firſt: That the Iewiſh Church-ſtate, or old covenant is called Iſrael, according to the fleſh, or circumciſion of the fleſh; but the Goſpel-ſtate Iſrael, according to the ſpirit, or the circumciſion of the heart, (wherein are infolded more untruths then one.) Secondly, that therefore they are ſo called, becauſe that was conſtituted on the naturall ſeed of Abraham, &c. The abuſe of Scripture appeares, that theſe Scriptures neither prove the antecedent, nor ſequele, nor conſequent, neither make any thing for his purpoſe; as if it would not be overtedious to ſtand upon, and needleſſe to any men of judgement, might be ſhewed. But ſuch uttering of falſhoods, and then propping them with Scriptures to abuſe the ſimple, is ordinary almoſt in every page, and ſometimes frequent in one page, as may appeare by the anſwer, though I have not ſaid ſo much in expreſſe words before; neither ſhould have ſaid ſo now, but that I conſider ſuch is the weakneſſe of ſome Readers, that what they read, if Scripture be brought for proofe thereof, though never ſo impertinently, abuſively, and perverſely, they thinke it muſt goe for currant.

Thirdly, that (you ſay) a ſtate of bondmen or ſervants, ſo as in that ſtate; an heire or beleever differed nothing from a ſervant, though he were lord of all, &c. Gal. 4.7.

Anſw. That under the Old Teſtament the Church of the Iews was an heire, yea lord of all: (though in regard of its infancie and immaturitie, nothing differing from a ſervant, as being held under the tutourſhip of the Law) this I ſay, is ſufficient to prove that the Church of the Iewes, and the Chriſtian Church, is one and the ſame, for ſubſtance, and under the ſame Covenant in all eſſentialls. For all know that a ſonne and heire is the ſame for p. 77ſubſtance and in perſon, at three yeares old, and at thirty; though altered in ſome accidentall priviledges at riper yeares. And hence your fancie of the Iewiſh Church being conſtituted on nature, is quite overthrowne. For if the Iewiſh Church was heire and lord of all, beleevers were then children, though in minoritie and under tutourſhip. How were they children? not by nature; for Chriſt onelyonly is the Sonne of God by nature; therefore by grace, and ſo they were under a Covenant of Grace. Thus powerfull is the word of truth to overthrow thoſe errours that ignorant men would abuſe, and force it to maintaine, and yet you are not afraid nor aſhamed to father this errour upon Chriſt himſelfe, and would force his words to the Iewes to ſound this way, Ioh. 8.31. And among other your toyes, that you would faſten on him, (which are not worth the examining, unleſſe a man had more time then he knew how well to beſtow) you bring him in ſpeaking thus in the concluſion of your paraphraſe that you make on his words to the Iewes. You ſee then how that Covenant of Circumciſion made with Abraham and you his naturall ſeed, was to be an everlaſting Covenant in your fleſh; to wit, in me that was to come of your fleſh, Gen. 17.13.

Anſw. Firſt, is not this notorious preſumption to father ſuch a fancy as this on Chriſt? to call the fleſh of the Iews fore-skinne, Chriſt himſelfe? for that by the fleſh in which Gods covenant was, is meant the fore-skin, wherein God ſet the ſigne and ſeale of his covenant, is apparent by comparing the 10, 11, & 12. verſes of Gen. 17. together. Secondly, If that were an everlaſting Covenant which God made with Abraham, and the Iſraelites; and made with them in Chriſt (though Chriſt was not that fleſh in which circumciſion was made) both which you grant here, and the Scripture plentifully proveth; then certainly was the covenant made with the Iewes, and with us, all one for ſubſtance: ſeeing they and we have one Mediatour, and ſeeing the old diſpenſation of the covenant is abrogated; how was that an everlaſting covenant; but as the ſame covenant is perpetuated now in the Evangelicall diſpenſation of it?

But you will have Chriſt give this reaſon; that by the fleſh (wherein the covenant of circumciſion was to be) is meant Chriſt, becauſe Chriſt was to come of their fleſh.

Anſw. Was he ſo? Was Chriſt to come of the fleſh of ſtrangers, and Proſelytes, or of all the poſteritie of Abraham, which p. 78had the covenant in the fleſh? Did Chriſt come of the fleſh of all that were circumciſed? (which muſt needs follow on this conceit) What prodigious opinions doth this mans braine conceive and father on Chriſt?

After you come, as you ſay, to ſhut up all thus: That it is apparent that infants of Chriſtian parents cannot warrantably be baptized, untill they manifeſt and declare their faith by profeſſion: as is apparent, firſt, from the doctrine, and practiſe of Iohn, Matth. 3.6.8, 9. Mar. 1.4. Secondly, of Chriſt and his Apoſtles, Ioh. 3, 22. compared with 4.1, 2. Act. 2.38.41. and 8.12.36, 37. Thirdly, by the tenour of the commiſſion, Mat. 28.29. Mar. 16.15, 16.

Anſw. No ſu h thing is apparent from theſe Scriptures; as is, firſt, ſufficiently ſhewed by the foregoing reaſons. Secondly, by the fore examination of thoſe Scriptures and grounds you build upon. Thirdly, in none of thoſe places doe you finde baptiſme ſo reſtrained to thoſe that profeſſe the faith, that it ſhould be lawfull for none elſe to have it. Fourthly, I adde, if abuſing the Scriptures and inventing and avouching new and monſtrous errours, may make your opinion for which you plead to be apparent truth, then indeed you have made appparent what you ſay, otherwiſe not. Fiftly, though in mine anſwer to that Scripture, Matth. 28.29. I hope ſufficient hath been ſaid to anſwer all other Scriptures of that kind; yet becauſe ſome put great confidence in that Mar. 16.15.16. for this opinion, though it be the ſame for ſubſtance with the other,Mar. 16.15, 16.Mark 16:15Mark 16:16 I will adde a little in this place, though happily the ſame for ſubſtance that hath beene ſaid. The words of Chriſt are theſe: Go ye into all the world, and preach the Goſpel unto every creature. He that beleeveth and is baptized, ſhall be ſaved, he that beleeveth not ſhall be damned To make it appeare that nothing can be gathered to confirme the adverſaries opinion, note theſe foure things.

Firſt, Here our Saviour doth not forbid his Diſciples to baptize any that want actuall faith, or confine baptiſme to beleevers; or expreſſely ſhew who ſhould be baptized, and who not; onelyonly he ſhews who ſhould by ſaved, viz. thoſe that beleeve and were baptized; and who ſhould be damned, viz. thoſe that beleeved not: ſo that it is ſtrange that men ſhould promiſe to themſelves any patronage for Anabaptiſme from this place. Secondly, If any ſhould ſay, that though here it be not expreſſed that beleevers p. 79onelyonly are to be baptized; yet it may be hence gathered, and is implied from the order and connexion of the words, (He that beleeveth and is baptized) ſo that men muſt beleeve before they be baptized. I adde, ſecondly: That no ſuch thing can be neceſſarily implied by the ſeries of the words, which I prove by this very Text. Firſt, it would by as good conſequence follow, that none ought or can preach the Goſpel, be meanes of working faith, baptize, or helpe toward ſalvation; but thoſe who have received Apoſtolicall authoritie, and gifts to goe into all the world, and preach unto every creature, for the connexion and order is alike; but no man will yeeld this conſequence. Secondly, by as good and better conſequence you might gather, that none ſhall be ſaved but thoſe that beleeve and are baptized, which is falſe; for whatſoever you hold, I conceive that none but thoſe that are given over to ſtrong deluſions will hold that all the children of Chriſtian parents that die before they come to actuall faith, muſt remedileſly periſh: and as for the abſolute neceſſitie of baptiſme to ſalvation, if with the Papiſts you hold it, will eaſily be confuted from this Scripture, ſhewing that not want of baptiſme (where it cannot be had, and is not wilfully contemned) but unbeleefe condemneth. Yet there is as good reaſon for theſe inferences from this place as for that you would imply hence. Or thirdly, that nothing but unbeliefe can be the ground of damnation might as well be concluded hence, as that nothing but faith can be the ground of baptiſme; whereas not onelyonly unbeleife, but every ſinne is damnable, and without repentance will bring damnation.

Thirdly, I anſwer to this Scripture, that though it were granted that the Apoſtles, who were to gather a Church out the unbeleeving world, and take them into Covenant that were out of Covenant, might not baptize any but thoſe who by profeſſing faith tooke hold of the covenant, from which before they were aliens, and their families, who were now received into covenant with them: yet it doth not follow, that the children of parents in covenant (and ſo in Covenant themſelves) ſhould be denied baptiſme; though they want actuall faith: for there is not the ſame reaſon of a Church gathered, and to be gathered: as that latter part, He that beleeveth not ſhall be damned; if it be underſtood of actuall faith, muſt be reſtrained to the preſent time and matter: for to thoſe that were out of Covenant, actuall faith was neceſſary to bring them and theirs within covenant. So that the p. 80Gentiles to whom the Apoſtles were to preach, muſt of neceſſity actually beleeve, elſe they could not be ſaved. But this muſt not be extended to all perſons and times: for then it ſhould follow that no child of Chriſtian parents dying before yeares of diſcretion and actuall faith, could be ſaved; which is directly contrary to thoſe Scriptures that ſhew, that God will be a God to the faithfull and their ſeed; will ſhew mercy to thouſands of their poſteritie, to the childrens children of thoſe that keepe covenant, Pſal. 10….1…, 18. that the promiſe is to the faithfull and their children, that their children are holy, and ſuch places before cited, which will not ſuffer any one that beleeves Gods word to hold that the children of the faithfull dying in their minoritie, muſt unavoidably be damned all of them.

Fourthly, I adde for anſwer to this Scripture, that infants of Chriſtian parents, as they are within the covenant, and are holy, ſo they may be ſaid to have a virtuall faith, or that which is analogicall thereto, that giveth them right to baptiſme, as much as the converted heathens profeſſion; for being in covenant with God, and being holy, cannot be conceived to be without anſwerable faith, or ſomewhat equivalent.

At laſt you having triumphantly concluded your diſpute, come to ſhew your diſciples what they may ſee by what you have taught them. I will examine a few of your words.

Say you, By this we may partly ſee the groſſe miſtake of all ſuch great clarks of our times, which confound thoſe two Covenants of Law and Goſpell, and make them both as one in ſubſtance, and different only in circumſtance, as in adminiſtration only or degrees, the one more darke, the other more light, whereas indeed they are no leſſe different then old and new, works and faith, the adminiſtration of condemnation, and the adminiſtration of righteouſneſſe, or then the letter killing, and the ſpirit giving life, 2. Cor. 3.6.7.8.9. or then a ſtate of bondage, and a ſtate of ſonnes, Gal. 4.21.

Anſw. Yes, we may ſee what you inferre, as we may ſee falſe ſhapes by falſe glaſſes, or one falſhood by another. Secondly, may not ignorant phantaſticks poſſiblely fall into groſſe errours aſſoone as great clarks? Thirdly, as for the differences that you put between the Covenant of the Law, and of the Goſpell (as you call them) Firſt, we grant that the Covenant which God made with the Iewiſh, and that which he made with the Chriſtian p. 81Church, differ as old and new. But this is too narrow a difference to make them diverſe in ſubſtance: as he that was of old a child is a new become a man, yet differs not in ſubſtance from what he was, but is the ſame perſon. God gave that old commandement to the Iewes: Thou ſhalt love thy neighbour as thy ſelfe, Lev. 19.18. Chriſt ſaith to his Diſciples, A new commandment I give unto you, that you love one another, Ioh. 13.34. Muſt theſe commandements needs differ in ſubſtance? or muſt they be accuſed of groſſe miſtake that hold that theſe commandements agree in ſubſtance as being the ſame? The Apoſtle Iohn, 1. Ioh. 2.7. ſaith he writes no new commandement, but the old, yet verſ. 8. he ſaith he writes a new commandement. Will you ſay, That great clark Iohn was groſſely miſtaken in ſaying that he wrote no new commandement, but an old: and yet preſently ſaying he wrote an old commandement? Becauſe in your conceit old and new ſo farre differ, that the ſame thing cannot be ſaid to be old and new, though in different reſpects, and in regard of ſome circumſtances.

Secondly, In your ſecond and third difference you (how great a Clark ſoever) are groſſely miſtaken in calling the old Covenant made with the Iewes a Covenant of works, and a Covenant of nature. Where finde you the Scripture calling it ſo? Will you perſwade men that Abraham, Iſaac, and Iacob, Moſes, David, and the faithfull before Chriſt, where without faith and grace? That either they were ſaved by works and nature (for you will allow them to be under no covenant, but works & nature you, exclude them from faith and grace) or elſe to have periſhed remedileſly? The one whereof muſt needs follow upon your tenet. But of this we have heard before, & this your opinion is ſo abſurd and unchriſtian, that it deſerves rather to be abhorred then confuted.

Thirdly, whereas you call the old Covenant the adminiſtration of condemnation, and a killing letter, wherein you would have it contrary to the Goſpell as being the adminiſtration of righteouſneſſe, and ſpirit giving life, and bring that Scripture, 2. Cor. 3.6.7.8 9.

I Anſwer: Firſt, there is no ſuch thing proved by that Scripture, that the old covenant was the adminiſtration of condemnation, and a killing letter. Secondly, neither can any ſuch thing be conceived; unleſſe we ſhall ſay that all which were under the old Covenant were condemned, and killed, deſtitute of righteouſneſſe and life, and that God made a Covenant with his people to kill p. 82and condemne them (which will neceſſarily follow upon that tenet) which were blaſphemy.

Thirdly, the Apoſtle indeed calleth the law, which was an addition to the covenant of promiſe, a killing letter, & the adminiſtration of condemnation, not as it was given and intended by God primarily, who gave it primarily and properly, to humble that ſtubborne people, drive them to the promiſe, and exerciſe them in obedience, and to be taken along with, (not apart from) the promiſe, and to traine them up for, draw them to, and direct them how to walke in, Chriſt, which is the end of the Law, not to drive them from Chriſt. But as it was in it ſelfe conſidered without the promiſe and without Chriſt, ſo it was a killing letter, and the miniſtrie of condemnation; and as it was miſunderſtood and abuſed by falſe-teachers, hypocrites and Iuſticiaries: who before the comming of Chriſt forſaking the promiſe, and ſince his comming, forſaking the Goſpell; (both which held forth Chriſt, in whom alone righteouſneſſe is to be ſought) or at leaſt mingling the Law and Goſpell together in point of juſtification, ſought righteouſneſſe by the works of the Law either alone, or with the Goſpell; to them it became a killing letter. And the addition of the Law to the promiſe, was a teſtimony, and an occaſion of greater condemnation to ſuch as they who abuſed it, ſought righteouſneſſe in it,Rom. 7.12.14. Gal. 3.21 24.Rom 7:12Rom 7:14Gal 3:21 and made their boaſt of it, but were not humbled, nor driven to Chriſt thereby, though in it ſelfe the Law was ſpirituall, holy, and good, not contrary but ſubordinate to the promiſe. As the Goſpell is an occaſion of greater condemnation even to thoſe that are externally under the Covenant of the Goſpell, who abuſe it 2. Cor. 2.16. Heb. 10.29. Iud. 1.4. Yet will it not hence follow that the Covenant of the Goſpell or new Covenant is the miniſtry of condemnation, though it turne to the greater condemnation of ſome for their abuſe of it.

Fourthly, As for your laſt difference; that a ſtate of bondage, this a ſtate of ſonnes.

Anſw. Tis true, the Law given on mount Sinai (for of that the Apoſtle ſpeakes) as it was taken without the promiſe, and that Covenant which God made with Abraham, and as men ſought juſtification by it, whether without the promiſe before Chriſt, or without the Goſpell ſince Chriſt, or whether they ſought juſtification by the Law together with the promiſe or the Goſpell, which was not Gods end in giving the Law to his people, but p. 83mans abuſe of it: ſo it brought men into a ſtate of bondage, and ſo the obſtinate Iews, that thus abuſe the Law, are caſt out as Iſhmael, and Hagar. And as the faithfull were under the diſcipline and padagogie of the Law, they were in a ſervile condition, in compariſon of that great freedome (from thoſe intolerable burdens of ceremonies, and great diſcomfort and feare accompanying the ſame) which the faithfull have under the Goſpel. But notwithſtanding their bondage, they were ſonnes and heires and lords of all, Gal. 4.1. and ſo they were under a Covenant of grace, though legally adminiſtred.

As for your following diſcourſe, wherein you talke your pleaſure againſt Magiſtrates and Miniſters, and cry out of the Baptiſme of Infants, as the greateſt deluſion, and a thing of as dangerous conſequence, as ever the man of ſinne brought into the world, and that the greateſt maintainers thereof are the greateſt deluders; and that it is time for you to awake out of your drunken ſlumber, and ſeek by whom and by what meanes you are ſo miſerablely intoſticated (as you call it, whether by an errour of the Printer, or becauſe you are ſo intoxicated with your drunken ſlumber, that you cannot ſpeake Engliſh,) with much other like raving talke; wherein you abuſe the Scriptures, and ſhew what manner of ſpirit you are of.

Anſw. I account this wild talke, being the evaporations of a giddy braine, intoxicated with a drunken ſlumber whereof you complaine, worthy no other anſwer but this. Of every idle word you muſt give an account at the day of judgment, Matt. 12.36. much more of ſpeaking evill of thoſe things you know not, railling upon dignities, and authorities, deſpiſing dominions, 2, Pet. 2.9.10.11.12. Iud. 4. & 8 9. &c. and of calling evill good, and good evill, putting darkneſſe for light, and light for darkneſſe, Eſ. 5.20. Which places of Scripture I would intreate you, when you ſhall awake out of your drunken ſlumber to conſider, and ſeriouſly ponder.

So much for the fourth argument, and clearing it from exceptions: Now I come to the fifth, which is of affinity with the former (and confounded with it by A. R. and therefore his anſwers to it, mingled with his anſwers to the former) but not the ſame, and therefore we will conſider it apart, and ſet downe his anſwers of any weight, and replie to them (God willing,) and this is taken from circumciſion.

p. 845. Argument, If Infants of beleeving parents (or parents in Covenant) under the old Covenant, might and ought to be conſecrated unto God, and initiated into Covenant by circumciſion: then Infants of beleeving parents under the new Covenant, ought to be conſecrated to God, and ſolemnly entred into Covenant by Baptiſme.

But Infants of beleeving parents, under the old Covenant, might and ought to be conſecrated to God, and initiated into Covenant by circumciſion, Gen. 17.10.11. Exod. 12.48.

Therefore Infants of beleeving parents under the new Covenant, ought to be conſecrated unto God, and ſolemnly entred into Covenant by Baptiſme.

For the clearing and confirming of the ſequele of the propoſition (for of the aſſumption, there is no queſtion) I will lay downe two or three conſiderations.

Firſt, that the old and new covenant were one and the ſame for ſubſtance; Abraham, Moſes, David, and all the faithfull before Chriſt were under the ſame Covenant, that all the faithfull ſince Chriſt are under. For ſince Adams fall, there hath been but one way of ſalvation, common to all that have been ſaved; which way is revealed, and exhibited only in the Covenant of grace, as hath been partly ſhewed before, ſee Rev. 13.8. & 14.6. Heb. 11. through the Chapter, and 13.8. Hath been demonſtrated by the godly learned: and muſt be needs acknowledged by all that will without prejudice conſider that,Exod. 34.6.7.Exod 34:6Exod 34:7 firſt, God conſidered as a mercifu l Father, a gratious & long-ſuffering God, abundant in goodneſſe and truth,Ezeh. 16. is the Authour of the old Covenant, as well as the new: ſecondly,Ioſh. 24. Exod. 33.19.Josh 24Exod 33:19 That man conſidered as a miſerable ſinner, yet weary of ſinne, deſiring mercy, profeſſing and promiſing, repentance, faith, and obedience,Eph. 1.12.Eph 1:12 upon his being received into this Covenant, is the other Covenantier or confederate in the old aſwell as in the new. Thirdly,1. Cor. 10.4.1 Cor 10:4 that Chriſt is the Mediatour in both, being the Lambe ſlaine from the foundation of the world,Gen. 3.15. Ioh. 8. Pſ. 110. Exod. 34.7.Gen 3:15John 8Ps 110Exod 34:7 the promiſed ſeed, who brake the ſerpents head, whoſe day Abraham ſeeing rejoyced. A prieſt for ever after the order of Melchiſedek. Fourthly, that the principall good things promiſed in both, were pardon of ſinnes,Pſ. 32.1.2.Ps 32:1Ps 32:2 adoption, ſanctification, perſeverance, and eternall ſalvation. Fiftly,Gen. 15.6.Gen 15:6 that the condition required is repentance, faith and obedience in the old Covenant, aſwell as the new. Sixtly, that the end in both is the ſame,Act. 15.10.11.Acts 15:10Acts 15:11 to wit, the glory of Gods rich merciemercy; in powring p. 85ſpirituall, temporall, and eternall bleſſings upon his people. And ſeventhly, that the ſumme of the Covenant is the ſame, viz, Rom. 4. Exod. 19.5, 6. Deut. 4.29, 30. & 10.16.19 & 11.22.Rom 4Exod 19:5Exod 19:6Deut 4:29Deut 4:30Deut 10:16Deut 10:19Deut 11:22I will be thy God, and thou ſhalt be my people. All which are undenyably the ſame in the old Covenant and new. So that conſidering they agree in Author, Object, Mediator, Good things promiſed, Duties required, End, Effects, in a word, in Matter, Forme, and Definition, there can be no eſſentiall difference. Only they differ in ſome Accidents. As there the Covenant was made in Chriſt to come: Here in Chriſt already come. There with a few people, and after Abrahams (or at leaſt Moſes his) time, only with the houſe of Iſrael, and thoſe that ſhould joyne therewith: Here with more, even with all nations. Then diſpenſed by darker propheſies, and more obſcure ſacraments, ſacrifices, and ceremonies or types; now by cleare revelation, and plaine or open ordinances, without the vaile of ſhadowes, types, and darke ceremonies. Then grace was more dimly, ſcantly, and with mixture of legall ſlavery, ordinarily beſtowed; now more plainly, plentifully, comfortably and freely; all which are but circumſtantiall, or graduall differences.

Secondly, when the new Covenant ſucceeded the old, then Baptiſme ſucceeded in the place of circumciſion; as the Lords Supper in ſtead of the Paſſeover.Exod. 12 48. Rom. 4.11. 1 Cor. 12.13. Act. 22.16. Col. 2.11, 12.Exod 12:48Rom 4:111 Cor 12:13Acts 22:16Col 2:11Col 2:12 I ſay Baptiſme ſucceeded in the roome of circumciſion, and is to us of the ſame uſe that circumciſion was to the Iewes, to wit, a ſigne of entrance into the Church, a ſeale of the righteouſneſſe of faith, which comprehends remiſſion of ſinnes, Baptiſme of the ſpirit, and circumciſion of the heart; which are the things ſignified in Baptiſme. Inſomuch that the Apoſtle puts circumciſion without hands, in puting off the body of ſinnes &c. and buriall with Chriſt in Baptiſme, &c. for one and the ſame thing, implying that though we now want outward circumciſion with hands, yet we have inward circumciſion without hands, ſignified and ſealed in Baptiſme to ſo many as have Chriſt. And ſo though the beleeving Iewes before Chriſt, wanted the outward ſacrament of Baptiſme; yet they were inwardly partakers of Baptiſme without hands, in remiſſion of ſinnes and mortification (ſealed by circumciſion) aſwell as we. So then if by being buried with Chriſt in Baptiſme, we are partakers of circumciſion without hands; It appeares that Baptiſme is of the ſame uſe to us, that circumciſion was to the Iewes, whereof one particular among the reſt, was to be a ſigne of entring into the p. 86Church or Covenant, as may be ſeen in the generall uſe of both the Sacraments, and which our Saviour (it may ſeem) would in ſpeciall teach us by his example, in that at the eight day he was circumciſed, as a profeſſed Member of the Iewiſh Church; but after when he would ſet up the new Covenant or Chriſtian Church, he was initiated thereinto by Baptiſme. So that though in ſome things circumciſion and baptiſme differ: as, firſt, in the ourward ceremonies. Secondly, in regard of the ſexes to which applyed, (for circumciſion was applied only to males, the females being uncapale, and ſo being received into Covenant, in or with the males, whereas Baptiſme is applied to both ſexes, being both alike capable of it.) Thirdly, in the exact determinate time, required in the one, viz, circumciſion, tied to the eight day; but left free and undetermined in the other, ſo that it be done as ſpeedily as conveniently may be, after the party is apprehended and acknowledged to be within the Covenant, and ſo to have right to the ſacrament. And fourthly, in the adjuncts or effects. Circumciſion with ſpilling of blood, Baptiſme without blood, becauſe the true blood of the Covenant is ſhed, and therefore no more to be ſhadowed by bloody ſacrifices or ſacraments as aforetime. Yet they agree in the maine end and uſe. Circumciſion and Baptiſme being ſignes of entrance into the Church, as the Paſſeover and the Supper, ſignes of continuance; and ſo conſequently circumciſion and Baptiſme to be applied to thoſe that were but newly in Covenant, as to Infants of beleevers, and infidels newly converted; the other to be uſed by them that had attained to ſome growth. Thoſe to be applied but once to one perſon, as ſignifying our ſpirituall birth, which is but once; but theſe often to be uſed, as ſignifying ſpirituall nouriſhment and growth, which muſt be often and continuall untill we come to perfection, though we bee not bound to the diſtinct times, in uſing Baptiſme and the Lords Supper, that were appointed for circumciſion and the Paſſeover, viz. the eight day from the birth for the one, or the foureteenth day of the firſt monethmonth yearely for the other.