circumcision made without hands a better circumcision then the Jews was in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ. You say rightly First that the Apostle would take them off wholly from circumcision therefore not teach them that they had another Ordinance in stead of it by vertue of that command Secondly That the use of circumcision ingaged them to the use of the rest of the Jewish ceremonies and therefore that Baptisme succeeds not in the use of Circumcision Thirdly In Christ we are circumcised with a circumcision made without hands a better circumcision then the Jews was in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ and therefore we have circumcision not in another Ordinance but in Christ and his circumcision You go on and whereas the Jewish teachers would be ready to object that the receiving of the inward grace of circumcision did not make them so compleat as Abraham and his seed was because they also had an outward sensible signe whereby they might be further perswaded comforted and confirmed This is but a conceit that either the Jews were ready thus to object or the Apostle intended to answer such an objection The intent of the Apostle is to declare in what way and manner and by what means they became compleat in Christ to wit Baptisme and Faith whereby they had communion with Christ and so were compleat in him But you say To this he answers vers 12. that neither is this priviledge wanting to Christians who have as excellent and expresse a Sacrament of it being buried with Christ in Baptisme the effect whereof he there sets down and therefore they needed not circumcision as their false teachers insinuated thereby directly teaching that our Baptisme is in stead of their circumcision It is true the Apostle teacheth them that they needed not circumcision but not because they had Baptisme in lieu of it but because all was in Christ now who hath abolished all these rites or taken them away quite vers 14. as being but shadows of good things to come and the body is of Christ vers 17. in whom and in that which befell him all was accomplished And Aretius therefore in his Comment on Colos. 2. saith rightly in this not a rem ipsam vindicari sanctis sine externo symbolo quod tamen indesinenter urgebant adversâ—rii sâ—c Rom. 2.29 Phil. 3.3 Atque hoc beneficium in Christo habemus est igitur perfectum organum salutis note that the thing it self is asserted to the Saints without an outward symbole which yet the adversaries incessantly urged so Rom. 2.29 and Phil. 3.3 and this benefit we have in Christ he is therefore a perfect organ of salvation so that it is utterly against the Apostles scope and whole argument to say that therefore they needed not circumcision because they had another Ordinance in the room of it For the Apostles intent is plain to shew that Christ is in stead of Circumcision and all the rest of the Jewish ceremonies and the truth is by this doctrine that Baptisme is in stead of Circumcision the Apostles argument for the disanulling the Jewish ceremonies both here and Hebr. 9. 10.1 13. in the Epistle to the Galatians chap. 3. 4. and Ephes. 2. is quite evacuated who still useth this argument to prove the abolition of the ceremonies of the Law because they have their complement in Christ not in some new Ordinance added in stead of them for if there be need of other Ordinances besides Christ in stead of the old then Christ hath not in himself fulnesse enough to supply the want of them and this abolition is not because of Christs fulnesse but other Ordinances that come in stead of the abolished And indeed Baptisme and the Lords Supper though they be Ordinances of Christ that may imitate or resemble the Ordinances of the Jews yet it cannot be said they succeed into the roome place or use of them For Christ only and that which he did doth so succeed So that if things be well weighed this Text is against your Position not for it and so your Ordinance is turned against you You go on And the Analogy lies between two sacramentall types of the same substance regeneration to both Jews and Gentiles I deny not but that there is Analogy between Circumcision and Baptisme and so there is between the Deluge and Noahs Ark or deliverance from the Deluge and Baptisme 1 Pet. 3.21 they do resemble each other in some things But we are not to conclude thence that Baptisme succeeds into the roome place and use of Noahs Ark or that therfore we are to baptize married persons only because in Noahs Ark only married persons were saved For in the administration of an Ordinance we are not to be ruled by bare Analogy either framed by us or delivered by the Spirit of God but the institution of God But the truth is in this place Col. 2.11 12. the Apostle rather resembles buriall to circumcision then baptisme and so makes the Analogy not between Circumcision and Baptisme but circumcision and Christs buriall And so Chrysostome on the place and after him Theophylact 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what he calls circumcision he again calls buriall You proceed thus And in truth had not baptisme come in the roome of it the Apostle could not have pitched upon a worse instance then Circumcision which was so much valued by them and was so great and usefull a priviledge to them It is true circumcision was a great and usefull priviledge to them in that estate they were before Christs incarnation in comparison of Heathens who had not a School-master to bring them to Christ yet absolutely it was a burthen and heavie yoak Act. 15.10.28 and it would be a burthen not a priviledge for us to have an Ordinance in the roome place and use of it now Christ is come in whom we are compleat And it is true the Apostle pitched on circumcision vers 11. because the Jews much valued it but not to shew as you say that Baptisme is in the roome plâ—ce and use of it but to shew that in Christ we have circumcision and are compleat in him You close up this conclusion thus Nor had there been any reason to have here named Baptisme but that he meant to shew Baptisme to Christians was now in the roome of circumcision to the Jewes This is said with more confidence then truth For another reason is plain from the context that therefore Baptisme is named because it is one of the means by which Christians come to have communion with Christ and to be compleat in him which was the thing the Apostle intended in the 12th verse and therefore he joynes faith with Baptisme they being the two speciall means whereby we come to have communion with Christ and to be compleat in him And this is further confirmed by comparing this with other Scriptures
he might sanctifie every age so that here Irenaeus speakes not of being borne againe by Baptisme for it is said who are borne againe by him that is by Christ. Not as if he had baptized infants but because he was an infant that by the example or vertue of his age he might sanctifie infants as the whole context will shew which is this Magister ergo existens Magistri quoque habebat aetatem non reprobans nec supergrediens hominem neque solvens suam legâ—m in se humani generis sed omnemâ—tatem sanctificans per illam quae ad ipsum erat similitudinem Omnes enim venit per seipsum salvare omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur in Deum Infantes parvulos pueros juvenes seniores Ideo per omnem venit aetatem infantibus infans factus sanctificans infantes in parvuliâ— parvuluâ— sanctificans hanc ipsam habentes aetatem simul exemplum illis pietatis effectus justitiae subjectionis In Iuvenibus Iuvenis exemplum Iuvenibus fiens Sanctificans Domino sic et senior in senioribus ut sit perfectus Magister non solum secundum expositionem veritatis sed secundum aetatem sanctificans simul seniores exemplum ipsis quoque fiens deinde usque ad mortem pervenit ut sit primogenitus ex mortuis ipse primatum tenens in omnibus princeps vitae prior omnium et praecedens omnes Which he confirmes by the testimony of Iohn the Apostle from whom he saith those that conversed with him related that Christ lived about fifty yeares which all sorts of writers doe reckon among Irenaeus his blemishes and thereby shew how little credit is to be given to the too much entertained Apostolicall traditions THe next Greeke Author is Origen who you say lived in the beginning of the third Century Perkins and Vsher place him at the yeare 230. but for his works as of old they were counted full of errours and dangerous to be reade so as now they are we can hardly tell in some of them what is Origens What not for the originall being lost we have only the Latine translation which being performed in many of his works and particularly the Homilies on Leviticus and the Epistle to the Romanes by Ruffinus it appeares by his owne confâ—ssion that he added many things of his own insomuch that Erasmus in his censure of the Homilies on Leviticus saith that a man cannot be certaine whether he reades Ruffinus or Origen and Perkins puts among Origens Counterfeit works his Comentary on the Epistle to the Romans as being not faithfully translated by Ruffinus the like is the judgement of Rivet and others and I suppose did you reade the passages themselves you cite and consider how they are brought in and how plaine the expressions are against the Pelagians you would quickly conceive that those passages were put in after the Pelagien heresie was confuted by Hierom and Augustine who often tells us that the Fathers afore that controversie arose did not speake plainly against the Pelagiens and of all others Origen is most taxed as Pelagianizing Wherefore Vossius in the place aforenamed though he cite him for company yet addes sed de Origene minus laborabimus quia quae citabamus Graece non extant But what saith the supposed Origen In one place that the Church received this tradition of baptizing infants from the Apostles in another according to the observance of the Church baptisme is granted to infants you adde as foreseeing that this passage would prove that then it was held but a tradition that then the greatest points of faith were ordinarily called traditions received from the Apostles and you cite 2 Thes. 2.15 To which I reply true it is that they did call the greatest points of faith though written traditions Apostolicall as conceiving they might best learne what to hold in points of faith from the Bishops of those Churches where the Apostles preached and therefore in prescriptions against Heretickes Tertullian Irenaeus and others direct persons to go to the Churches where the Apostles sate specially the Romane Church which seemes to have beene the seed of Appeals to Rome and the ground of the conceit which was had of the Popes unerring Chaire But it is tâ—ue also they called Apostolicall traditions any thing though unwriâ—ten which was reported to have come from the Apostles as the time of keeping Easter and many more which was the fountaine of all corruptions in discipline and worship And that in those places you cite is meant an unwritten tradition not only the not citing any Scripture for Baptizing of Infants but also the very Phrases Pro hoc et Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit Secundum Ecclesiae observantiam are sufficient proofe to them who are acquainted with the Ancients writings of those times So that yet you have not proved that the baptisme of Infants was time out of minde that it had beene received in the Church or was delivered over to the Church in Origens time and was of ancient use in the Church afore his time But these passages prove that in the time when the framer of those passages wrote it was accounted but an Apostolicall tradition according to the observance of the Church Like speeches to which are found in Pseudo-Dyonisius in the end of his Hierachy and Augustin lib. 10. de Genesi ad literam c. 23. and elsewhere which argue that it was held as an Ecclesiasticall tradition in those times THe fourth and last of the Greeke Church you name is Gregory Nazianzen who is by Perkins placed at the yeare 380. by Vsher 370. much short of 1500 yeares and upwards you say that Orat. 40. in Baptismum he calls baptisme signaculum vita cursum in euntibus and commands Children to be baptized though afterwards he seemed to restraine it to the case of necessity But doth he seeme onely to restraine it to the case of necessity the words are plaine that he gives the reason why Infants in danger of death should be baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they might not misse of the common grace but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he gives his opinion of others that they should stay longer that they might be instructed and so their minds and bodyes might be Sanctified and these are all you bring of the Greek Church By the examination of which you may perceive how well you have proved that it is manifest out of most of the Records that we have of antiquitie both in the Greeke and Latine Church that the Christian Church hath beene in possession of the priviledge of baptizing the infants of beleivers for the space of 1500. yeares and upwards Whereas the highest is but a bastard Treatise and yet comes not so high if it were genuine the next without a glosse which agrees not with the text speakes nothing to the purpose the third is of very doubtfull credit the fourth which was
them to him by his Spirit forgiving them their birth-sin through Christs obedience â—lthough they be not baptized As corrupt as the Schoolmen were they could say Gratia Dei non alligatur Sacramentis The grace of God is not tyed to Sacraments If most of the Anabaptists hold universall grace and free-will there may be as much said of most of the paedobaptists taking in a great part of the Papists almost all the Lutherans and Arminians and if they denyed originall sin it is their dangerous error but it is not consequent on their denying Paedobaptisme But the late confession of faith made â—n the name of 7. Churches of them in London Art 4 5 21 22 23 24 26. will abundantly answer for them in this point of Pelagianisme The third is Or that although they be tainted with originall corruption and so need a Saviour Christ doth pro bene placito save some of the infants of Turks and Indians dying in their infancy as well as some of the infants of Christians and so carry salvation by Christ out of the Church beyond the Covenant of grace where God never made any promise Nor doth this follow for it may be said all that dye in their infancy are not damned nor all saved because they have no birth-sin nor some of the Indians saved For the some that may be saved may be the infants of believers to whom God may forgive their birth-sin without baptisme Thus you may perceive how the push of all the horns of your horned Syllogisme may be avoyded But you conceive it a great absurdity to say That Christ doth pro bene placito save some of the infants of Indians it is true it is a bold saying to say he doth save them but â—is as bad to say that God may not save them pro bene placito according to his good pleasure He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy Buâ— then salvation by Christ is carried out of the Church where he hath made no promise if you mean by the Church the invisible Church of the elect the Church of the first-born that are written in heaven of which Protestant Divines as Morton de Ecclesia and others against Bellarmine understand that saying Extra Ecclesiam non est salus without the Church is no salvation then it follows noâ— that if the infants of Indians be saved salvation is carryed without the Church for they may be of the invisible Church of the elect to whom belongs the promise made to Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy seed But if you mean it of the visible though I disclaim Zuinglius his opinion who was a stiffe assertor of Paedobaptisme and I think the founder of the new way of maintaining it by the new addition to the Covenant of grace that Hercules Arist des Socrates Numa and such like heathens are now in heaven yet I cannot say no persons without the communion of the visiblâ— Church are saved He that could call Abraham in Vr of Chaldea Job in the land of Vz and Rahab in Jericho may save some amongst Turks and Indians out of the visible Church You will not call Rome a true visible Church nor will you I think say that all are damned that are in Rome You adde That God hath made a promise to be the God of believers and of their seed we all know If you know it yet I professe my ignorance of such a promise I reade indeed of a promise made to Abraham That he would be his God and the God of his seed and I reade That they that are of the faith of Abraham are the children of Abraham Gal. 3.7.29 Rom. 4.11 12 13 16. But I am yet to seek for that promise you speake of to be the God of believers and their seed You say But where the promise is to be found that he will be thâ— God of the seed of such Parents who live and die his enemies and theâ—â— seed not so much as called by the preaching of the Gospel I know not Nor do I. Only I know this I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion Rom. 9.15 which is the Apostles answer in this very case Thus have I entred your out-works I shall now try the strength of your walls I mean the third part of your Sermon Infant-baptisme cannot be deduced from holy Scripture PART III. Concerning the Arguments from Scripture for Infant-baptism YOu say My first argument to â—his The Infants of believing parents are foederati therefore they must be signati They are within the Covenant of Grace belonging to Christs body Kingdome Family therefore are to partake of the seal of his covenant or the distinguishing badge between them who are under the Covenant of grace and them who are not The ordinary answer to this argument is by denying that Infants are under the Covenant of grace only some few deny the consequence that although they were within the Covenant yet it follows not that they must be sealed because say they the women among the Jews were under the covenant yet received not circumcision which was the seal of the Covenant They that deny the consequence of your argument do it justly for the consequence must be proved by this universall All that are foederati must be signati all that are in the covenant of Grace must be sealed which is not true If it were true it must be so either by reason of some necessary connexion between the termes which is none for it is but a common accident to a man that hath a promise or a covenant made to him that he should have a speciall sign it may adesse vel abesse a subjecto it may be present or absent from the subject God made a speciall promise to Joshuah that he should bring Israel into the Land of Canaan to Phineas a covenant of an everlasting Priesthood without any speciall sign or seal distinct from the Covenant or else it must be so by reason of Gods will declared concerning the covenant of Grace but that is not true The promise made to Adam which you confesse was the same in substance with the covenant of Grace had no speciall sign or seal annexed to it Noah Abel were within the covenant of Grace yet no speciall sign appointed them therefore it is not Gods will that all that are foederati in the Covenant must be signati Sealed if they had been signati though they were foederati it had been will-worship God not appointing it to them But you will say all that are foederati should be signati since the solemn Covenant with Abraham But neither is this certain sith we finde no such thing concerning Melchizedeck and Lot that lived in Abrahams time nor concerning Job that it 's conceived lived after his time You will say but it is true of all the foederati in Abrahams family but neither is that true for male children before
did only contain the covenant of Grace in Christ whereas it is apparent ouâ— of the Text that the Covenant was a mixt Covenant consisting of temporall benefits to wit the multiplying of his seed v. 6. the possâ—ssion of Canaan v. 8. the birth of Isaac v. 16. and the spirituall blessings v. 5 7. Yea Cameron thâ—sibus de triplici foedere Dei thesi 78. saith That circumcision did primarily separate Abrahams seed from other Nations sealed the earthly promise it signified sanctification secondarily And indeed this is so plainly delivered in the Scripture that the Psalmist cals the promise of Canaaâ— the covenant made with Abraham Ps. 105.8 9 10 11. He hath remembred his Covenant for ever the word which he commanded to a thousand generations which Covenant he made with Abraham and his Oath unto Isaac and confirmed the same to Jacob for a Law and to Israel for an everlasting covenant Saying unto thee will I give the Land of Canaan the lot of your inheritance If you should say that these promises were types of spirituâ—ll and heavenly things the reply is that though it be true yet the things promised were but carnall and earthly as the Sacrifices were but carnall things though shadowes of spirituall 2. When you say thus The manner of administration of this Covenant was at first by types and shadowes and sacrifices c. It had been convenient to have named Circumcision that it might not be conceived to belong to the substance of the Covenant But of this there may be more occasion to speak at pag. 35. of your Sermon 3. Whereas pag. 14. you place among the third sort of Abrahams seed Proselytes that were selfe-justitiaries carnall and formall professors it behoved you to shew where in Scripture they are called Abrahams seed which I think you cannot Yea the truth is you herein joyn with Arminius who in his Analysis of the 9. to the Romans makes this as the ground of his wresting that Scripture that there is a seed of Abraham mentioned Romans 4.9 10. and Galat. 3. 4. cap. Qui per opera legis justitiam salutem consequuntur Who follow after righteousnesse and salvation by the works of the Law To whom Baine on Eph. 1.5 p. 139. answers Beside though the sons of the flesh may signifie such who carnally not spiritually conceive of the Law yet the seed of Abraham without any adjoyned is never so taken But it is yet stranger to me that which Mr. Blake hath pag. 9. where he saith That there yet remaines in the bosome of the Church a distinction of the seed of Abraham borne after the flesh and after the spirit And that now by vertue of being born after the flesh some have a Church-interest And applies that of Gal. 4 29. Even so it is now to children born of believing parents after the flesh as having there by title to Church-interest Which passages are very grosse though he makes this the medium of his fourth Argument For first whereas the Apostle by being born after the flesh means not infants born of believing parents but those that are under the covenant of Mount Sinai that is who sought righteousnesse by the law and not by faith Mr. Blake means by being born after the flesh birth by naturall generation of infants born of Christian parents 2. Whereas he saith that such are in the bosome of the Church the Apostle saith they persecute the Church and are cast out 3. Whereas â—e makes such Abrahams seed he therein joyns with Arminius against the truâ—h and against the Apostle for though the Apostle makes Ismael to be the son of Abraham and speaks of him as born after the flesh whom he typically makes to represent legall justitiaries yet doth he not call Abrahams seed simply such justitiaries 4. Whereas the covenant of grace is made the reason of baptizing infants by alleâ—ging this place for baptizing of infants To be born of Hagar that is to be in the covenant of works should give a child interest into the Church of Christ. For my part I can see no other consequence than this of that cloudy argument The rest of your explication of the first Conclusion I let passe without any further animadversions as being unwilling sectare minutias to insist on small things or to stand upon matters of expression where I think you mean right and your words are likely to be so taken YOur second Conclusion is this Ever-since God gathered a distinct number out of the world to be his Kingdom City household in opposition to the rest of the world which is the kingdom city and houshold of Sathan He would have the Infants of all who are taken into Covenant with him to be accounted his to belong to him to his Church and family and not to the Devils This Conclusion you expresse so ambiguously that it is a Cothurnus a buskin that may be put on either legge right or left which should not have been in the main Proposition upon which the whole frame of your Argument hangs You say The Infants of all who are taken into covenant with God are to be accounted his but you tell us not in what sense this is to be understood For whereas persons may be said to be accounted his either before God or in facie Ecclesiae visibilis in the face of the visible Church 1. Before God either in respect of his election from eternity or his promise of grace in Christ congruous to it Or of their present estate of inbeing in Christ or the future estate they shall have 2. In facie Ecclesiae visibilis persons may be said to be accounted God's either as born among his people and so potentially members of the Church as being in a way to be in time actuall members of the Church of Christ or who already enquire after God and professe Christ though they do not well understand the doctrine of Christian Religion such as the Catechumeni of old were or they are to be accounted his in respect of actuall participation of Baptisme and the Lords supper 3. The accounting of them to be God's may be either an act of science or faith or opinion and that grounded on a rule of charity of prudence or probable hope for the future You do not declare distinctly in which of these senses or respects the Infants of all who are taken into covenant with God are to be accounted his so that I am almost at a stand what to deny or grant It cannot be denied but God would have the infants of believers in some sort to be accounted his to belong to him his Church and family and not to the Devils which expression I fear you use in this and other places ad faciendum populum to please the peoplâ— It is true in facie Ecclesiae visibilis the infants of believers are to be accounted Gods to belong to his family and church and not to the Devils as being in a neer possibility of
this for the comfort of parents and such an Odium cast on Anti-paedobaptists for denying it and therefore I see not but your assertion if you do not revoke your plea for paedobaptisme must be conceived thus That God hath made a Covenant or promise of saving grace in Christ not only to believers but also to their seed whom you baptize for this reason The Author of the little book intituled Infants baptizing proved lawfull by Scripture pag. 3 4 5. Intâ—rprâ—ts the Covenant I will be thy God and the God of thy seed thus I will be the God of every believer and the God of every believers seed in respect of outward Church-priviledges to be members of the visible Church partakers of baptisme c. to the naturall seed in respect of inward and meerly spirituall to none but true Saints in whom the new creature is formed But I say againe Abraham or thee in that Covenant is put only for Abraham and not for evâ—ry believer For sith the Apostle plainly interprets believers to be Abrahams seed Rom. 4.13 16. Gal. 3.29 to say Abraham is put for any believer makes the speech to have an inept tautology I will be the God of Abraham that is of every believer according to that Authors sense and I will be the God of thy seed that is of every believer according to the Apostles sense And that in that Covenant should be a promise to us believing Gentiles That to our seed should be conferred visible Church-priviledges to be members of the visible Church partakers of baptisme c. is but a dream the Scripture no where explaining it so and being so understood were not true there being many of the seed of believers that neither de facto in event nor de jure of right have those visible Church privilâ—dges to be members of the visible Church partakers of bapâ—isme c. and if there were such a promise God could not take away the Candlestick from the posterity of believers which he threatens Rev. 2.5 George Philips vind of Infant bapt p. 37. Cals the Covenant an offer to become their God and all along supposeth infants under the Covenant because grace was offered in circumcision and they sealed because it was offâ—red But the Covenant is not an offer but a promise nor is a man under the Covenant of grace or in the Covenant of grace because an offer is made for then refusers might be said to be under the Covenant but because God hath promised or performed to them And if infants are to be bapâ—ized which is his ground because the Covenant is offered to them in baptisme then in effect it is to argue they are to be baptizâ—d because they are to be baptized which iâ— nugatory I hâ—ve discussed this matter more fully that I may shew you how doubtfull your speeches are and give you the reason why I set down this as your conclusion to be denyed by me That the Covenant of saving grace in Christ expressed Gen. 17.7 In thâ—se words I will be thy God and the God of thy seed is made to believers and their naturall seed Now I will shew you the reason why I take this to be an error and that very dangerous MY first reason is taken from the Apostle Rom. 9 6. c. in which place this very Text that is now the apple of our contention was brought into question Beza thus expresseth the question Qui fieri possit ut rejectus sit Israel quin simul â—onstituendum videatur irritum esse pactum Dei cum Abrahamo ejus semine sancitum I deny not but there was also some other promise included in that objection to wit some promise made to Israel or the house of Israel probably that Jer. 31.33 36.37 for so the words ver 6. They are not all Israel which are of Israel do intimate But without question the promise made to Abraham Gen. 17.7 was one which was included in that objection Beza Twisse Ames and others answering Arminius call it the Covenant of God with Abraham which was that Gen. 17.7 and the very phrase of Abrahams seed In Isaac shall thy seed be called ver 7. The children of the promise are counted for the seed ver 8. Sarah shall have a son ver 9. do evidently shew that the promise objected to prove that if the Jews were rejected from being Gods people then God failed in making good his word was that promise to Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Whereto I may adde that the Answerers of Arminius and the cited Remonstrants to wit Baine and Ames do say It was the word of promise not of the Law as Arminius conceived for the word of promise saith Ames Animadv in Remonstran script Synod de praedest cap. 8. Sect. 4. Is distinguished and opposed to the words of the Law Gal. 3.17 18. Now the word of the promise there is to Abraham and his seed ver 16. and this is there called by him verbum foederis the word of the Covenant Now let us consider how the Apostle answers it He denies that Gods word made to Abraham did fall though the Jews were rejected because that promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed as it coÌ„prehended saving grace was never meant by God of all Abrahams posterity or of any barely as they were descended from Abraham by natural generation but of the Elect whether descended by natural generation from Abraham or not And this is apparent both from the words v. 7. Neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children but in Isaac shall thy seed be called c. v. 8. It is expounded thus That is they which are the children of the flesh these are not the childâ—en of God but the children of the promise are counted for the seed Whence it is apparent that the same are not alwayes the seed by calling which are the seed of Abraham by naturall generation and that the children of the flesh are not the same with the children of promise and that the Apostle conceived this the right way of answering those that objected the falling of Gods word upon the rejâ—ction of the Jews by restraining the promise of being God to Abrahams seed only to the Elect whether of Abrahams naturall posterity or not with so little respect to any birth-right priviledge that he not only rejected Ismael and took Isaac but also loved Jacob and hated Esau by prophesie declaring his minde the elder shall serve the younger and in this the Apostle acquits God from unrighteousnesse in that He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy and whom he will he hardens notwithstanding his promise made to Abraham and Israel or any birth-right priviledge they could claime That I may not be thought to go alone in this I will recite some others concurring with me in this Dr. Twisse vind Grat. l. 1. part 3. digr 2. ArgumentuÌ„ Apostoli ad probanduÌ„
foedus dei inituÌ„ cum Abrahamo non omnes Abrahae posteros fimbria sua comprehendere sic simpliciter instituenduÌ„ esse censemus Esavus Jacobus erant ex posteris Abrahae at horuÌ„ utâ—uÌ„que non coÌ„plexus est Deus foedere suo cum Abrahamo inito ergo non omnes posteros Abrahami Probatur autem Deum non complexuÌ„ fuisse utruÌ„que foedere gratiae quiae non complexus est EsavuÌ„ majoreÌ„ sed JacobuÌ„ minoreÌ„ Bain on Eph. 1.5 p. 138. He answereth the assumption of the latter Syllogism by distinguishing of Israel children denying that al Israelites are that Israel to which Gods word belongeth or that all Abrahams seed are those children whoÌ„ God adopted to himselfe v. 7. but such only who were like Isaac first begotten by a word of promise and partakers of the heavenly calling The reason is to be conceived in this manner the rejecting of such who are not the true Israel nor belong not to the number of Gods adopted children cannot shake Gods word spoken to Israel and Abrahams seed but many of the Israelites and Abrahams seed aâ—e such to whom the word of God belonged not ergo the word of God is firm though they be rejected Pag. 139. A childe of the flâ—sh being such a one who descendeth from Abraham according to the flesh For it is most plaine that these did make them thinke thâ—mselves within the compâ—sse of the word because thâ—y were Israelites and the seed of Abraham in regard of bodily generation propagated from him and Arminius doth decline that in objecting and answering which this discourse consisteth Beside that though the sons of the flesh may signifie such who carnally not spiritually conceive of the Law yet the seed of Abraham without any adjoyned is never so taken The assumption which is to be proved is this That many of Abrahams seed are such to whom the word belongeth not The word which belonged not to Ishmael and Esau but to Isaac and Jacob only and such as were like to them that word belonged not to many of those who are the seed of Abraham and Israelites But the word shewing Gods love choice adoption blessing of Israel and Abrahams seed belonged not to Esau Ishmael and such as they were but to Isaac and Jacob. Amesius Animadv in Remonstr citat scripta Synod de Praeâ—estin cap. 8. § 6. thus expresseth the Apostles scope Multi sunt ex semine Abrahami ad quos verbum promissionis non spectat ut Ismael Ismaelitae si autem multi sunt ex semine Abrahami ad quos verbum promissionis non spectat tum rejectio multorum Judaeorum qui sunt ex semine Abrahami non irritum facit verbum promissionis Out of all which I gather if the naturall posterity of Abraham were not within the Covenant of grace by vertue of that promise Gen. 17.7 then much lesse are our naturall posterity but the former is true Rom. 9.6 7 8 9 10 11 12. therefore the latter is true and the contrary delivered in that which I conceive your â—ssertion false A second reason is this The Apostles Exposition of the promise shews us best what is the meaning of it but the Apostle when he expounds the promise of God to Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy seed as it was a promise of saving grace to wit justification and life expounds it as belonging to Abraham not as a naturall Father but as Father of the faithfull whether of the Jews or the Gentiles and his seed not his naturall but his spiriâ—uall seed Christ and believers Rom. 4.11 12 13 14 15 16 17. Gal. 3.7.16.29 Whence George Downham of Justification lib. 6. cap. 6. § 4. speakes thus The other promises concerning his seed are two The former concerning the multiplication of his seed that he should be a father of a multitude of Nations namely in Christ and that he would be a God to him and his seed he doth not say to seeds as of many but as of one to thy seed which is Christ Gal. 3.16 that is Christ mysticall 1 Cor. 12.12 Containing the multitude of the faithfull in all Nations both Jews and Gentiles This promise therefore implyeth the former that in Christ the promised seed Abraham himselfe and his seed that is the faithfull of all Nations should be blessed And in confirmation of this promise he was called Abraham because he was to be a Father of many Nations that is of the faithfull of all Nations for none but they are accounted Abrahams seed Rom. 9.7.8 Gal. 3.7.29 Thus he opens the Apostles meaning and thus frequently do Protestant Divines in their writings Now if only believers are in that promise as it was a promise of saving grace then it is not made to the naturall posterity as such of any believer much lesse of us Gentiles My third reason is this The Covenant of grace is the Gospel and so you call it pag. 37. when you say This is a part of the Gospel preached unto Abraham Now the Gospel preached to Abraham the Apostle thus expresseth Gal. 3.8 9. And the Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the heathen through faith preached before the Gospel unto Abraham saying in thee shall all Nations be blessed so then they which be of faith are blessed with faithfull Abraham and ver 11. But that no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God it is evident for the just shall live by Faith it is Hab. 2.4 By his faith And generally when Divines distinguish of the Covenant of grace and of workes they say the condition of the Covenant of grace is faith They then that say the Covenant of grace belongs not only to believers but also to their naturall children whether believing or not these adde to the Gospel and the Apostle saith of such Gal. 1.8 9. Let him be accursed Fourthly I thus argue If God have made a Covenant of grace in Christ not only to believers but also to their seed or naturall children then it is either conditionally or absolutely if conditionally the condition is either of works and then grace should be of works conâ—rary to the Apostle Rom. 11.8 or of Faith and then the sense is God hath promised grace to bâ—lievers and to their seed if believers that is to believers and believers which is nugatory If this Covenant of grace to believers seed be absolute then either God keeps it or not if he do not keep it then he breaks his word which is blasphemy if he do keep it then it follows that all the posterity of believers are saved contrary to Rom. 9.13 or if some are not saved though they be in the Covenant of grace there may bee Apostasie of persons in the Covenant of grace by which the Arguments brought by Mr. Prynne in his Perpetuity and others for perseverance in grace are evacuated and Bertius his Hymenaeus desertor justified The truth is generally to be in the Covenant
Gal. 3.25 26 27. the Apostle speaks thus But after faith is come we are no longer under a Schoolmaster meaning Circumcision c. For we are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ which Text is apparently answerable to Col. 2.8 9 10 11 12. And again Rom. 6.3 4 5. Know you not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death therefore are we buried with him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by baptisme into death that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father even so we also should walk in newnesse of life For if we have been planted together in the likenesse of his death we shall be also in the likenesse of his resurrection In which places you may easily perceive that by putting on Christ we come to be exempted from the Schoolmaster that is the Law and so from Circumcision that being planted into Christ we walk in newnesse of life that is as Rom. 7.6 that now we are delivered from the Law that being dead wherein we were held that we should serve in newnesse of spirit and not in the oldnesse of the letter and that the means hereof is by Baptisme by which we put on Christ and are baptized into his death and by faith whereby we are no longer children under age but sons come to their inheritance Thus have I at last waded through your third Conclusion and the Text Col. 2.11 12. the misunderstanding of which hath been the ignis fatuus foolish fire which hath led men out of the way in this matter into bogs YOur fourth Conclusion followes That by Gods own expresse order Infants as well as grown men were in the time of the Jews to be initiated and sealed with the signe of Circumcision whether Jews by nature or Proselytes of the Gentiles one Law was for them all if they receive thâ— Covenant they and their children were circumcised It is true this was Gods expresse order and it is as certain that this expresse order of God is now revoked or repealed Acts 15.10.20.26 Gal. 5.1 2 3. as belonging to that administration which was before Christ came That which you adde of the females virtuall circumcision in the males hath been examined before I passe on to that which followes And whereas some who see which way the strength of this Conclusion tendeth do alledge that though Circumcision was to be applyed to their Infants yet it was not as a seal of the spirituall part of the Covenant of Grace but as a nationall badge a seal of some temporall and earthly blessings and priviledges as of their right to the Land of Canaan c. And that Ishmael though he was circumâ—ised for some temporall respects yet he was not thereby brought under the Covenant of Grace which was expresly said to be made with Abraham in relation to Isaac and his seed They that thus object speak that which is truth only whereas you make the objectors say That it was not a seal of the spirituall part of the covenant of Grace I would say to all that were circumcised and when you say but as a nationall badge c. that Ishmael was circumcised for some temporall respects I would leave out those words and say because God commanded it Thus did I expresse my self in my Latin paper affirming that not right to Euangelicall promises I now adde nor right to any other benefit by the Covenant made with Abraham was the proper and adequate reason why these or those were circumcised but Gods Precept For as much as persons were to be circumcised who had no right either to the Euangelicall promises or any other in that Covenant which was confirmed by circumcision and I named Ishmael concerning whom though God heard Abraham in giving him some blessing upon Abrahams prayer when he understood the promise was not intended for Ishmael but to Isaac Gen. 17.19 20. yet he expresly added his determination to hold vers 21. that he would establish his Covenant with Isaac not with Ishmael and on the other side all the females in the Covenant were uncircumcised though some of them had right to all the promises in the Covenant and the Text expresly makes the reason of what Abraham did to be Gods appointment v. 23. and no other Wherefore those that say that Circumcision did not seal the spirituall part of the Covenant of Grace to all and that Ishmael was not by circumcision brought under the Covenant of Grace say no more then what the Apostle saith Rom. 9.6 7 8. Gal. 4.28 29. and your self pag. 13. where you say only true believers are made partakers of the spirituall part of the Covenant Now the end of this objection is to prove that it followes not because a person was appointed to be circumcised therefore he was within the Covenant of Grace or that because persons were within the Covenant of Grace therefore they were to be circumcised Let us now see what you answer to this You say I answer there is nothing plainer then that the Covenant whereof Circumcision was a signe was the Covenant of Grace It is granted that the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. was the Covenant of Grace though not a pure Covenant but a mixt covenant But what then Doth it follow that every one that was circumcised was in the Covenant of Grace It is true the sacrifices did confirm the Covenant in Christs blood but it doth not follow that all that did offer sacrifices were partakers of the Covenant The like may be said of Baptisme the Lords Supper Manna c. which they that did partake of yet were not all of them in the Covenant as the Apostle shews 1 Cor. 10.5 Heb. 3.18 19. It is one thing to be under the outward administration another thing to be in the covenant of Grace This is proper only to elect persons the other is common to Elect and Reprobate and depends meerly on Gods appointment without any other consideration You go on Abraham received circumcision a signe of the righteousnesse of Faith Very true and the Apostle expoundeth this when he saith which he had yet being uncircumcised that he might be the father of all them that believe though they be not circumcised that righteousnesse might be imputed to them also Rom. 4.11 So that the Apostle makes Circumcision a seal of righteousnesse but not to all or only circumcised persons but to all believers whether Jews or Gentiles so that according to the Apostles doctrine Circumcision in as much as it sealed to Abraham the righteousnesse of faith which he had being yet uncircumcised iâ— a seal to the Gentiles that believe of the righteousnesse of faith though they be never circumcised So that it is so far from being true that persons have the promise therefore they must have the seal in their persons that it followes persons
first conversion will subscribe to those speeches of yours when you say all who partake of that grace are but meer patients and contribute no more to it then a childe doth to its own begetting and therefore Infants as fit subjects to have it wrought in them as grown men and the most grown men are in no more fitnesse to receive this grace when it is given them in respect either of any faith or repentance which they yet have then a very little childe What doth the most grown man in any of these more then an Infant may do being only passive in them all If my memory deceive me not the Divines of great Britain at the Synod of Dort in their suffrage did set down some things which might be done in respect of faith or repentance when grace is given by grown men more then an Infant can do and so doth in like manner Mr. Rutherfurd The Triall and Triumph of Faith Serm. 14. pag. 109 110. And though you say The most grown men are only passive in them all yet D â— Twisse in his Vindiciae gratiae lib. 3. errat 9. Sect. 3. thought this subtilty necessary that the will in the first conversion is meerly passive as the willing of the will is taken forâ—ally as being in the subject but as it is taken efficiently it being a vitall act so it is not meerly passive in the first conversion And Dr. Preston in his acute Exercitation De irresistibilitate gratiae convertentis hath these words Nos sustinemus voluntatem in primo actu conversionis partim passivè partim activè id est prius passivè dein activè se habere ideoque cum Deo cooperari We hold the will in the first act of conversion to be partly passive partly active that is first of all to be passive then active and therefore to cooperate with God It is true the acts of taking away the heart of stone creating a heart of flesh forgiving iniquity loving freely as they are acts of God a man is neither active nor passive in them they are not in man as the subject nor from man as the agent only we may be said to be passive or active in respect of the terminus or effect of them a new heart faith or repentance produced by them and in respect of this in some sense we are meerly passive in some partly active and partly passive in the first conversion according to the doctrine of the two learned Doctors forenamed You conclude this Argument with this speech And whoever will deny that Infants are capable of these things as well as grown men must deny that any Infants dying in their infancy are saved by Christ. Concerning which speech if you mean that Infants are capable of these things as well as grown men simply in respect of the things it is true that Infants are capable of them as well as grown men and he that denies it denies their salvation But if you mean it in respect of the modus habendi the manner of having then it is not true for Infants are not capable in the same manner of a new heart faith and repentance by hearing and outward ordinances as well as grown men But what is all this to prove your Minor which is not of potentiall having inward grace which is not denied but of actuall having And so still it remains unproved that all the Infants of Believers or the Infants of Believers as such are actually partakers of the inward grace of Baptisme And thus have I at last examined the third part of your Sermon containing your Arguments from Scripture for Paedobaptisme I proceed now to examine the last part which followes Infant-Baptisme is a corruption of the Ordinance of BAPTISME PART IIII. Concerning the Objections against Infant-Baptisme AGainst this argument severall things are objected which I shall indeavour to râ—move out of the way First it is said that although infants are capable of these things and they no doubt are wrought by Christ in many infants yet may not we baptize them because according to the Scripture patterne both of Christs Command Mat. 28. in his institution of Baptisme where this was injoyned and John the Baptist Christs disciples and Apostles they alwayes taught and made them disciples by teaching before they baptized any It is true the institution of Christ Mat. 28.19 and the practise of John Baptist and the Apostles are the great objections against Paedobaptisme This principle being laid down as a truth avouched against the Papists by Protestants generally that it is a sinne of prophaning the Sacraments when the institution is altered by substraction as when the cup is denied to the lay people or by addition as when chrisme and spittle c. are added to the elements and by the non-conformists conformists of England that it is will-worship to administer the Sacraments any other wayes by addition of any thing to them but circumstances which are alike requisite to civill actions now the persons to be baptized cannot be conceived a meere alterable circumstance but to belong necessarily to the administration or worship as the person baptizing and as the persons receiving the Lords Supper and therefore there must be warrant from institution for it else it is a sinfull invention of man But neither Christs institution or John the Baptist or the Apostles practise doe warrant the baptizing of infants therefore it is will-worship that the institution Mat. 28.19 doth not warrant the baptizing of infants is proved 1. Because the institution appoints onely disciples of all nations to be baptized but infants are not such therefore the institution doth not warrant their Baptisme The Major and Minor of this Syllogisme have been made good Part. 3. Sect. 13. 2. Because the order Christ appoints is that teaching or preaching the Gospel should goe before Baptisme now the order of Christ is a rule of administring holy things as we argue in like manner 1 Cor. 11.28 The Apostle appoints that a man is first to examine himselfe then to eate of that bread ergo Children are not to have the Lords Supper so in like manner wee may argue wee must first teach persons and then baptize them therefore children that cannot be taught by us are not to be baptized To that which Mr Edwards answereth to this argument that John is said Mark 1.4 to baptize and preach I oppose the words of Beza annot in Mark 1.4 Quod autem Erasmus subjungit Joannem priùs baptizâsse deinde praedicâsse baptismum ejusmodi est ut ne refutatione quidem videatur indigere Quid enim cum diceret Joannes Poenitentiam agite appropinquat enim regnum coelorum non docebat quos erat baptizaturus Imò veâ—ò nisi priùs docuisset in quem finem baptizaret quis tandem ad ejus baptismum accessisset Certe cum sacramenta sint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 necesse est ut praeeat doctrina quam obsignent 3. Because the institution is to