opposeth my position and whether he prove it or not But that the Reader may the better perceive where the point to be proved lies I shall set down distinctly what I conceive Mr. B. means and then what I assert and what Mr. B. should prove in opposition to my assertion 1. I conceive he imagines an offer of God to parents which he calls a promise or Covenant that upon their taking him to be their God he would be a God to their children even their infants 2. That parents are and were bound to accept of this offer for their children 3. That by it they do enter them into Covenant that is they do Covenant for them that they shall be Gods people and consequently they partake of the Covenant that God is their God 4. That by vertue of this entring into Covenant accepting and re-engaging them to God they are visible Churchmenbers I assert 1. There is no such offer promise or Covenant 2. That though there are precepts for parents to pray for their children to breed them up for God by example teaching c. yet they are not bound to believe this that upon their own faith God will take their infant children to be his and he will be a God to them nor to accept of this pretended offer sith there is no such promise or offer 3. That though parents may enter into Covenant for their children that is they may do it as those Deut. 29.12 either by charge and adjuration or by wishing a curse to them if they did not cleave to God as Nehem. 10.29 Josh. 6.25 and this may have an obligation on them beyond the precept and influence on them as a motive as the Oath to the Gibeonites Josh. 9.16 yet by this their entring into Covenant for them they do not make them partakers of the Covenant or promise that God wil be their God 4. That if there were such a promise and such a duty of accepting the pretended offer and re-engaging yet this neither did then nor doth now make infants visible Churchmembers So that the point between us is Whether there be such a precept to parents besides Circumcision of entring into Covenant accepting an offer of God to be their God for their children according to a promise that he will be so and re-engaging them to God whereby they become actually visible Churchmembers This Mr. B. affirms I deny He speaks thus Having thus opened the terms law and precept I prove the Proposition thus 1. If it was the duty of the Israelites to accept Gods offered mercy for their children to engage and devote them to him in Covenant then there was a law or precept which made this their duty and obliged them to it But it was a duty Ergo there was such a law or precept For the antecedent 1. If it were not a duty then it was either a sin or a neutral indifferent action But it was not a sin for 1. it was against no law 2. it is not reprehended nor was it indifferent for it was of a moral nature and ergo either good or evil yea sin or duty For properly permittere is no act of law though many say it is but a suspension of an act and so licitum is not moraliter bonum but onely non malum and ergo is not properly within the verge of morality 2. If there be a penalty and a most terrible penalty annexed for the non-performance then it was a duty But such a penalty was annexed as shall anon be particularly shewed even to be cut off from his people to be put to death c. If it oblige ad panam it did first oblige ad obedientiam For no law obligeth ad paenam but for disobedience which presupposeth an obligation to obedience 3. If it were not the Israelites duty to enter their children into Gods Covenant and Church then it would have been none of their sin to have omitted or refused so to do But it would have been their great and hainous sin to have omitted or refused it Ergo. Now to the consequence of the major There is no duty but what is made by some law or precept as it 's proper efficient cause or foundation Ergo if it be a duty there was certainly some law or precept that made it such Among men we say that a benefit obligeth to gratitude though there were no law But the meaning is if there were no humane law and that is because the law of God in nature requireth man to be just and thankfull If there were no law of God natural or positive that did constitute it or oblige us to it there could be no duty 1. There is no duty but what is made such by Gods signified will ergo no duty but what is made such by a law or precept For a precept is the sign of Gods will obliging to duty 2. Where there is no law there is no transgression Rom. 4.15 ergo where there is no law there is no duty for these are contraries it is a duty not to transgress the law and a transgression not to perform the duty which it requireth of us There is no apparent ground of exception but in case of Covenants Whether a man may not oblige himself to a duty meerly by his consent I answer 1. He may oblige himself to an act which he must perform or else prove unfaithfull and dishonest but his own obligation makes it not strictly a duty ergo when God makes a Covenant with man he is as it were obliged in point of fidelity but not of duty 2. He that obligeth himself to an act by promise doth occasion an obligation to duty from God because God hath obliged men to keep their promises 3. So far as a man may be said to be his own ruler so far may he be said to oblige himself to duty that is duty to himself though the act be for the benefit of another but then he may as fitly be said to make a law to himself or command himself so that still the duty such as it is hath an answerable command So that I may well conclude that there is a law because there is a duty For nothing but a law could cause that duty nor make that omission of it a sin Where there is no law sin is not imputed Rom. 5.13 But the omission of entring infanâ—s into Covenant with God before Christs incarnation would have been a sin imputed ergo there was a law commanding it 2. If it was a duty to dedicate infants to God or enter them into Covenant with him then either by Gods will or without it certainly not without it If by Gods will then either by his will revealed or unrevealed His unrevealed will cannot oblige for there wants promulgation which is necessary to obligation And no man can be bound to know Gods unrevealed will unless remotely as it may be long of himself that it is not to him revealed If it be Gods
revealed will that must thus oblige then there was some sign by which it was revealed And if there were a sign revealing Gods will obliging us to duty then there was a law For this is the very nature of the preceptive part of a law which is the principal part so that you may as well say that you are a reasonable creature but not a man as say that men were obliged to duty by Gods revealed will but yet not by a law or precept 3. We shall anon produce the law or precept and put it out of doubt that there was such a thing In the mean time I must confess I do not remember that ever I was put to dispute a point that carrieth more of it 's own evidence to shame the gain-sayer And if you can gather Disciples even among the godly by perswading them that there were duties without precepts or laws and benefits without donations covenants or promise confirming them then despair of nothing for the time to come You may perswade them that there is a son without a father or any relation without it's foundation or effect without it's cause and never doubt but the same men will believe you while you have the same interest in them and use the same artifice in putting off your conceits Answ. This tedious unnecessary discourse I have set together lest it should be said I omitted it because I could not answer it though I might have well done it and granted him his conclusion without any revocation of what I had written to him For his conclusion is that there was a law or precept to the Israelites to accept of Gods offered mercy for their children to engage and devote them to him in Covenant which I never denied onely I denied that this was any other then Circumcision or that this conferred the benefit that is made them visible Church-members or that this mercy as he calls it was offered by a Covenant to be a God to believers and their seed or that parents did by their act enter the children into Covenant that is Gods Covenant to be their God or Covenant to God in proper speech whereby they covenanted to be his people And for the first it seems to me 1. That Mr. B. can produce no other law or precept binding the Israelites to this duty besides that of Circumcision because he neither here nor elsewhere that I know of produceth any other 2. That he means no other by two passages in this discourse 1. because he saith there was a most terrible penalty annexed to this law obliging Israelites for non-performance as shall be anon particularly shewed even to be cut off from his people to be put to death c. which he neither shews to be any other nor do I think he could mean any other then that of Circumcision 2. He saith the omission of entring infants into Covenant with God before Christs incarnation would have been a sin imputed his limiting it to the time before Christs incarnation intimates he meant it of Circumcision 3. That he deals like as if he meant deceitfully in putting off the naming the law or precept to another place which it had been requisite for the Answerer and Reader to have found here that it might be discerned what law he meant And for the 2d I say if he could prove or produce that or any other law or precept yet if he did not prove that thereby the infants were made visible Churchmembers he proves not the contradictory to my writing The other two points belong to the two foregoing and following questions As for his confession though his injurious insinuations of me are so frequent and so frivolous that I could pass by them as the hissing of a Goose or the snarling of a Curre yet because his speeches do much wrong the truth and way of God through my sides I judge it fit to reply 1. That I see not reason to be ashamed of my assertion but Mr. B. hath cause to be ashamed of his own heedlesness and misrepresentation of my assertion and roving from the point he should prove 2. That I gather no Disciples to my self but endeavour to reform the abuse of Infant Baptism and to restore the right use of Christian Baptism according to the plain appointment of Christ in Scripture and practice of his Apostles 3. That he that will be perswaded by Mr. B. that infants are Disciples meant Matth. 28.19 and that in Gen. 1.26 3.15 is a law or ordinance of God for infants visible Churchmembership will believe any thing that he saith 4. That were it not for the opinion he hath obtained of godliness by his Book of Rest the esteem he hath gained by his writings for the Ministery and the advantage they have by his Book of Baptism to maintain their practice and station it were not likely so vain a Book would be esteemed among Schollers 5. That were it not for the affrightments of Mr. B. through his calumnies and slanders as if Ranters Quakers and all sorts of errours and sects sprang from Antipaedobaptism godly tender conscienc'd persons durst not maintain as they do so gross a corruption as their Baby sprinkling is nor neglect so great and fundamental a duty as Baptism is according to the Scripture But the Lord will judge betweene us I proceede The 5 th Qu. saith Mr. B. requireth me to lay down this assertion that there is no law or precept of God which doth not oblige to duty and no actual promise or donation which doth not confer the benefit This I aver on occasion of your last Letter where in contradiction to the former you confess the promises to the naâ—ural posterity of Abraham Gen. 17. and the Covenants made with Israel at Mount Sinai and Deut. 29. and a precept of Câ—rcumcision and precepts of God by Moses of calliâ—g the people and requiring them to enter into Covenant Exod. 19. Deut. 29. Yet you do not conceive that the infants of Israel were made visible Churchmembâ—rs by the promises in the Covenants oâ— the precepts forenamed If so then either you imagine that among all those precepts and promises there was yet no promise or Covenant that gave them the benefit of Churchmembership or precept concerning their entrance into that state or else you imagine that such promises were made but did not actually confer the benefit and such precepts were made but did not actually oblige Your words are so ambiguous in this that they signifie nothing of your mind to any that knows it not some other way For when you say there is no such particular promise concerning inâ—anâ—s visible Church-membership or precept c. besides Circumcision as in my Book of Baptism I assert who knows whether that exception of Circumcision be a concession of such a precept or promise in the case of Circumcision or if not what sense it hath and what you imagine that precept or promise to be which I assert and before the sence
baptism He is a very rare bird that makes any fruitfull use of infant baptism which neither hath institution from God nor promise of blessing and was never known by the infant nor perhaps any person living can tell him there was any such thing Nor is there in this respect the same reason of it and Circumcision for Circumcision makes such an impression on the body as keeps the memory of it but by Baptism there is no print on the body by which it and the obligation by it may be remembred 3. Saith he The law of nature bindeth parents in love to their children to enter them into the most honourable and profitable society if they have but leave so to do But here parents have leave to enter them into the Church which iâ— the most honourable and profitable society Ergo. That they have leave is proved 1. God never forbad any man in the world to do this sincerely the wicked and unbelievers cannot do it sincerely and a not forbidding is to be interpreted as leave in case of such particâ—pation of benefits As all laws of men in doubtfull cases are to be interpreted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the most favourable sence So hath Christ taught us to interpret his own when they speak of duty to God they mâ—st be interpreted in the strictest sence When they speak of benefits to man they must be interpreted in the most favourable sence that they will hear Answ. Entering into the Church invisible is Gods onely woâ—k Entering into the Church visible Christian is by Baptiâ—m Plain Scripture proof c. pag. 24. â—e have neither precept nor example in Scripture since Christ ordained Baptism of any other way of admitting visible members but onely by Baptism Mr. Bs. minor then here is this that parents have leave to enter which is all one with admission their children into the visible Church by Baptism that is to baptize them But this is false For God hath forbidden parents to bring their infants to baptism in that he hath not appointed baptism for thâ—m as is proved at large in the 2d part of this Review much more to baptize them in their own persons according to Mr. Bs. hypotheses plain Scrip proof c. pag. 2â—1 except they be Ministers A not forbidding is not to be interpreted as leave in this case but a not commanding is a plain forbidding Mr. Collings provoc prov ch 5. No thing is lawfull in the worship of God but what we have precept or president for which who so denies opens a door to all Idolatry and superstition and will worship in the world If the law of nature bind parents to enter their children into the Church then it is a law that speaks of duty to God not of benefit to man for such laws contain grants of something from God not of what man is to do Now if it be a law of duty it must according to Mr. Bs. own rule be interpreted in the strictest sence which is the right sence they are bound to it as God appoints and no otherwise So Mr. B. against Mr. Bl. pag. 80. I take Gods precept to be the ground of Baptism as it is officium a duty both as to the baptizer and the baptized Mr. Ball reply abâ—ut nine positions p. 68. The Sacraments are of God and we must learn of God for what end and use they were ordained But by the institution of Baptism recorded in Scripture we have learned it belongeth to the faithfull to Disciples to them that are called Mr. B. mistakes when he conceives of baptism as a benefit to which a man hath right by promise or Covenant grant For though a benefit do follow to them that rightly do it yet it self is onely a duty and such a one as is onely by institution not by the law of nature nor belongs to paâ—ents for children but to each person for himself But Mr. B. goes on 2. It is the more evident that a not forbidding in such cases is to be taken for leave because God hath put the principle of sell preservation and desiring our own welfare and the welfare of our children so deeply in humane nature that he can no more lay it by then he can cease to be a reasonable creature And therefore he may lawfully actuate or exercise this natural necessary principle of seeking his own or childrens real happiness where-ever God doth not restrain or prohibit him We need no positive command to seek our own or childrens happiness but what is in the law of nature it self and to use this where God forbiddeth not if good be then to be found cannot be unlawfull Answ. 1. Infant baptism tends not to the preservation good welfare real happiness of them but to their hurt 2. It requires a positive command sith it is not of the law of nature 3. It is forbidden in that it is not commanded 4. There can be expected no blessing of God on it sith he hath promised none to it 3. Saith he It is evident from what is said before and elsewhere that it is more then a silent leave of infants Churchmembership that God hath vouchsafed us For in the forementioned fundamental promise explained more fully in after times God signified his will that so it should be It cannot be denied but there is some hope at least given to them in the first promise and that in the general promise to the seed of the woman they are not excluded there be no excluding term Upon so much encouragement and hâ—pe then it is the duty of parents by the law of nature to enter their infants into the Covenant and into that society that partake of these hopes and to list them into the Army of Christ. Answ. The point to be proved was that parents have leave to enter their children into the Church but a leave of infaâ—ts Churchmembership vouchsafed of God if there be good sense in the expression is another thing Infants Churchmembership is the infants state not the parents act and leave of it intimates a willingness in the infant to be a Churchmember to which God vouchsafes leave But whether there be sense or not in the expression it is not true that in the forementioned fundamental promise explained more fully in after times God signified his will that infants should be visible Churchmembers nor is it true that upon hope given in the first promise that they are not excluded is it the duty of parents without a positive command by the law of nature to enter their infants into the Covenant and into that society that partake of those hopes and to list them by baptism into the Army of Christ. Hopes of what may be is not a sufficient reason of baptizing a person Nor by these hopes is any more duty put on the parent then an other who hath the same hopes and may do it as viz. a Midwife Yea by this argument Midwives should be bound to baptize not only believeâ—s
government but to be his allies and neighbours being so many more in number then Jacob that they concluded rather that his cattel and substance should be theirs yet were they circumcised every male and so were made members of the visible professing Church For it was not the bare external sign that Jacob or his sons would perswade them to without the thing signified For the reproach that they mentioned of giving their daughter to the uncircumcised was not in the defect of the external abcision for so Moses own son and all the Israelites in the wilderness should have been under the same reproach and all the females continually But it was in that they were not in Covenant with the same God and did not profess to worship the same God in his true way of worship as they did And therefore as Baptizing is not indeed and in Scripture sence Baptizing if it be not used for engagement to God even into his Name so Circumcision is not indeed and in Scripture sence Circumcision unless it be used as an engaging sign and they be circumcised to God Answ. By the congregation of Israel I meant the same with the Hebrew people or house of Abraham which I termed the congregation of Israel by an anticipation usual in Scripture as when Gen. 12.8 it is said that Abraham removed unto a mountain on the east of Bethel though it were not so named till Jacobs time Gen. 28.19 Which term I the rather chose because it is most frequent in Scripture and I remember not the phrase any where the Church or congregation of Abraham but of Israel in Scripture the phrase of which I thought best to use Now taking the congregation of Israel for the Hebrew people or the house of Abraham I say the infants onely of the congregation of Israel as I say here Sect. 51. by birth property or proselytism were visible Churchmembers Nor is it any thing against this my Tenet that the Sichemites infants Gen. 34. were visible Churchmembers for they were circumcised as consenting to become one people with them as is expressed v. 16 22. and therefore of the congregation of Israel So that what ever were the reason of the reproach v. 14. what ever were the ends of Jacobs sons or the Sichemites how ever the fact is to be construed or it be to be judged that they were circumcised or not yet that instance proves not visible Churchmembership of infants any where but in the congregation of Israel sith the Sichemites if they were truly circumcised and so visible Churchmembers it was because they were by agreement one people and so of the congregation of Israel Mr. B. adds 6. It was then the duty of all the nations round about if not of all the nations on earth that could have information of the Jewish Religion to engage themselves and their children to God by Circumcision That all that would have any alliance and commerce with the Jewes must do it is commonly confessed that it must extend to infants the case of the Sichemites though deceitfully drawn to it by some of Jacobs sons doth shew and so doth the Jewish practice which they were to imitate that the same engagement to the same God is the duty of all the world is commonly acknowledged though Divines are not agreed whether the distant nations were obliged to use Circumcision the Jewish sign The best of the Jews were zealous to make Proselytes and no doubt but the very law of nature did teach them to do their best for the salvation of others To think such charitable and holy works unlawfull is to think it evil to do the greatest good And if they must perswade the neighbour nations to come in to God by Covenâ—nt engagement they must perswade them to bring their children with them and to devote â—hem to God as well as thâ—mselves For the Jews knew no other Covenanting or engaging to God As the Sichemites must do so other nations must do For what priviledge had the children of the Sichemites above the rest of the world Answ. This argument in form would be thus If it were the duty of all the nations round about to engage themselves and their children to God by Circumcision then it was not onely the infants of the Congregation of Israel that were Church members But the antecedent is true Ergo the consequent Of this argument I deny the consequence of the major and the minor also I deny the consequence because they that did engage themselves and children to God by Circumcision did thereby ingraff themselves and children into the congregation of Israel I deny also the minor For though I acknowledge it was the duty of all the world to engage themselves to God by covenanting to take him for their God yet I do not conceive that they were all bound to do it by circumcision For I conceive that precept given onely to the Hebrews or house of Abraham In whiâ—h I am confirmed in that I finde not that Sem Melchisedeck Lot Job ever did so or are blamed for not doing it It is most certain that Cornelius though a man that feared God with all his house yet was neither he nor his house circumcised Acts 10.2 11.3 and yet accepted of God It is true if any would keep the Passeover and be admitted to the rites of the Tabernacle he was to be circumcised with his males But they might devote and engage themselves and children to God without it nor was it necessary that God should be their God in covenant or to their salvation that they were circumcised or joyned to the people of the Jews I confess it was of much moment to reduce the nations and to preserve them from the idolatry that defiâ—ed the world to be of that people for generally the uncircumcised who were aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel were without God in the world without Christ without hope aliens from the Covenants of promise and therefore it was a good office to endeavour to bring the nations to God by circumcision and a desirable advantagious thing as it is now to be in a well ordered fixed Church yet I cannot say it is or was necessary for all either as a duty or means of salvation to do either Mr. B. goes on 7. â—n Hesters time many of the people became Jews Hest. 8.17 who yet were not under their government And to be Jewes is to be of the Jewish profession And it â—s well known that this was to be circumcised they and their little ones as the Proselytes were and so to keep the Law of Moses Answ. Though they were not under the Jewes Government in respect of all power and command yet they were incorporated into the Jewish people and were under their government as far as other Jews by birth were having some exercise and liberty of using their own lawes though with subjection also to the Persian Princes I confess their being Jews was by circumcising of them and their males
is either of good or evil If good it is either by contract or donation whether by a Testament praemiant Law or the like if evil it is either by some penal Law or voluntary agreement Now which of these is it that your transeunt fact produceth To be a member of the Church is to be a member of a society taking God in Christ to be their God and taken by him for his special people The act which makes each member is of the same nature with that which makes the society The relation then essentially containeâ—h 1. a right to the great benefits of Gods soveraignty over men Christs headship and that favour protection provision and other blessings which are due from such a powerfull and gracious Soveraign to such Subjects and from such a Head to his Members As also a right to to my station in the Body and to the inseparable benefits thereof 2. It containeth my debt of obedience to God in Christ acknowledged and promised actually or virtually really or reputatively Now for the first how can God be related to me as my God or Christ as my Saviour and I to him as one that have such right to him and his blessings by any other way then his own free gift This gift must be some signification of his will For his secret will is not a gift but a purpose of giving This way of giving therefore is by a civil or moral action which is a signifying of the Donors will and can be by no way but either pure donation contract testament or law In our case it must needs partake of the nature all these It is not from one in any equality nor capable of any obliging compensation or retribution from us Being therefore from an absolute dis-engaged Benefactor it must needs be by pure donation or it cannot be ours Yet as he is pleased as it were to oblige himself by promise or by his word and also to call us to a voluntary acceptance and engagement to certain fidelity gratitude and duty and so is the stipulator and we the promisers in the latter part of the action it is therefore justly called a contract or Covenant though indeed the word Covenant frequently signifieth Gods own promise alone As it proceedeth from the death of the testator in natural moral-reputative being so it is called a testament And as it is an act of a ruling Benefactor giving this benefit to the governed to promote the ends of government and obliging to duty thereby so it partaketh of the nature of a law The commonest Scripture name for this act is Gods Covenant or Promise and sometimes his Gift which all signifie the same thing here It follows therefore that either by Gods taking Israel to be his people you mean some civil political action as a Covenant promise or the like collation of the benefit and then you assert the thing which you deny or else you know not what you mean nor can make another know it without the discovery of the grossest absurdity And as for the other thing which is contained in Churchmembership the professed duty of man to God it is most certain 1. That Gods law obligeth us to that duty 2. And obligeth all according to their capacities to consent to the obligation and so to re-engage themselves 3. That this actual consent professed doth therefore double the obligation And thus by a mutual contract Covenant or consent whereof our part is first required by a law is the relation of Churchmembership contracted Now to lay by and deny all this and give us the general naked name of taking for Gods people is meerly delusory seeing that taking means this which you exclude or it means nothing that 's true and reasonable And therefore tell us better what it means Answ. All before being but a velitation or light skirmish I looked here for some great battel But I find it nothing but a rallying together the forces scattered before there being not one thing I know of in this passage but what was set down before and is answered I have distinctly shewed how moral and physical acts concur to the visible Churchmembership of the people of which infants are a part and natural to that visible Churchmembership which the Jews infants had and what they were both in my Letter and in this answer What M. B. replies is vain 1. It is not true that the effect in question is a moral it is at least in infants meerly a physical effect their Churchmembership is not by any act which reacheth not to the effect 2. The taking is of individual pâ—rsons existent 3. By many particular acts yet in a good sence before given summed up into one transeunt fact 4. The physical acts are none of those M. B. frivolously imagines but such as are mentioned in the Scripture and declared in my Letter 5. It is not true that a meer physical taking cannot produce a moral effect For supposing the Spirit should inspire faith immediately without any preaching the effâ—ct would be moral though produced by a meer physical taking or act 6. The transeunt fact I set down doth not exclude but did expresly include in my Letter both Covenants single and mutual and laws and precepts yet as I have said before it doth exclude that promise of Mr. Bs. of Gods being a God to believers and their seed and a precept of believing or accepting this for their children which confer the benefit of visible Churchmembership Yea it is fully proved before that if there were such a promise and precept yet these would not actually make infants visible Church-members 7. It is not true that the relation of visible Churchmembership essentially containeth a right to the great benefit of Gods soveraignty over men Christs headship and that favour protection provision and other blessings which are due from such a powerful and gracious Soveraign to such subjects and from such a head to his members For to omit the unfiâ—ness of the expression of right to the great benefits of Gods soveraignty over men which contains these two fond conceits 1. That great benefits are included in Gods soveraignty over men whereas the soveraignty of God includes not any benefit but his own greatness he is soveraign over the reprobate men and Angels as well as the elect and yet they have no benefit yea his soveraignty is shewed in their reprobation as well as the election of the other 2. That visible Churchmembers have a right to the great benefit of Gods soveraignty over men whereas what benefit soever it be yet right is not to us by visible Church-membership it is most false that that relation either constitutivè or consecutivè doth essentially contain that right For neither doth the term formally import any right at all but a manner of being or state with relation as I have before distinctly declared nor doth that right inseparably accrue to such visible Churchmembers There are and may be visible Churchmembers
who have not that right and there are who have that right and are not visible Churchmembers 8. Nor is it true that the relation essentially includeth a right to the members station and to the inseparable benefits thereof For though the station in the body be included yet not a right to it yea the actual station is oft times without right which I think is sufficiently proved by Mr. B. himself in his dispute against Mr. Blake Sect. 39. asserting a dogmatical faith entitling to baptism 9. That though visible membership bee by Gods gift and this is to be by signification of Gods will yet it is not necessary it should be by any promise or declaration which may be termed moral or political sith the event it self is a signification of Gods will and of his gift 10. That if Churchmembership be contracted by a mutual consent and covenant as Mr. B. sets down 1. onely the elect can be visible Churchmembers for to them onely God hath covenanted to be their God or Christ their Saviour 2. Infants are not visible Churchmembers for they neither Covenant nor by any intimation in Scripture is it shewed or can bee that the parents or others obedience to God in Christ acknowledged or promised is virtually or reputatively by any law of God taken for the infants Covenant or consent Lastly this law which Mr. B. here sets down concerning the duty of the parents is not that law or ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership which Mr. B. asserts to be unrepealed For the law and ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership is not a precept of what another shall do but what they shall have not of what in duty a person is bound to but of what God doth give and grant And therefore all this tedious discourse of Mr. B. is but delusory sith instead of a law and ordinance determining that infants shall be visible Churchmembers he assignes another thing a precept of a duty and thinks if I prove not it repealed I prove not the law and ordinance of another thing repealed Mr B. adds As for the texts you cite Deut. 4.34 Levit. 20.24 26. 1 King 8.53 Isai. 43.1 In Deut. 4. is mentioned not the moral act of God by which he made them his people or took them for his own and founded the relation but the natural aâ—â—ions whereby he rescued them from the Egyptian bondage and took them to himself or for his use service and honour out of that land But I think sure they were his people and all their infants were Churchmembers before that taking by vertue of a former Covenant-taking Answ. The text expresseth that act of God whereby hee took the Jews for his people and consequently whereby he founded the relation of Churchmembers and if this act were a natural act then it follows contrary to Mr. Bs. conceits that a natural act may be it by which God takes a people to him which is the Scripture phrase whereby is signified his making them his Church If they were his people before and all their infants Churchmembers yet they might be made his people by repeated continued or new acts making or taking noting a beginning or continuance or completing of the estate they had formerly If they were by vertue of a former Covenant-taking yet I think Mr. B. cannot shew before that time a mutual Covenant-taking such as he said before the relation of Churchmembership is contracted by He adds As to Levit. 20. God did perform a twofold work of separation for Israel 1. By his Covenant and their entring Covenant with him 2. By local separation of their bodies from others It was the first that made them his people and Churchmembers and not the last the last was onely a favourable dealing with them as his beloved The same I say to the other two texts Sure you cannot think that corporal separation makes a Church-member What if an Egyptian that had no part in the Covenant had past out with the Israelites and got with them through the Red Sea do you think he had been therefore a Churchmember Suppose God had made no promise or Covenant with Abraham or his seed but onely taken them out of Chaldea into Canaan and thence into Egypt and thence into the Wilderness and thence into Canaan again Do you think this much had made them Church-members Then if the Turks conquer Greece or the Tartarians conquer China they are become Churchmembers because this seems as great a temporal prosperity at least And I think itâ—s past doubt that Lot was a Church-member in the midst of Sodom and the Israelites in Egypt before they were brought out as truly as after Answ. I grant that they were though not so completed when they had not liberty to sacrifice to God nor to keep any feast and perform other worship to God as when they were brought out unto which the texts refer the severing of the Israelites from other people that they should be Gods although I did not in my Letter restrain it to that local separation which yet the Scripture with me chiefly refers it to but also to the bringing them into the bond of the Covenant at Mount Sinai giving them Laws setling their Priesthood Tabernacle Army Government inheritance If the Turks or Tartars had such a local separation as I describe they had been Churchmembers The Egyptians that came out of Egypt with the Israelites were Churchmembers with the Israelites they becomming Proselytes If God had made no promise or Covenant with Abraham or his seed but onely taken them out of Chaldea into Canaan and withall made known his will concerning his grace in Christ given them Lawes and set up his worship among them they had been Churchmembers According to Mr. Bs. own arguings the promise or Covenant with Abraham and his seed made them not Churchmembers for they were Churchmembers before The Covenant Gen. 17. was not a mutual Covenant which is that by which according to Mr. B. visible Churchmembership is contracted The texts that I allege do sufficiently prove the people of Israel were taken to be Gods people by such a transeunt fact as I describe and consequently the infants visible Church-members as part of that people without the promise to believers and their seed to bee their God on condition of the parents accepting the mercy offered and re-engaging them to God which Mr. B makes the sole efficient of their holiness or visible Churchmembership as is shewed before He proceeds As to Gen. 12.1 Acts 7.2 Nehem. 9.7 which you also cite as there is not one of them that gives the least intimation that Infant-Church-membership then began so I shall farther enquire anon whether they contain any Covenant or promise Answ. They do each of them plainly shew the beginning of the taking of the Hebrews for Gods people by severing them from Idolaters and forming them into a Chruch and consequently of the Churchmembership which infants had in that people or nation For the texts
And if we must needs take up a fashion of disputing by challenges I challenge Mr. B. to shew me one infant who was a visible Churchmember out of the Nation of the Hebrews â— I conceive from Acts. 16.1 2 Tim. 1.5 that Timothy was born of a Churchmember yet no Churchmember visible in infancy Anabaptists refuse not the mercy of visible Churchmembership if God had offered it to their infants nor would they refuse to dedicate their infants in Baptism if God had commanded it But they dare not challenge what God hath not granted nor profane the Ordinance of Christ by their altering it into that which he hath not appointed Mr. B. goes on thus SECT LVIII Infants visible Churchmembership is not proved by the Law of Nature BEfore I proceed to any more Texts of Scripture I will a little enquire into the light or Law of Nature it self and see what that â—aith to the point in hand And first we shall consider of the duty of dedicating infants to God in Christ and next of Gods acceptance of them and entertaining them into that estate And the first is most evidently contained in the Law of Nature it self at least upon supposition that there be any hopes of Gods entertaining them which I prove thus 1. The law of Nature bindeth us to give to every one his own due But infants are Gods own due Ergo the law of Nature bindeth parents to give them up to God By giving here I mean not an alienation of propriety to make that to be Gods that was not so before but an acknowledgement of his right with a free resâ—gnation and dedication of the infant to God as his own for his use and service when he is capable thereâ—f If you say infants being not capable of doing service should not be devoted to it till they can do it I answer they are capable at present of a legal obligation to future duty and also of the relation which followeth that obligation together with the honour of a Churchmember as the child of a Noble man is of his honours and title to his inheritance and many other mercies of the Covenant And though Christ according to his humanity was not capable of doing the works of a Mediatour or head of the Church in his infancy yet for all that he must be head of the Church then and not according to this arguing stay till he were capable of doing those works And so is it with his members Answ. It is a bold attempt to undertake to prove a law or ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed from the law of Nature when Churches are onely instituted not by any law of Nature and consequently there can be no direction in the law of Nature who shall be visible Churchmembers who not Nor could both those things Mr. B. considers be proved to wit the duty of dedicating infants to God in Christ and Gods acceptance of them and entertaining of them into that estate i. e. of dedicated persons prove them visible Churchmembers there 's more required thereto to wit something discernable by sense by which they may be said to be part of Gods people Yet I shall examine his proofs The conclusion may be understood of giving up devoting dedicating to God by prayer or vow or else by an outward sign such as Circumcision or Baptism This latter is not of the law of nature being meer instituted worship the former may be granted without any hurt to my cause Nevertheless I shall say something to the argument Which hath at least four terms and so is faulty in the form and for the matter of it the major is not true without limitation For the law of nature doth not bind every man to give to every one his own due except it be that due which is due from the giver or it belongs to him to give A private man is bound to pay his own debt not to pay every other mans debt to him to whom it is due Now infants may be said to be Gods due either in respect of their persons or their service Infants in infancy can do no service nor doth God require any service of them and therefore there is none due and therefore no parents do or are bound by any act of theirs for their infants service to give God his due of their infants service And for their persons they are Gods due in that he may of right dispose of them as he wil in life and death health or sickness and in this respect parents have no way of giving God his due but by acknowledging his Soveraignty and submitting to his will Dedication to God for the future iâ—â—o giving of God his due from infants it is neither the giving of God the due of their persons or their service they are bound themselves when they come to understanding to do it by themselves and if they do it not the parents dedication cannot do it I object not that infants should not be devoted to to God till they can do service but that what ever it be it is not the giving God his own due from infants nor doth make them visible Churchmakers Mr. B. adds 2. The law of nature bindeth all parents to do their best to secure Gods right and their childrens good and to prevent their sin and misery But to engage them betimes to God by such a dedication doth tend to secure Gods right and their childrens good and to prevent their sin and misery For they are under a double obligation which they may be minded of betimes and which may hold them the more strongly to their duty and disadvantage the tempter that would draw them off from God Answ. To dedicate them by prayer and thanksgiving and vows to God may tend to these endâ— But to do it by Baptism not required of God secures not Gods right but abuseth his name nor doth it tend to the childrens good or prevent their sin and misery For neither is there promise of God that the parents dedicating the child by Baptism shall have these effects nor do these effects follow ex opere operato nor is there any obligation real put by infant-baptism on the person though there may be a putative obligation thereby But really infant-baptism is a disadvantage 1. In that it is the occasion whereby they take themselves to be Christians afore they know what Christianity is by which means they are kept in vain presumption of their safe condition and this constant experience and the acknowledgement of observing men doth witness 2. They are kept back thereby from the true Baptism of Christ which hath had and would have a strong tie on mens consciences if it were solemnly and in a right manner performed as it should be Surely a mans own engagement by himself in all probability must have a stronger operation then an engagement by another for him notwithstanding the fond conceits of Mr. Simon Ford and Mr. John Goodwin of edification by infant
infants but also all infants if it be so much for their good welfare preservation real happiness and the law of nature ties them as well as parents to do what lies in them to do them good upon such hopes and encouragement and sith they are in their power as well as parents yea before them and they may list them into Christs army enter them into Covenant and the Church they are bound to do it Yea considering that Mr. B. of Baptism part 2. ch 8. holds that by Christs commission Mat. 28.19 Disciples should immediately without delay be baptized as soon as they are Disciples and believers infants are Disciples as soon as they are born and none can do it so soon as Midwives they ought to do it according to Mr. Bs. hypotheses immediately upon their birth Which will go very far in justifying the Papists about their hasty baptism by Midwives Yet again saith Mr. B. 4. It is the duty of Parents by the Law of Nature to accept of any allowed or offered benefit for their children But the relation of a member of Christs Church or Army is an allowed or offered benefit to them Ergo c. For the major these principles in the law of nature do contain it 1. That the infant is not sui juris but is at his parents dispose in all things that are for his good That the parents have power to oblige their children to any future duty or suffering that is certainly to their own good and so may enter them into covenants accordingly And so far the will of the Father is as it were the will of the childe 2. That it is unnaturally sinful for a parent to refuse to do such a thing when it is to the great benefit of his own childe As if a Prince would offer Honours and Lordships and Immunities to him and his heirs if he will not accept this for his heirs but onely for himself it is unnatural Yea if he will not oblige his heirs to some small and reasonable conditions for the enjoying such benefits For the minor that this relation is an allowed or offered benefit to infants is manifested already and more shall be Answ. I meant of visible members in the Christian Church properly so called this last speech is denied He goes on thus And this leads me up to the second point which I propounded to consider of whether by the light or law of nature we can prove that infants should have the benefit of being Church-members supposing it first known by supernatural revelation that parents are of that society and how general the promise is and how gracious God is And 1. it is certain to us by nature that infants are capable of this benefit if God deny it not but will give it them as well as the aged 2. It is certain that they are actually members of all the Commonwealths in the world perfectè sed imperfecta membra being secured from violence by the lawes and capable of honors and right to inheritances and of being real subjects under obligations to future duties if they survive And this shews that they are also capable of being Churchmembers and that nature revealeth to us that the infants case much followeth the case of the parents especially in benefits 3. Nature hath actually taught most people on earth so far as I can learn to repute their infants in the same religious society with themselves as well as in the same civil society 4. Under the Covenant of works commonly so called or the perfect rigorous law that God made with man in his pure nature the infants should have been in the Church and a people holy to God if the parents had so continued themselves And consider 1. that holiness and righteousness were then the same things as now and that in the establishing of the way of propagation God was no more obliged to order it so that the children of righteous parents should have been born with all the perfections of their parents and enjoyed the same priviledges then he was obliged in making the Covenant of grace to grant that infants should be of the same society with their parents and have the immunâ—ties of that society 2. We have no reason when the designe of redemption is the magnifying of love and grace to think that love and grace are so much lesâ— under the Gospel to the members of Christ then under the Law to the members or seed of Adam as that then all the seed should have partaked with the same blessings with the righteous parents and now they shall all be turned out of the society whereof the parents were members 5. God gives us himself the reasons of his gracious dealing with the children of the just from his gracious nature proclaiming even pardoning mercy to flow thence Exod. 34. and in the 2d Com. 6. God doth yet shew us that in many great and weighty respects he dealeth well or ill with children for their parents sakes as many texâ—s of Scripture shew and I have lately proved at large in one of our private disputes that the sins of nearer parents are imputed as part of our original or naturâ—l guilt So much of that Answ. 1. All these considerations if they were yeelded to be true would as well prove that by the light of Nature infants should be invisible Churchmembers as visible which would contradict the Scripture Rom 9.6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13. yea rather sith the 4th consideration upon which the inference rests chiefly is from the state in which persons were put by creation and redemption which is into the invisible rather then the visible Now then if these considerations are not sufficient to assure parents who are in the invisible Church that their infants are in the same society neither are they sufficient to assure them they are visible Churchmembers 2. It is a calumny of Mr. B. which is insinuated as if I held that all the seed of believers shall be turned out of the society whereof the parents were members 3. It is a gross conceit and contrary to the plain doctrine of the Scripture concerning election and reprobation of Jacob and Esau which is intimated as if the designe of redemption under the Gospel to the members of Christ should be that as the members or seed of Adam so all the seed should partake of the same blessings with the righteous parents 4. What hee saith he hath largely proved in one of the private disputes at Kederminster among the associate Ministers in Worcestershire as I conjecture I do not contradict peremptorily as not knowing how he stated the question nor what his proofs were Yet it seems to mee to be an errour nor am I very apt to give assent to Mr. Bs. determinations however the associate Ministers may perhaps take him for a Pythagoras whose ipse dixit must not be gainsaid Once more saith he Yet before I cite any more particular texts I will add this one argument from
limitation of all things necessary to salvation or of all things needfull to withstand the seducers he mentions not a word â—hat mentions their prophesying Nor doth Joh. 7.39 prove every believer a prophet nor may it be gathered from 1 Thes. 5.19 20. that such preaching which we must suppose may bring us something that is not good is called prophesying but that something may be termed prophesying which is not and therefore the spirits are to be tried whether they be of God for many false proâ—hets are gone out into the world as John speaks 1 Epist. 4.1 Nor is it true that Peter exhorts the Jews Act. 2.38 to repent that is to go on as they had begun For though they had some horrour of conscience v. 37. yet not repentance unto which Peter exhorts v. 38. nor doth any word used by Peter intimate that they had begun to repent And what Mr. C. adds to the clause to as many as the Lord our â—od shall call not onely to them but also to their children is too bold dealing with the Scripture there being not a word in the Text which implieth that addition and therefore is not justified by his allegations of Psal. 1.6 Prov. 10.24 What other arguments for Mr. Cs. purpose have been urged from Act. 2.38 39. have been largely answered already I go on Mr. C. adds p. 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99. a large discourse in whiâ—h 1. there is p. 97. a confession which doth invincibly prove infant Baptism to be will worship and his speech false which he used p. 8â— that the New Testamâ—nt is not altogether silent in this matter and it is this Whoever shall confine himself onely to the N. T. to find out the law of Gods worship and service he shall never find it not onely as to infant Baptism but also to all other Ordinances whatsoever For if infant Baptism be not to be found in the N. T. then the N. â— is altogether silent about that matter and if it be not there then it is will worship there being no law about a meer positive rite or ceremony in force to us Christian Gentiles now which was givâ—n to the Jews in the Old Testament as I have proved Exam. par 3. sect 12. pag. 116 117. Review par 2. sect 2 3. 2. There is in the same p. 97. a false and dangerous speech that Christ spake so little in his N. T. concerning the law which is the rule which he hath set for his service of his house namely because he could look upon that for the greatest part to be done already to wit in the Old Testament Which if true then the laws about the ceremonies of the Jews are our rule we are still under the yoke of bondage popish prelatical ceremonies are still justifiable a Bishop or Archbishop above Presbyters and Bishops appeal to Synods their power to decide controversies to excommunicate a national Church constitution are still to be retained for these or that which was proportionable to these was according to the Rule of Gods house then Nor is there a word in any of the Scriptures which Mr. C. alledgeth for this his purpose Not Luke 16.16 the meaning whereof is not as Mr. C. fancies That in the times before John was the season to instruct men in the law since in the Gospel but as it is Mat. 11.13 All the prophets and the law until John prophesied that is foretold of Christs comming as future but the Kingdome of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 16.16 from then is Evangelized or told as good tidings already beguâ— to be aâ— Diodati annot on Mat. 11.13 Johns prerogative above the precedent prophets is that they have onely foretold and described things to come but he hath delivered the present salvation and in him is begun the Evangelical Ministery and the legal and figurative Ministery is ceased Yet if Mr. Cs. exposition were allowed it provâ—s not that in the Law or Old Testament the rule about the service or meer positive worship of God in the N. T. is set but rather the contrary for if that were the season then for it and now is the season for another thing it follows that it is unseasonable to take a rule for Gods houâ—e in meer positive worship from the Old Testament The alledging Psal. 78.1 by Mat. 13.3 9 35. proves not that a rule for rituals is to be feâ—cht from the Old Testament although it may be usefull for to prove doctrines about the Gospel Gods providence moral duties c. Though it be granted which Mr. C. concludes pag. 96. the general nature of the Law to bee one and the same to the people of God under both Testaments which is easily yeilded sith the general nature is invariable and the same to all for ever yet it followes not that the Laws about â—eremonies are the same to the people of God under both Testaments if so we are still under the yoke of Circumcision and the Legal rites and under the Law And indeed Mr. C. hath in this thing vented many false and dangerous speeches that to us in Christ the Law hath been as it were incorporated with the Gospel as thereby become part of the covenat of grace the Law given by 〈◊〉 is called the Testaâ—ent of Christ byâ—hrist â—hrist himself that the Old Testament this the New and both confirmed by his bloud that in the type by the bloud of Bulls and Goatâ— thâ—â— in the answer type by his own bloud And yet he saâ—th the Apostle Râ—m 1â— 6 applieth Deut. 30 â—2 14 to the Gospel in opposition to the Law as in it self considered without the Gospel or as a covenant of works which words are contrary to his former For if the Gospel be opposed to the Law by the Apostle as it is in it self considered is without the Gospel is a covenant of works then the Law is not incorporated with the Gospel or thereby become part of the covenant of grace nor is the Law given by Moses called the Testament of Christ nor confirmed by his bloud but the bloud of Bulls and Goats ill termed Christs bloud being opposed Heb. 9.12 In like manner it is a dangerous assertion which he hath pag. 95. In the covenant of workes the Law was Do this and live but in the covenant of grace it is Do this in the strength of Christ and live which if right we live that is are justified for so his words following explain it by the doing the works of the law in the strength of Christ which if I do understand it is the very doctrine of Bellarmine Tom. 4. de justific l. 1. c. 19. and other Papists saying the Apostle excludes not works done after grace by faith from justification but afore faith Which Protestant Divines commonly refute as â—areus in his Castigations Ames in his Bellarm. enerv Chamier Tom. 3. paustr. lib. 22. c. 2. Abbots defence of Perkins p. 502. Rivet sum contr tract 4. qu. 10.
and that it is verified intentionally quoad Deum is besides the text which speaks not of Gods making a covenant but of Moses v. 14. and this covenant was obliging to duty not expressing covenant-grace That which Master Cobbet saith that the righteousness of faith according to the covenant Gen. 17.7 which containeth the promise of justification was by circumcision visibly sealed unto the Jewes their children by Gods own appointment circumcision being in the Sacramental nature of it a visible seal of the righteousness of faith it self and not meerly in a personal respect to Abraham as applyed by his faith to justification hath either none or very little truth For though it be true that the promise Gen. 17.7 was of the righteousness of faith according to the more hidden sense of the words yet it was so onely to the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith Rom. 4.12 16. Gal. 3.7 9 29. Nor was circumcision appointed by God to seal it to Jewes and their children nor circumcision in the Sacramental nature of it a visible seal of the righteousness of faith nor is any mans circumcision termed in the Scripture a seal of the righteousness of faith but Abrahams which was not a seal as applyed by his faith to his justification but as a seal to him that he had the righteousness of faith before he was circumcised and that all that believe as he did shall be justified as he was Rom. 4.11 12. Master Cobbet addes Nor will it suffice to say that covenant was a mixt covenant It held forth temporal things indeed but by vertue of a covenant of grace Psal. 111.5 as doth the promise now 1 Tim. 4.8 But it holds forth also spiritual things in the external right and administration thereof to all albeit in the internal operation as to some The promises are to them all Rom. 9.4 Scil. in the former sense and yet ver 8. some onely are the children of the promise and the choice seed in that general covenant Scil. in respect of the saving efficacy of the covenant upon them v. 6. And the same distinction is now held out in such sort amongst persons in Church-estate Ans. It sufficeth against those that make the covenant Gen. 17. to be a covenant of Evangelical grace onely and make other promises of temporal things to be onely administrations of it and make circumcision a seal of the covenant of grace because it was the tâ—ken of that covenant to say that 〈◊〉 covenant Gen. 17.7 was a mixt covenant containing promises proper to Abrahams natural posterity as well as Evangelical to his Spiritual and 〈◊〉 the covenant is rather to be denominated from the former which are more manifestly held forth in it then the latter and that the reason why circumcision was appointed was the signifying and assuring the former rather then the latter and so the circumcising of infants was not from interest Evangelical but national or proper to the people of Abraham Nor is Master Cobbets exception of any validity that because there is a promise of the life that now is 1 Tim. 4.8 therefore the covenant now is mixt For the promise of the life that now is is not of any outward inheritance peculiar to the godly and their children as Abraham had of the Land of Canaan for him and his but of fatherly care and sanctified use of outward things Nor doth Psal. 111.5 prove that the inheriting Canaan being great and prosperous Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. were by vertue of a covenant of grace but it rather appears from many places Deut. 28. c. Heb. 8.6 that they were by the covenant of works in keeping the law of Moses unto which circumcision did oblige Gal. 5.3 The promises Gen. 17. so far as they were Evangelical did belong to Abrahams seed by faith onely nor doth the Apostle any where interpret that promise Gen. 17.7 as holding forth spiritual things in the external right and administration of it and the spiritual things assured therein are by the Apostle determined Rom. 9.8 to belong onely to the elect not to all Nor doth Rom. 9.4 say the promises pertained to all the Jewes nor to any in respect of external right and administration And though I deny not but that persons may be said to be outwardly in the covenant of grace in appearance to mâ—n when they make a profession of faith though not in reality yet I deny that God hath made the covenant or promise of grace to any other then the elect true believers nor appointed any way of sealing it to any other Nor is it true that baptism as a covenant-seal presupposeth a covenant-right or that the Jewes Acts 2.38 39. had any covenant or Church-right to baptism jus ad râ—m though not jus in re afore they were believers on Christ nor had they any right to baptism in that they were members of the Church of the Jewes nor was the commission of baptism first given by God to John Baptist in reference to that Church of the Jewes as a seal of their membership therein but of their owning Johns doctrine becoming his disciples and joyned into a School or Church distinct from the Pharasees and other Jewish Church-rulers though they adhered till after Christs death to the law of Moses and temple-service Nor is there any truth in it that Peter required of the Jewes repentance afore baptism Acts 2.38 because though they had covenant or Church-right thereto yet being adult members under offence and admonished thereof by Peter they might for their obstinacy against such an admonition notwithstanding Church or Covenant-right have been debarred that seal For 1. The Christian Church and the Jewish Church of which those Jewes were members were in their profession not onely distinct but also opposite therefore there was no Church-right from being members in the one to be members of the other 2. For their fact of which they were admonishde by Peter they were so far from being in danger of being cast out of the Jewish Church in which they were members that they were more sure of being cast out for repenting of their sin and being baptized into the Name of Christ John 9.22 3. Peter doth not act in his speech Acts 2. 38 â—9 as an Elder in the Jewish Church for he was none but as an Apostle of Christ nor was their fact objected to them as an offence to the Church of which â—â—ey were but confessed by themselves as an heavy burden that lay on their conscience nor was Peters advice given to remove a Church-censure for re-admission to a seal but to ease their consciences and to bring them to the faith of Christ and communion of that Church into which they had never been admitted But Master Cobbet against my first exception saith those Jewes were offensive members of that Jewish Church which was a true visible Church and not yet dischurched and divorced by the Lord they were then in the Church of the Gospel and so
sense of the duty oâ— by foundation of a duty may be understood the Rule according to which that duty is to be performed and this may be understood either thus to whomsoever there is a promise of that thing by which a duty is urged on others they are bound to do that duty and then it is false for Christ promised Matth. 28.19 20. to the Apostles whom he bid preach the Gospel and baptize that he would be with them and Matth. 18.20 to two or three gathered together to be in the midst of them doth it therefore follow that every two or three gathered together in his Name are commanded to preach and baptize or it may be understood thus that he to whom the promise is upon the doing of that duty is bound to do it and this I grant to be true but this will not serve Mr. Sidenhams turn for there is no promise to infants that upon their baptizing themselves they should have remission of sins nor is Mr. Sidenham so absurd as to make baptism infants duty but their right now as Mr. Sidenham would have it that because there 's a promise to infants therefore others are in duty bound to baptize them as having right to it it is false sith the institution of Baptism is not to whom God hath promised to be a God for that is according to his election which is unknown Rom. 9.6 7 8. but to them who are Disciples or believers in Christ Matth. 28.19 Mark 16.15 16. There are ambiguities in the speeches that commands in the Gospel do suppose promises that promises made to persons do include commands that all the New Testament Ordinances are annexed to promises which would be too tedious and unnecessary to unfold it is sufficient to shew they will not serve Mr. Sidenhams turn in the sense they are true and will as well serve to prove infants right to the Lords Supper as to Baptism That which he saith We have as much in the New Testament to prove infant-baptism from the true principles of right to Ordinances as they have for those whom they baptize for they baptize grown persons on such and such considerations and we shall hereafter shew we baptize on as strong and equivalent grounds is notoriously false for we baptize according to the qualification required in the institution of Christ and the Apostles and other Preachers baptizing and directing the use of Baptism in the New Testament which are acknowledged the true principles of right to Ordinances and it is acknowledged even by Paedobaptists that they have neither precept nor example in the New Testament of infant-baptism and therefore cannot have as strong and warrantable grounds as we who are Pistobaptists that is baptizers of believers Nor is it true that it is requisite we should shew them expressâ—command against Infant-baptism it is enough that they cannot prove in its institution Infants never by divine warrant enjoyed Baptism and for Circumcision it was more unlike than like to Baptism and of it an authentique repeal is easily shewed Acts 15. and elsewhere In the rest Mr. Sidenham shews not why infants should not have been baptized at first as well as grown men if it had been Christs minde Ishmael and all Abrahams males were circumcised the self same day in which Abraham was Gen. 17.26 27. and therefore if Paedobaptists Hypothesis were right infants as well as persons of years should have been baptized by the Apostles which they did not for in that it is not exprest it is enough to shew it was not done unless we make the Spirit of God defective in what was needfull to have been set down and to say as Mr. Sidenham doth There is enough to shew it was done though not written is with the Papists to maintain unwritten traditions Rule â—f manners There is no hint left by Christ or the Apostles to deduce as a infant-baptism from And it is false which he saith God hath always ordained some Ordinances in the administrationâ— of which for the most part the subject hath been purely passive He names nor can name any till the institution of Circumcision which was not till after the world had been above two thousand years The rest of his speech savours of this corrupt principle that what we conceive fit in Gods worship is to be accounted his minde This is enough in answer to the first Chapter In the second he saith untruly that the Covenant Gen. 17. was first made with Abraham and his seed in the name of all believers and their seed both Jews and Gentiles nor is it true that if he should finde the same Covenant reaching Gentile believers and their children as Abraham and his they cannot be denied the new external sign and seal of the same Covenant that is Baptism And for what he saith the Covenant Gen. 17. was a Covenant of pure grace I grant it so far as it was Evangelical but deny it to be a pure Gospel-covenant nor do any of his Reasons prove any more than I grant that there were Gospel-promises meant by God under promises of temporal mercies proper to Abraham and his natural posterity and those that joyned with them in their policy which I have proved before out of Scripture to be termed the Covenant it self without a Metonymy and God is said to keep that Covenant by establishing the Israelites in Canaan and therefore it is but vain talk that the promise of Canaan was but an additional appendix added ex super abundanti if he mean it of the Covenant Gen. 17. if he mean it of the Gospel-covenant it is more true that was added to the other as a more hidden sense under the promises of civil and domestick privileges I do not make a mixture in the Gospel-covenant but in the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. nor by mixture do I understand any other than a composition of various parts not a mixture in the nature of it or substance or circumstances but that the Covenant made with Abraham had promises of two sorts some promises in the first obvious sense of the words proper to Abrahams natural posterity some spiritual common to all believers in the more hidden sense of the words which with what hath been said before is enough to answer that Chapter aâ—so proceeding upon mistakes of my meaning in the term mixt in many passages and the rest if not answered before I let pass because dictates without proof In the third after he hath allowed the distinctions of Abrahams seed into carnal and spiritual natural and believing he sets down six considerations 1. That Abraham 's spiritual seed were as much his fleshly seed also Isaac as Ishmael except Proselytes and Servants which may be granted with these limitations 1. That it be not understood universally for Christian believing Gentilesâ— neither Proselytes to Israel nor servants to them are Abrahams spiritual seed yet not at all Abrahams fleshly seed 2. That Isaac was as much Abrahams fleshly seed as
this doth not prove this is the Genus of Sacraments much less of all Sacraments Nor doth it any whit justifie the determining of doubts of conscience and so binding duties on mens consciences concerning meer positive rites without any institution of Christ or Apostolicall example meerly from this devised term The Seal of the Covenant and malâ—ing it so necessary to be acknowledged that it is pressed on persons to be admitted to the Lords Supper as it were a necessary Article of Faith 2. This term Seal of the Covenant applied to these Sacraments as being of their nature is so farre as my reading and memory reach but a novell term not used till the 16. Century in that not used among the learned Romanists and Lutherans at least not frequently I grant the Ancients say Men are sealed by baptism and sometimes by laying on of hands or anointing after baptism And this sealing is attributed to infant baptism by Nazianzen in his fortieth Oration But this sealing was not a confirmation of the covenant of grace but a confirmation of their faith received in Baptism The ancient Greeks call it the seal of Faith as the Latins call it the seal of Repentance and the Sacrament of Faith in respect of the profession of Faith as Grotius Annot. on Mat. 28.19 observes when he saith And such were the Interrogations of faith either in the first times or those next the first in respect of which by Basil and others it is called the seal of faith sealing of faith of repentance by Tertul. in his book of Repentance and this sealing was not to assure a promise but to strengthen and keep their faith or vertues Whence as Mr. Gataker observes in his Strictures on Dr. Davenants Epistle pag. 44 45. they accounted Baptism to some not as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a pardoning of sins but a seal of vertues and where Nazianzen calls â—t a Seal he expresseth it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a seal as keeping and noting dominion No where do I find any of them use the term Seal of the covenant of grace applied either to Sacraments in generall or to baptism in special 3. But were the use of the term Seal of the covenant of grace in the Scripture or the writings of the Ancients yet it is against Logick to define a Sacrament by a Seal of the covenant as the genus and so to make it of its essence For it is a rule in Logick Definitio non fit ex verbis metaphoricis Scheibler Top. cap. 30 num 126. Ita Aristot Topic. lib. 2. c. 2. sect 4. Keckerm Syst. Logic lib. 1. sect cap. 8. Aristotle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Every translated speech is doubtfull till reduced to proper for it may have divers senses Besides metaphors or borrowed speeches may be many as in this point we may call a Sacrament a Pledge as in the Common Prayer Book Catechism or a pawn earnest as well as a seal Chamier Paust Cath. tom 4. l. 2. c. 9. sect 10. You have also the similitude of a pledge somewhat divers from Seals but nevertheless tending to the same which we also doe most willingly use And if we should define a Sacrament by a pledge and from that metaphor infer that an infant must contract afore it receive the Sacrament as a pledge we might do it with as good reason as they who infer they are to be sealed because the seal followes the covenant Well doth Chamier call a Seal a Similitude which cannot shew what a Sacrament is but what it is like and therefore all metaphors are unfit to shew the quidâ—â—tative conceit of a thing nor are to be used in definitions except there be want of proper terms of which there is not in this case Now to define a Sacrament by a Seale of the covenant is to define it by a metaphor neither Baptism nor the Lords Supper are Seals in proper acceptation they make no visible figure or impression on the body therefore to use the term thus is an abuse much more when positions and duties are urged on mens consciences from it I will subjoyn Mr. Baxters words in his Apologie against Mr Blake Sect. 64. pag 11. Some sober men no way inclined to Anabaptism do think that we ought not to call the Sacraments Seals as being a thing not to be proved from the word for all Rom. 4. But I am not of their mind yet I think it is a Metaphor and to make it the subject of tedious disputations and to lay too great a stress upon a metaphoricall notion is the way not to edifie but to lose our selves Lastly were all this yielded to Mr M. that the term Seal of the covenant were the language of the Scripture and Ancients and fit enough to express the generall nature of Sacraments yet I conceive it of little moment to the ends to which it is applied For what is it to seal and not to confer grace but onely to assure And so the use of it is to represent to the mind as a morall instrument But that is not done to infants who are not naturally capable to understand the meaning therefore this term Seal of the covenant beyond sign of grace doth not take away the objection of Papists Lutherans or Anti-paedobaptists That without giving grace or faith by baptism it is in vain or without effect to baptize infants And in like manner the deriving from it Paedobaptism is very frivolous These things will appear by considering what Mr M. and others say of the covenant which they say is sealed and of the sealing there being little agreement among Paedobaptists whether the inward or outward covenant the absolute or conditionall be sealed whether the sealing be absolute or conditionall to the Major Minor or Conclusion I will examine what I find said by Mr M. First whose words are commended by Mr. Pryâ—â—â— in his Suspension suspended pag. 19 c. â—e saith In every Sacrament the truth of the covenant it self and all the promises of it are sealed to be Yea and Amen and this is sealed absolutely in baptism to all that partake of it But 1. there 's no Scripture that saith so That Rom. 5 8. is impertinent For Christ is not called the Minister of Circumcision because he did administer circumcision to others that were not true he circumcised none but he was a circumcised Minister for the truth he was of the circumcision that is a Jew not a Gentile Nor is it said his circumcision was to confirm the promises of the Fathers that they were true but that therefore he was a circumcised Minister for the truth of God that the promises of the Fathers might be confirmed by his ministring the truth of God in his preaching or in his accomplishment of what the promises foretold 2. Nor do I know any act in baptism that hath any aptnesse of it self or by institution to seal this position that the covenant of grace and
Mr. C. tells us Hence c. and this is the consectary he would infer from his fifth Conclusion and minding discourse about it But how from any thing said before That Christ is the head of the visible Church that visible Professors though not sincere are united to Christ as visible head this follows That Parents profession unites the child to Christ so as to give him right to baptism is a riddle to me If it were formed into an Argument thus If the visible professors confession of faith unites him to Christ as visible head Then it unites the child so far as to give him right to baptism But the visible professors c. Ergo. I should deny the consequence of the Major and expect it to be proved ad Graecas Calendas nor is there any proof in that which follows For were it granted that the parents act were the childs act yet it follows not that it is the childs act to give a right or title to baptism without an institution None of the texts produced no nor any other do shew that the parents act of professing faith did entitle the child to circumcision much less to baptism Cornelius his child was not entitled to circumcision though he and his house feared God was a devout man gave much alms to the poor and prayed to God alway Acts. 10.2 Even in circumcisi on the use of it had its rule onely from the command as I have often poved Not one of Mr. C. his Texts mentions the parents acts as entitling the child to fellowship of the church but obliging to duty Deut. 16.16 17 there 's an injunction That all the Males should thrice a year appear before God but this was enjoyned not to parents onely but also to children married or unmarried And if it prove any thing like what Mr. C. would it proves rather the males act to stand for the females than the parents for the children More likely in this the younger males did appear insteed of the aged weak so the childs act went for the parents However here 's nothing of the parents act giving right to initiation into fellowship of the Church there was nothing required to that in the national Church of Israel but their descent Deut. 26.17 18. there 's no mention of a parents act for his child intitling him to solemn initiation into fellowship of the Church What is said Thou hast avouched this day the Lord to be thy God is not said to be done by the parents for the children nor to be done to entitle them to solemn initiation into the fellowship of the Church Deut. 29.10 11 12 13 14. whose act soever is mentioned whether of the parents or Captains Elders Officers or men of Israel It was an act done in behalf of the nation both those born already and those to be born after not to entitle them to initiation into fellowship of the Church but to bind them the more firmly to their duty and therefore none of these instances are to the point of parents acts in the face of the visible Church taken as the Childrens acts for solemn initiation in Church fellowship Yet if they had that this had been enough for baptism and Church-membership in the Christian Gentile Churches will not be proved till the rule about Circumcision and the constitution of the Jewish Church be a rule to us about baptism and the Church-membership of the Christian Church which neither agrees with Christs or his Apostles appointment or the practise in the N. T. nor with the new english principles of Church constitution Goverment but Judiazing notions opposiâ—e to the Gospel What he saith the parents omission to circumcise his child is counted the childs act of breaking Gods Conant Gen. 17.14 depends on this that the parents omission of circumcision is the childs act of breaking Covenant but many Protestant Divines and others understand it of persons of years as Piscat Schol. in locum Diodati new Annot. Grotius c. And though Chamier counted it to be understood of the Infant Tom 4 Paustrat Cath. l. 3. c. 2. Sect. 20. c. Yet he expounds the verse passively thus the male the flesh of whose foreskin is not circumcised that soul shall be cut off from his people my Covenant is broken Either way expounded it is inpertinent to Mr. Cs. purpose they that expound it as Aben Ezrae apud Christoph. Cartwright on the place of the parent understand both the fault and the punishment to be his It is true Iohn 4.50 51. Matth. 15.22 to 29. Mark 9.12 to 18. parents believing is accepted for the cure of children and so Mark 2.5 the faith of the bringers of the palsy man was accepted but this doth not prove a title to baptism by the parents confession any more than by the Midwives or Gossips bringing to the Foâ—â— nor was it the confession of faith but reality though not known to men which Christ lookd on so that if this be a good reason the Fathers praying in Secret though not in the face of the visible Church should give Title to Baptism After many dictates without proof he tels us As the Covenant laid hold on by the lively faith of gratious parents as made with respect to their elect children hath mighty force to effect very gratious things in the elect feed yea albeit dying young as sundry of those elect ones of Abrahams race did Rom. 9.6 yea so as to make their outward washings to become effectual in Christ to an inward cleansing Ephes. 5.25.26 yea so as to bring in and bring home many of such covenant-children Whence those revolters beloved for their covenant-fathers sake as such Rom. 11.28 and hence made as a ground of their return v. 15 16. so is there such validity in the covenant invested with church covenant albeit but unworthily oft-times held forth by the parents which doth beget upon the children an externall filiall relation unto God and to his Spouse the visible church whence that respect of children of God and his church by vertue of that espousall covenant Ezek. 16.8 Even in the children of idolatrous members v. 20 21 23. Great is the force of this way of the covenant so cloathed Albeit many unworthy members are giâ—t up in it to hold them and theirs in externall communion Jer. 13.11 untill either the church be divorced from God or the particular members be disfranchised by some church-censure of such a covenant-privilege Answer Though this reasoning contain nothing but dictates unproved and incoherent yet sith it carries some shew of an Argument à comparatis I shal say somwhat to it 1. There 's not aword in the texts alleged that shews what Mr C. here asserts that the covenant laid hold upon by the lively faith of gracious parents as made with respect to their children hath mighty force to effect very gracious things in the elect seed Nor is there a word in those Texts to prove such a covnnant made to
not the word of Covenant as well in their heart as Moses judging Ecclesiastically avoweth of Israel Deut. 29.10 11. c with 30.11 12 13 14. so Isai. 51.7 Gods covenant now is to write his Law in our hearts Heb. 8. but is not all that included in this I will be your God whence all is inclosed up in that phrase ibid. or was not the first made to the Iews after their return from Captivity more expresly Ier. 3â— as before more implicitely Gen. 17. Reply The objection I concieve though I do not well know whose it is is this that the covenant at mount Sinai with the Iewish nation or the covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. were not the same with the covenant for that was in the flesh in circumcision or with the fleshly Iew in that at mount Sinai this is the heart by writing Gods Law there and comprehends onely them in whose hearts Gods Laws are written And indeed this difference the Apostle makes between the Covenant of the Law and the Goâ—pel the one was of the letter the other of the spirit 2 Cor. 3.6 the promise of the spirit is said to be by faith Gal. 3.14 and in the new covenant this is made the promise different from what was in the first which was faulty for want of it Heb. 8.10 â— that God would write his laws in their hearts now what Mr. C. speaks seems to me no whit to infring this For though it is true the word of Covenant was in their hearts yet it is true if meant of sanctifying implantation only of the elect not all Abrahams natural seed or the whole body of Israel How Moses is said to judg Ecclesiastically I understand not Deut. 29.10 11. c. with 30.11 12 13 14. do not prove that Moses avowed of every Isralite that the word of covenant was in their heart In some places doubtless the promise I will be your God includs also the writing of Gods Laws in our hearts nor will I deny it included in the promise Gen. 17.7 But I do then not understand it of every Israelite in that sense for if so then I must make Gods word fal sith he doth not perform it to al. And for that which Mr. C. seems to hold that they had the promise dispensed unto them with execution of the covenant it is in my apprehension to charg God with falshood if any say I wrong Mr. C. let him construe this passage otherwise if he can yea but God did not actually write such holy dispositions in them suppose he did not that is the execution of the covenant as for the very â—erith or Covenant itself it is the promise whereof dispensed to them and this they had both Gen. 17. and Deut. 30.6 To circumcise the heart to love God is to imprint gracious dispositions to promise the same to them is a Covenant to imprint it and so he did covenant with them and theirs ibid In which words he seems plainly to make God promise to imprint in some the gratious disposions he doth not actually imprint which is to make God not keepe his word nor is the matter mended by asking is not Gods Covenant now also sacramentally on our bodies too and in many no further For I grant many are baptized who are not regenerate yet I do not believe Gods Covenant of grace is to any such or as Mr. C. speaks Gods Covenant to write his Laws in their hearts is to any such Nor do I think that either Ierem. 31·33 or Deut. 30.6 God promiseth to all Israelits to write holy dispositions in their hearts but only to the elect nor to these in his covenant at mount Sinai though he made these promises to some of the natural seed of Israel neither Rom. 11. from 16. to 24. nor Gen. 4.15 16. Compared with Gen. 6.1 2. nor Gen. 17.18.19 20 21. compared with Gen. 21.9 10 11 12. and Gal. 4. nor Heb. 12 15 16.17 prove that either Cain or Ishmael or Esau were ever in the Covenant of Evangelical grace nor is there any text that proves that he new covenant is intailed to natural generations of the most Godly men Mr. C. in answer to the tenth objection saith thus But it 's false to say the Commandement gave right to Covenant Interest since Covenant right was first promised and declared to be the ground of that commanded service of the initâ—atory seal Gen. 17 7 8 9 10 11. c. Thou shalt therefore keep my Covenant He doth not say you must be or are circumcised and therefare I will be your God But I will be a God to thee and thy seed therefore thou and they shall be circumcised the nature of a seal supposeth a Covenant to be sealed To which I reply I confess it were ridiculous for any to say the commandement gave right to covenant-interest or covenant-right For what is covenant-interest but interest in the covenant and covenant-right but right from the covenant But setting aside Mr C. his inept phrasifyings which I count to be Paedobaptists-gibberish it is not false but manifest truth that it is the command of God onely that gave title to persons to be circumcised and is the Rule to know who are to be circumcised and who not as I have often proved and shewed to be in effect confessed by Mr M. As for Mr. C. his inference from thou therefore Gen 17.9 it is answered often before in the first part of this Review Sect. 5. and elswhere that neither is the reading certain thou therefore nor doth the inference arise meerly from the promise v. 7. nor is the inference at all of a right to circumcision but of a duty nor is this duty urged from each circumcised persons interest in the covenant but Gods making it with Abraham Nor is it true That the nature of a Seal supposeth a covenant to be sealed sith other things are to be sealed as Letters Books Stones Men Fountains c. besides covenants Abrahams circumcision Rom. 4.11 was a seal not of a covenant of some things to be done but of the righteousness of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised if it were true yet is it as little to the purpose sith there may be a covenant sealed to a person that hath no interest in the promise as when ones name is used onely as a Trustee for others And for what is said That the commandment required only a male of eight dayes old to be circumcised which Mr. C. seems to conceive false meaning not before the eighth day is so plain by reading the chapter that I should make question of his wit or his forehead that should deny it And the reason thus exprest is as frivolous The promise heing made indefinitely to the seed whether male or female and not to the eighth day old seed but to the seed albeit but a day old For though the promise be to the child of one day old yet the command is not to him nor is
promiseth the continuance of it Right being a moral or civil thing can be no way conveyed but by a moral or civil action A gift that was never given is a contradiction So that this part of our controversie is as easie as whether two and two be four Answ. Visible Churchmembership is not a right but a state of being as to be healthy strong rich c. which are not given by a civil moral action but by providence of God acting physically as the soveraign disposer of all It is certain that it is by Gods will as all things are but this will is no otherways signified then by the event as conversion and many other gifts of God are My meaning is though these things are by vertue of Gods will and are signified in the general by some Declaration of Gods purpose and order by which he acts which may bâ— called his Covenant yet in the particulars I mean for the persons time c. there is not any Covenant that assures these persons conversion or visible Churchmembership or that estates infants in either of those benefits as their right by vertue of Gods promise as the sole efficient of it upon that condition Mr. B. asserts that is the parents faith as I have proved before Sect. 52. I deny therefore that there is such a promise of God as conferred infants visible Churchmembership upon â—he parents faith And to Mr. Bs. argument I say that though it be easie to prove that visible Churchmembership is by Gods donation or grant yet to argue therefore it must be by a promise such as Mr. B. asserts follows not it being no good argument which is drawn affirmatively from the genus to the species it must be by Gods gift or grant ergo bâ— promise Yea according to Mr. B. here a promise confers onely a future right and therefore it doth not make actually visible Church-members without some further act and therefore not the promise or Covenant of God is the next adequate cause of it but some other act of God and consequently there is another possâ—ble yea manifest way without the promise of it upon condition of parents faith which Mr. B. asserts But Mr. B. saith 2. God hath expresly called that act a Covenant or promise by which he conveyeth this right which we shall more fully manifest anon when we come to it Answ. These aâ—e but words as will appear by that which followes The 2d Proposition saith Mr. B. to be proved is that there was a law or precept of God obâ—iging the parents to enter their children into Covenant and Churchmembership by accepting of his offer and re-engaging them to God And this is as obvious and easie as the former But first I shall in a word here also explain the terms The word law is sometimes taken more largely and unfitly as comprehending the very immanent acts or the nature of God considered without any sign to represent it to the creature So many call Gods nature or purposes the Eternal Law which indeed is no law nor can be fitly so called 2. It is taken properly for an authoritative determination de debito constituendo vel confirmando And so it comprehendeth all that may fitly be called a law Some define it Jussum maâ—estatis obliganâ— aut ad obedientiam aut ad paenam But this leaves out the praemiant part and some others So that of Grotius doth Est regula actionum moralium obligans ad id quod rectum est I acquiesce in the first or rather in this which is more full and exact A law is a sign of the Rectors will constituting or confirming right or dueness That it be a sign of the Rectors will de debito constituendo vel confirmando is the general nature of all laws Some quarrel at the word sign because it is logical and not political As if politicians should not speak logically as well as other men There is a two-fold due 1. What is due from us to God or any Rector and this is signified in the precept and prohibition or in the precept de agendo non agendo 2. What shall be due to us and this is signified by promises or the praemiant part of the law and by laws for distribution and determination of proprieties All benefits are given us by God in a double relation both as Rector and Benefactor or as Benefactor regens or as Rector benefaciens though among men that stand not in such a subordination to one another as we do to God they may be received from a meer benefactor without any regent interest therein The first laws do ever constitute the debitum or right afterward there may be renewed laws and precepts to urge men to obey the former or to do the same thing and the end of these is either fullier to acquaint the subject with the former or to revive the memory of them or to excite to the obedience of them And these do not properly constitute duty because it was constituted before but the nature and power of the act is the same with that which doth constitute it and therefore doth confirm the constitution and again oblige us to what we were obliged to before For obligations to one and the same duty may be mulâ—iplied 3. Some take the word law in so restrained a sence as to exclude verbal or particular precepts especially directed but to one or a few men and will onely call that a law which is witten or at least a well known custome obliging a whole society in a stated way These be the most eminent sort of laws but to say that the rest are no laws is vain and groundless against the true general definition of a law and justly rejected by the wisest politicians That which we are now to enquire after is a precept or the commanding part of a law which is a sign of Gods will obliging us to duty of which signs there are materially several sorts as 1. by a voice that 's evidently of God 2. by writing 3. by visible works or effects 4. by secret impresses as by inspiration which is a law onely to him that hath them Answ. Mr. B. undertook to explain the terms and he onely and that unnecessarily and tediously explains one term to wit law which was not the term in my Letter to which his Proposition was to be opposed but the word precept whereas he should have explained what he meant by the parents entring their children into Covenant and Churchmembership and what offer he meant they were to accept and how and how they were to engage them to God and how this entring accepting re-engaging did confer the benefit of visible Church-membership to their children and what precept it is that is unrepealed distinct from the precept of Circvmcision which I presume he doth not hold unrepealed All these were necessary to have been distinctly set down that I might have known his meaning and thereby have known whether his assertion
apprehend him to be their enemy they abhor the very name and remembrance of him If they do but dream of him it terrifieth them they are afraid of seeing him in any apparition If they know any temptation to be from him so far they dislike it and abhor it though for the thing presented they may cherish it This is not special saving grace but this is a great advantage to the work of special grace and to our more effectual resisting of temptations and entertaining the help tâ—at is offered us against them when our very natures have an enmity to the diabolical nature we now look on him as having the power of death as Gods executioner and our destroyer and malicious adversary And if there be any Witch or other wicked person that hath contracted such familiarity amity with him as that this natural enmity is thereby overcome that proveth not that it was not naturally there but that they by greater wickedness are grown so far unnatural 5. As this enmity is established in the nature of mankinde against the diabolical nature so is there a further enmity legally proclaimed against the diabolical pravity malignity and works Vide Pareum in locum God will put an enmity by his Laws both natural and positive making it the duty of mankinde to take Satan for their enemy to resist and use him as an enemy and fight against him and abhor his works and so to list themselves under the General that fighteth against him to take his colours and to be of his Army And this being spoken of the common world of mankinde and not onely of the elect for it is not they onely that are obliged to this hostility and warfare belongeth to each one according to their capacities and therefore infants being at the parents disâ—ose it is they that are to list them in this army against the enemy of mankinde of which more anon 6. A third and higâ—er enmity is yet here comprehended and that is an habitual or dispositive enmity against the diabolical malignity pravity and works which may bee called natural as it is the bent or bias of our new nature This God giveth onely to his chosen and not to all And it containeth not onely their consent to list themselves in his army against satan but specially and properly a hatred to him as the Prince of unrighteousness and a cordial resolution to fight against him and his worâ—s universally to the death with a complacency in God and his service and souldiers Hâ—re take a short prospect of the mysterious blessed Trinity As God is one in three and in his entity hath unity verity and goodness and in his blessed nature hath posse scire velle power wisdome and love so as from these is he related both to his created and redeemed rational creatures as absolute proprietary as soveraign ruler and as most gracious benefactour As Lord of our nature he hath put the foresaid enmity between the humane nature and the Diabolical As soveraign Ruler he hath by legislation imposed on us a further enmity as our duty that we should be listed in his army profess open hostility against satan and fight against him to the death As Benefactor he giveth special grace to do this to his chosen As he is Lord of all so the first is done on the natures of all As he is Rector of all but not by the same Laws as to positives so he obligeth all to this hostility but not all as he doth those that hear the Gospel As he is Benefactor he doth with his own as he list and makes a difference If any say that it is the same enmity that is here said to bee put in all and therefore the same persons in which it is put I answer 1. there 's no proof of either A general command or promise to a community may signifie a difference of duties or gifts to that community though that difference be not expressed For the nature of the subject may prove it And 2. experience of the fulfilling of this promise or covenant proves the difference before mentioned And it 's well known 1. That Moses is so concise in the History of these matters 2. And that the mystery of grace was to bee opened by degrees and so but darkly at the first that it is no wonder if we find the whole sum of the Gospel here coucht-up in so narrow a room and if each particular be not largely laid open before our eyes 7. That wee may certainly know that this promise speaks not onely of the enmity that Christ himself should have to satan and doth not engage a General without an army God doth here expresly mention the woman her self saying I will put enmity between thee and the woman so that as shee stood in a threefold respect she is here her self possessed with this threefold enmity 1. As she is the root of humane nature from whence all mankinde must spring she is possest with the natural enmity to the diabolical nature and this to bee naturally convayed or propagated 2. As she was the root of the great Republick of the world or that rational society which God as Rector would sapientially govern and her self with her husband who no doubt was also included in the promise were the whole then existent race of mankinde so did she receive a legal enmity of obligation which she was traditionally to deliver down to all her posterity being her self hereby obliged to list her self and all her infant progeny in the Redeemers army against the proclaimed enemy and to teach her posterity to do the like For thus obligatory precepts must be brought down 3. As she was one of the chosen favourites of God she received the habitual enmity of sanctification And this is not in her power to propagate though shâ—e may use some means that are appointed thereto and whether a promise of any such thing be made to her seed on the use of such means I will not now stand to discuss 8. It is not all that are possessed with the natâ—raâ— enmity against the Divel himself that are the Church of Christ For this is but a common preparative which is in all Nor is it all that are obliged to the further enmity against the works of satan But all that on that obligation are duely listed in Christs army against satan by the obliged person are visible members and all that are by sanctification at a hearty enmity habitual or actual with the Kingdome of satan are members of the Church called mystical or invisible This I put as granted 9. Those that violate this fundamental obligation and to their natural pravity shall add a fighting against Christ and his Kingdome for Satan and his Kingdome are become themselves the seed of the Serpent And though they had the natural enmity with the rest of mankind in general against Satan yet have they therewithal the habitual enmity against Christ. This much I suppose as out of
let her not leave him that is there is no necessity that he should put her away that she should leave him conscience and duty to God ties them not to do so and this sense seems most probable to me though I reject not the other if some limitation more be added as thus let him not put her away nor shee leave him that is I forbid them to leave each other barely for the disparity of religion Now the reasons of this later explication are these 1. Because the phrase v. 15. let him depart is not an absolute command but a permission as the words following a brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases shew and the like is to bee said of the resolution v. 17. so let him walk that is so hee may walk and that it is the sense I gather from the instances in the following verses whereby the Apostle illustrates his determination v. 17. Is any man called being uncircumcised v 18. let him not become uncircumcised Is any called in uncircumcision let him not be circumcised Which speeches do not absoluâ—ely forbid the drawing up the fore-skin or the cutting it off there might bee cases in which either might be lawful but leave it at liberty and so much the words â—ollowing also intimate circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing but the keeping the commandements of God which expression intimates the iâ—differency of these and the non availing to ingratiate us to God which is not a fit reason for an absolute prohibition but for a determination concerning the liberty of either Then the Apostle v. 20. repeats his determination v. 17. Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called which though true of it is not meant of his â—hristian general calling as if he had said Let every man abide in Christianity wherein he was called which the words seem at first râ—ading to import for the words following v. 21. Art thou called being a servant do shew that the term calling v. 20. notes thâ— state of life antecedent to his being a Christian which by an elegant â—ntanaclasis is termed by the Apostle his calling And this the Apostle doth not enjoyn so as that he forbids any servant to be free but the meaning iâ— as Diodati in his Annot. rightly expounds it He may abide therein with a safe conscience and ought not rashly to change it neither through superstition nor by doing another any wrong but if he can do it for any just causes or through any lawfull means it is then lawfull for him to do it The same is repeated v. 24. and is to be understood not as oft preachers do understand it of a mans trade or imployment onely and as an absolute command that a man should not leave his iâ—ployment trade or function in which he was bred as of a tradesman to become a preacher c. but the calling is any state of life in which the person was found who was called to be a Christian as to be circuâ—cised or uncircuâ—cised a servant or freeman married or unmarried subject or Magistrate and so proves that Magistracy or any other state of life is consistent with Christianity And the Apostles determination is not of necessiâ—y as if a Christian might not alter the calling or state of life he was in when he was converted for then the servant might not become free nor the unmarried marry but of liberty that Christians should not think themselâ—es bound by their Christian profession to forsake these estates but they might continue in them And so is the resolution v. 12 13. to be expounded 2. This exposition is agreeâ—ble to the occasion of the Apostles determination which was the Corinthian Christians doubt of the lawfulness of their living together not of the inconvenience or convenience for in that they could have best resolved themselves and so the Apostles resolution is of the lawfulness of living together 3. This is further confirmed from the reason of his determination v. 12 13. in the first part of v. 14. which is apparently set down to meet with the reason of their doubt they thought that they might not live with the unbeliever because unholy The Apostle on the contrary determines though hee were unholy in himself yet he was to his wife as if hee had been holy and the reason is thus The wife may live with him as her husband who though an unbeliever is in respeâ—t of marriage use as if he were sanctified But so is the unbelieving husband Ergo. Which reason cannot be a meer Rhetorical argument to move the affection for it supposeth the unbeliever continuing such which was their vexation but an argument to satisfie their consciences Yet not of their duty that they must live together for it is heterogeneous to that end they were not bound to live together by reason of the sanctifiedness of the unbeliever buâ— Gods command which alone makes duty but of the lawfulness notwithstanding his infidelity by determining against the ground of their doubt the unlawfulness of living together with an unsanctified infidel As for the words following Else were your children unclean but now are they holy they cannot be the resolution of another doubt but 1. the forms of expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 else or otherwise and but now do plainly shew that those words do confirm what was said next before the unbelieving wife is sanctified to the husband 2. They shew that the thing was certain even to them that their children were not unclean and that it was absurd in their conceits that their children should be unclean Mr. Bl. himself saith Vindic. Faed pag. 323. Else implies a certainty that upon this account of sanctification of the parent from whom the ground of fear arose the children are holy a like certainty that were it not that they were thus sanctified they were unclean Which words do plainly set down the two propositions I conceived in the Apostles argument which Mr. Bl. terms a monster of absurdity for It is certain that upon this account of sanctification of the parent from whom the ground of fear arose the children are holy is equipollent to this All the children of those parents whereof one is sanctified to the other are holy and it is certain that were it not that they were thus sanctified they were unclean is equipollent to this none of the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified to the other are clean or holy and hereby their fear is confessed to have been about their own living together and the ground of it the imagined non sanctifiedness of the parent and that else doth imply a certainty of the childrens holiness upon this account of sanctification of the parent which evidently shews that the childrens holiness is a consequent of the parents sanctification and brought to prove it and not to resolve another doubt of them Yea it were ridiculous to resolve a doubt by a doubt to resolve them
bound by the precept Gen. 17.9 the former seal ceasing and another substituted to baptise their children This is as near as I well can gather it the force of Mr. Cs. discourse Against which I except 1. That the term everlasting possession Gen. 17.8 doth not prove it to bee meant of another Canaan then that part of the earth which the Israelites possessed For besides places before alledged wherein the terms everlasting and for ever are vsed for a time of some few ages and shorter Numb 25.13 God promiseth a Covenant of an everlasting Priesthood to Phinehas and his seed after him and yet we know that Priesthood was to cease Heb. 7.12 It is promised Ier. 35.19 that Ionadab the son of Rechab should not want a man to stand before God for ever and yet this could be true onely of some ages Therefore Mr. Cs. reason is of no force from the term everlasting to infer the extent of that promise to the N. T. Nor indeed can the reason be good For if it were then God should not promise at all the possession of the earthly Canaan in that place But that is manifestly false for the Text saith Gen. 17.8 that God would give to Abraham and his seed the land of Canaan wherein Abraham was then a stranger which can be understood of no other then that part of earth which is elsewhere called the land of the Canaanites Perâ—zites Jebusites c. I deny not that in the latent sense there may be a promise of eternal life to Abrahams spiritual seed though I find no passage in the N. T. so expounding the promise Gen. 17.8 yet sure it is but bold presumption to build any doctrine on an allegory not expounded so by the Holy Ghost and it is in mine apprehension a great usurpation of the Divine prerogative to impose duties on men consciences by arguments drawn from such devised senses 2. That Mr. C. builds his inference upon the conjunction therefore Gen. â—7 9. which though it be so in the English translation yet is it in Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendred by the Tigur And thou by Pareus But thou by Piscator Thou verily which is enough to shew there is no strength in Mr. Cs. inference sith there is no firm ground on which it rests 3. But were it granted that therefore Gen. 17.9 were the onely reading and that the command is to be meant also of Abrahams spiritual seed even in our days yet that the inference of the command v. 9. should be onely from the promise v. 8. or v. 7. and not also from the promises v. 4 5 6 I know no goâ—d reason iâ— or can be given 4. Were it that there could be good reason given thereof yet sith the promise v. 8. is mixt containing both spiritual promise if Mr. C. be in the right and promise pecuâ—iar to the natural seed of Abraham me thinks the precept should be onely to that spiritual seed which is also natural and not bind the Gentile believers sith they have no part of the promise as it concerns the pâ—ssession of the earthly Canaan from which the duty is inferred as well if not onely as from the promise of the heavenly Canaan 5. But were all that Mr. C. would have here granted that the term everlasting possession v. 8. proves it meant of the times of the N. T. that therefore v. â— proves the command extends to the spiritual seed now that it is from the promise v. 7. or 8. not from the rest v 4 5 6. that it is to Gentile believers now and not peculiar to Israel after the flesh yet sure if the promise bâ— the reason of the command and the commandâ— belongs to them to whom the promise belongs it belongs to no other and therefore to none but elect persons to whom that promise is made no meere professours of faith are bound to keep Gods Covenant by vertue of the promise sith no promise is made to them 6. Were this also granted that the command is to every professour of faith to keep the Covenant as is enjoyned v. 9. then it remains still as a duty for every professour of Christian faith to circumcise his males of eight days old which is contrary to Christianity For there is no other thing commanded there then Circumcision But to prevent this Mr. C. saith It is to be observed that this command of God is primarily fixed upon the general duty namely the Covenant to be kept and not upon this or that way of keeping either by circumciâ—â—ng or baptizing so as the circumcising of the child came under the command onely upon this because it was declared then to be the token of the Covenant and by the words it is supposed that when it should cease to be the token of the Covenant it should no longer be a duty and what else by the same authority should be made the token of the same Covenant would be the duty in stead thereof Mark the words he doth not say Thou shalt therefore circumcise every man-child among you as a token of the Covenant between me and you for so had that been made the token for perpetuity to have continued so long as the Covenant it self But 1. in general he saith v. 9. that is they should observe and perform the token of the Covenant whatever that prove to be and he addeth in the 2 d. place v. 10 14. therefore as I said as for Circumcision that was a duty onely upon those words declaring that to be then the token Circumcision is now abolished yet the command of keeping the token of Abrahams Covenant is still in force and binding to Abrahams spiritual seed in their Generations therefore what is now the token of that Covenant must be observed in stead thereof Answ. No wise and just Law-giver would ever make such a command of a general duty concerning ceremonies or rites then undetermined but to be determined two thousand years after Thou shalt keep my Covenant that is what ceremony I shall now appoint thee or what I shall hereafter appoint when I take that away such indefinite dis-junctive commands so ambiguous un-intelligible to be understood at one time one way at another time another way are so like Delphick jugling answers as that I dare not ascribe them to the Almighty Many absurdities follow on this conceit of Mr. C. which I have before set down For present these arguments from the Text are against it 1. There is nothing enjoyned Gen. 17.9 but what Abraham was enjoyned in his own person to do as well as his seed after him in their generations this is proved from the express words And God said unto Abraham thou shalt keep my covenant therefore and again thou and thy seed after thee in their generations twice is this imposed on Abraham distinctly named and the term therefore spectially applied to him and after with difference from yet with his seed so that to deny this is to deny it's light
the token of Abrahams Covenant and yet the command Gen 17.9 â—0 1â— 12 13 4. bindâ—th not Nor is the other speech true For by the same authority according to Mr. C. the Passeover the Lords Supper were made tokens of the same Covenâ—â—t and yet â—or duties in stead of Circumcision 7. If when circumcision ceased there was 〈◊〉 be a duty in stead thereof by vertue of the command Gen. 17.9 and because of the promise of an everlasting possession v. 8. it must extend to the New Testament to the spiritual seed and be of a spiritual blessing by the same reason Circumcision being made an everlasting covenant v. 14. the command Gen. 17.9 should be of a spiritual keeping of Gods Covenant and the Circumcision that comes in the stead of Circumcision in the flesh should be Circumcision of the heart and obedience which the New Testament seems to intimate Rom. 2.26 28 29. 1 Cor. 7.19 Phil. 3.3 Col. 2.11 8. It is supposed but not proved that Baptism is in stead of Circumcision But Mr. C. thinks to prove it onely by the way he takes in to illustrate his conceit about Gen. 17.9 something about the Sabbaâ—h Exod. 20.8 11. of which he saith thus The like manner of institution we have concerning the Sabbath therefore those who deny infant Baptism oftentimes deny the Sabbath and not without cause for there is the same reason of both and we may illustrate the one by the other The Lord intended in time to change the day from the 7th day to the first of the week as he intended in time to change the token of Abrahams Covenant Therefore in the 4th Commandment also the command is not primarily fixed upon the 7th or any day to be remembred and kept holy but upon the general duty that the rest day of the Lord be remembred and kept holy what ever that day fall to be Remember the Sabbath day that is the rest day to keep it holy and the Lord blessed the rest day and sanctified it And the remembrance and keeping of the 7th day is in the Commandment made a duty for this reason because that was declared to be then the day wherein God had entred into his rest after his making of the world And upon the same account when after the travel of his soul in the new creation he entred the second time into his rest as is declared that he did Heb. 4.9 10. because that was upon the first day of the week when he rose from the dead therefore by vertue of that command Remember the rest day to keep it holy the first day of the week is now to be remembred and kept holy in as much as that is now the rest day of the Lord our God as formerly the 7th day Answ. That those who deny infant Baptism do not or need not deny the Sabbath is shewed in my Examen part 2. sect 8. in my Praecursor sect 15. in the second part of my Review sect 3. and what Mr. C. haâ—h said for his opinion of inferring the Lords day Sabbath from Heb. 3 4. hath been examined before and shewed insufficient for his purpose That which now he brings from his conceit of the command Exod 20.8 11. is to me very doubtfull and yet were it certain would not answer Mr. Cs. expectation His conceit is doubtfull to me for these reasons 1. because if his conceit were right when it is said Remember the Sabbath day and the Lord blessed the Sabath day the term Sabbath day should be conceived as a genus or species comprehending under it the rest day of the Jews and the Christians and such other rest days as God should appoint to be observed Bâ—t against this are these things 1. That I find not where the term Sabbath day is meant or applied to any other then the 7th day of the week I grant that other days are termed Sabbaths Sabbaths of rest Levit. 23 24 32 29. but no where that I yet find is any day besides the last of the week termed the Sabbath day 2. The blessing of the Sabbath day Exod. 20.11 was the same with the blessing Gen. 2.3 For it is a narration of what God did in the beginning and that day was the seventh in order after the six days in which he created his work 2. Me thinks the Evangelist Luke 23.56 when he saith they rested on the Sabbath day according to the commandment which commandment is that Exod. 20.8 11. and that Sabbath being by the confession of all the last day of the week doth plainly expound the fourth Commandment of that particular Sabbath which was the seventh day in order from the creation and the last day of the week I confess there are difficulties from this exposition concerning the evacuating of the fourth Commandment which being besides my present business I shall not now insist on it being sufficient for my present purpose to shew why I conceive Mr. Cs. exposition doubtfull 2. Yet were hiâ— interpretation granted it would not serve his turn here For 1. keeping Gods Covenant Gen. 7.9 is without any example or colour of reason reâ—trained to seals as they are termed of the Covenant and made the genus to Circumcision and Baptism as the term Sabbath may be to all Festivals 2. If it were yet there is not the same reason of Circumcision and Baptism as of the Sabbath and the â—orns day the one being a moral command and the other meerly ceremonial 3 If the meaning were Gen. 17.9 that a duty were commanded in general to keep the token sign or seal of the Covenant then it is a command concerning any token of the Covenant the Passeover and Lords Supper as well as Circumcision and Baptism and if so then they are to be observed according to the rule there v. 10 11 12 13 14. and if so they are to be applied to male infants of eight days old as well as Baptism or according to the rules delivered in the institution of each rite and if so the command Gen. 17.9 10 11 12 13 14. will make nothing for infant Baptism unless it can be proved ouâ— of the institution and practise in the N. T. But to prevent this Mr. C. saith SECT LXXXI The succession of Baptism to Circumcision and their identity for substance to us is shewed to be unproved by Mr. Carter Mr. Marshal Mr. Church Dr. Homes Mr. Cotton Mr. Fuller Mr. Cobbet from Col. 2.11 12. or elsewhere 2ly FOr answer further it is to be considered that Baptism is now in the room of Circumcision and is the very same for substance to us as Circumcision was to them before Christ namely the token and seal of that Covenant made with Abraham and his seed as appeareth Gal 3.27 29. As many of you as have been baptixed into Christ have put on Christ. And if ye be Christs then are ye Abrahams seed and heirs according to the promise By which we see that whatever we have as Abrahams
true believers are termed the Circumcision in opposition to the Judaizing Teachers termed befor v. 2. the concision by a figure of speech termed Eutelism or slighting them in that in which they gloried and they are termed the Circumcision because they were truly circumcised before God in heart and were his people And the Jews 1 Cor. 12.13 are said to be baptized no otherwise then the Gentiles who believed who were not circumcised in the flesh and therefore could not be termed baptized because circumcised but Christian believers whether Jews or Greeks bond or free are all said to be baptized and to be made to drink because they were baptized with water and did partake of the Lords Supper as 1 Cor. 10.17 Mr. C. adds more of these toys Hence first instituted for a seal to the circumcised Jews to shew it was in the essentials of sealing Abrahams covenant to them but the same with circumcision in a manner onely as that sealed it to them visibly in Christ as to come this did it in like sort in reference to Christ as come that was the seal of the righteousness of Abrahams faith or that whereon his faith acted to righteousness of justification Rom. 4.11 even the promise of grace in Christ Rom. 10.6 7. with Deut. 30.14 Wherein 1. he dictates without any pretence of proof that Baptism was first instituted to the Jews to shew that which he says nor is there the least intimation thereof in Scripture 2. He seems to me to unsay by his limitation in a manner what he said before it was the same in the essentials For that which is the same in the essentials is altogether the same and not in a manner 3. It is false that baptism was the same in the essentials of sealing Abrahams covenant to the Jews with circumcision For it was as much in the essentials of sealing Abrahams Covenant to the Jews if I may use Mr. Cs. gibberish that Circumcision sealed the promise of the land of Canaan Gen. 17.8 9 10 c. as that it sealed Christ to come but surely Baptism never sealed the promise of the land of Canaan 4 That which I find of the seal of the righteousness of faith Rom. 4.11 is meant of Abrahams personal Circumcision and of no other and therefore is inepâ—ly applied to prove sameness of sealing of others Circumcision and Baptism 5. I conceive it somewhat inconsiderately said that Circumcision was the seal of the righteousness of Abrahams faith which would impâ—y that it assured that Abraham faith was righteous whereaâ— the meaning is that it assured that Abraham had righteousness by faith before he was circumcised as v. 10. he had asserted 6. The other explication is worse for it iâ—timates as if the Apostle meant that the righâ—eouâ—ness of faith ascribed to Abraham is to termed as that whereon his faith aâ—ted to righteousness of justification even the promise of gâ—ace in Christ whereas the meaning is not that it sealed the righteousness he was to obtain by acting faâ—th in a promise but that it was a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had many years before he was circumcised Mr. C. goes on in the same vâ—in of dictating thus Hence when Christ is called the minister of circumcision it is thus explained by the end of the sign administred â—cil to confirm the promises made unto the Fathers Rom 15.8 Act. 7.8 Gen. 17. â—1 Which speech seems to intimate as if Christ were termed the minister of circumcision as if he did minister Circumcision to that end to confirm the promises But that is too absurd for such a man to vent sith he ministrâ—d â—ircumcision to none and the meaning is plain that he was the minister of circumcision that is of the circumcised jews among whoâ—â—he preached and lived as Peter is said Gal. 2.8 to have had the Apostleshâ— of the circumcision that is of the circumâ—ised Jews And in this sense â—eza Willet Diodati the new Annot. Dicson Piscator c. expound it Now this being promised it is eaâ—â—e to percâ—ive how iâ—perâ—inently this â—ext wâ—ich mentions not at all Baptism nor any use of Circumcision at all but onely the end of Christs ministery among the circumcised is alledged to prove that Baptism agâ—ees in the essentials with circumcision as an initiatory seal The Texts Act. 7.8 Gen 17 1â— aâ—eas little tâ— the purpose there bâ—ing no mention of Baptism and they onely proving what is not denied that Circumcision was the token of Abrahamsâ—ovenant â—ovenant As little is that wâ—ich follows Hence the promise premised and then Baptism annexed as the seal Act. 2.38 For neither is it proved that the promise there is the same with Abrahams Covenant and how piâ—â—ifully Mr. C. mistakes the meaning of it is shewed before sect 22 23. nor a word about Baptism as a seal annexâ—d to the pâ—omise but an exhortation to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins and â—ssurance of the gift of the Holy Ghost which are annexed to repentance as much as to baptism What he adds Hence that washing annexed to the word Ephes. 5.25 26. But that the word there is the word of promise much less of Abrahams Covenant Gen. 17 or that it is mentioned as sealed by Baptism or thaâ— therein it agrees with Circumcision is not proved The word is the Gospel preached by which men are made believers and then baptized and so purified as Act. 15.9 Tit. 3.5 Act. 20.32 26.18 Job 3.15 17.17 c. Nor is it any more pertinent which follows 2. Saith he Itâ—s a baptizing in the name or covenant-fellowship of God the Father Son and Spirit he having exalted his word above all his name Psal. 138.2 Wherein 1. he seems to expound baptizing Matth. 28.19 into the name of the Father Son and Spirit thus into the Covenant-fellowship which is somewhat strange there being neither there nor elsewhere where the like phrase is used any mention of Covenant or Covenant fellowship and his arguing God hath exalted his word above all his name Psal. 138.2 Ergo baptizing is in the name and Covenant-fellowship of God the Father Son and Spirit is a baculo ad angulum 2. But were his exposition allowed yet what this is to prove that Baptism is a seal of the Covenant Gen. 17. or any other Covenant I am yet to divine Is baptizing all one with sealing is Covenant-fellowship all one with the Covenant 3. Saith he It 's a seal of the remission of sins and therefore of the promise tendering the same hence joyned Act. 2.38 39. Act. 22. But neither is the promise there joyned as a thing sealed by Baptism but as a motive to the duties of Repentance and Baptism nor is the remission of sins mentioned as sealed by Baptism but as a consequent obtained by Repentance and Baptism as conditions pre-required thereto nor is a seal of remission of sins all one with a seal of the Covenant 4. Saith he The
nature of it sheweth the same it being a Gospel Sacrament and that is a visible seal and the seal is to the Covenant hence called by the name Act. 7.8 1 Cor. â—1 25. Answ. 1. The term Sacrament as it is applied to the rites of Baptism and the Lords Supper is no Scripture term nor any other answerable to it in that use it 's a term as I said rightly in my Plea for Antipaedobaptists sect â— invented by the Latine Fathers meaning for that use Mr Craggs reply in his pamphlet termed The arraignment and conviction of Anabaâ—tism that it is used in the twelve tables in Tully pro Milone shews he had a mind to cavil rather then to answer fairly nor is the book throughout any other then a fardle of mistakings in Logick and meaning of Scripture and of cavils against my words mixt with much Poetical lightness and scoffing to which there 's no need I should return any more then the Archangels words The Lord rebuke thee 2. Nor is there any common nature of â—acraments that I know of delivered or intiâ—ated in Scripture either that of the Schoolmen out of Austin that they are visible signs of invisible grace or of the Protestants who are terme Calvinists that they are seals of the Covenant of grace And therefore Mr. C should first prove that to be of the nature of a Gospel Sacrament as the term is used afore he inferred so much as he doth from it 3 A seal it is true is to a Covenant sometimes and sometimes it is to a decree writ letter record of a thing done and so it is taken Rom. 4.11 where Abraham Circumcision is not said to be a seal of the Covenant wherein something further was promised but of the righteousness of faith which he had before attained 4. Act. 7.8 the Covenant of grace is not called by the name of a Gospel Sacrament but the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. is onely termed the covenant of circumcision because it was signified by it which was no Gospel but a Law rite The Cup in the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11.25 is termed the New Testament in Christs bloud wherein there seems to be an hypallage and inversion by the words as they are in Matth. ch 26.28 Mar. 14 24. and by considering that of the bread he spake thus this is my body and therefore the words of the cup seem to be most fitly thus placed and expounded this cup that is the wine in it is my bloud that is signifies my bloud which is the bloud of the New Testament that is by which the New Testament is dedicated as the old was by the bloud of calves and goats Heb. 9.18 19 20. Now herein is the notion rather of a Testament then of a Covenant and what is said is said of the cup onely in the Lords Supper not of Baptism Nor is it named the Covenant but the bloud of the New Testament or the New Testament in Christs bloud nor is the term seal there used and therefore there is not a word to prove Baptism to be in its nature a seal of the Covenant of grace in this or any other of the Texts Mr. C. alledgeth I pass over that which he saith secondly Baptism is an initiatory seal as agreeing with him in the position that Baptism is that which is to be first afore the Lords Supper though his phrases be misliked I agree with him also that Baptism being once administred needs never be renewed if done according to Christs institution Yet what I said Exam. par 2. sect 4. seems to me to stand good notwithstanding any thing here said by Mr. C. nor do I think it fit to question whether it be the onely initiatory seal The 6th Section contains nothing but dictates without proof and what is said by way of proof is answered either sect 38. c. in the animadversions on the 3d. ch of the first part of Mr. Cs. book or in answer to Mr. Carter sect 80. In which it is shewed that there is no reference made Gen. 17. to a Church Covenant distinct from the Covenant of grace nor any command given Gen. 17.9 10. to a Gentile believer and his seed nor any general law about an initiatory seal never repealed as Mr. C. and others fain And for his speech he useth that the Hebrew Church albeit quà such a political Church and national c. differ from congregational Churches yet qua visibilis Ecclesia politica ordinaria so it was essentially the same with ours it seems to intimate that the Church of the Hebrews though as such a political Church it was national yet not as a visible Church political and ordinary as if it were any otherwise a visible political ordinary Church then as such a Church And when he saith as a Church visible political ordinary it was essentially the same with ours he can mean it no otherwise then of the same numerical essence for as visible and political the essence is determined to hic nunc an universal generical or specifical Church is not visible and political But that is false sith if the persons be not the same they cannot have the same numerical essence Nor can he mean it that it is essentially the same with ours as visible in the same form of government for then he must make ours Pontificial nor in the same title to Church-membership for then he must make ours national nor can he avoid it if he will maintain this plea that the Jewish Church was essentially the same with ours and as their infants were circumcised as children of Churchmembers in a Church visible political ordinary which was national so ours upon the same reason are to bee baptized but that hee must set up a national Church by natural generation nor can they of N. E justifie their way of excluding such children from the Lords Supper for ignorance if they may for scandal The old objection which Mr. C. falsly terms cavil touching covenant females is not yet answered nor ever will be it will still infringe this universal proposition All that are in Covenant with reference to Church covenant are to have the initiatory seal for a time and so will also that of Jobs family which why it should not be counted a visible political ordinary Church as well as Abrahams house in his time I see not and if none are to be baptized but such as are in an ordinary visible political Church to abide how can they of N. E. baptize the infants of such Church-members as whether in N. E. or old do not abide but are quickly dissolved as we see by experience And if None but those who are in the covenant of grace in reference to Church covenant are to be baptized but though believers because in Rome or India they are not a formed matter of a political visible Church but they are as materia informis they are quoad homines actually without and not within any political