Nineteen Arguments, Proving Circumciſion no Seal of the Covenant of GRACE.
BEcauſe that of CHAMIERUS is acknowledged, Sacramentorum nulla neceſſitas niſi ex iuſtitutione Divina; There is no neceſſitie of the Sacrament, but by Divine Inſtitution: Some therefore obſerving how Chriſts inſtitution of Baptiſme, Matth. 28. Mark. 16. yeildeth no foundation for the Dipping of Infants, but imployeth an abſolute prohibition of any ſuch practice; whereby the Ordinance is prophaned in a prodigall abuſe, without, and againſt the will of the Teſtatour; and have ceaſed upon that Law of Circumciſion, Gē. 17.10.11 (which is ſtiled elſewhere in the Law of Moſes, Joh. 7.23. ) as the beſt foundation for beſprinkling of Babes, in an Apiſh imitation of that Goſpel-dipping, which was inſtituted by our Saviour, for the more effectuall ingrafting of Believers into his own death: And the rather do they faſten upon it; Becauſe finding it to be a ſeal of that Promiſe which was made to Abraham and his ſeed, and denying that Promiſe to be a Covenant of Grace and remiſſion of ſins, they conclude it belongs in like manner, to all Believers of the Gentiles, and to their children; who are to have the ſame Seal unto them by Baptiſme (as they call it) which came in the Rome of Circumciſion, as they contend. To this purpoſe, Blake pag. 14. viz. Upon this ground, Infants under the Law were to be circumciſed, and upon the ſame ground, are Infants now to be baptized, &c. Again, what can Baptiſme ſigne and ſeal, but the righteouſneſſe of Faith? This Circumciſion did ſigne and ſeal to Abraham and his poſteritie, &c.
2So CHIDLEY. Baptiſme being come in the room, &c. Sealeth up one and the ſame Covenant of life: And therefore as Circumciſion, &c. ſo Baptiſm is to be adminiſtred upon Infants of Believers. Chidley pag. 39. If therefore it be proved that Circumciſion did not ſeal the promiſe or Covenant of Grace, and Remiſſion of ſins; then this their foundation is very falſe and phantaſticall.
Argu ∣ ment. 1That Seal or Sacrament (as they call it) which by its inſtitution and the nature of it, was not to be adminiſtred to ſome within the Covenant of Grace, and yet neceſſarily to be adminiſtred unto others, who were known not to be within the covenant of Grace; That cannot be the Seal of the covenant of Grace, and Remiſſion of ſins: But this Sacrament of Circumciſion was ſuch, &c. viz. Not to be adminiſtred to ſome evidently within the Covenant of Grace, as to LOT, 2 Pet. 2.7, 8. And yet neceſſarily to be adminiſtred to others who were not within the covenant of Grace, and known to be ſo, as to Iſhmael, &c. Joh. 5.6, 7, 8. Jer. 7.25, 26. Therefore Circumciſion cannot be the Seal of the Covenant of Grace, and Remiſſion of ſins.
Arg. 2That Seal or Covenant which is in the fleſh, and belongeth and muſt needs be adminiſtred to all the ſeed of the fleſh; whether they be Infants, or men of age, holy, or apparantly prophane, knowing, or ignorant, that cannot be a Seal of Grace and Remiſſion of ſins, which belongeth and is to be adminiſtred to Believers onely, Acts 10.43. with Acts 8.37. If thou believeſt with all thine heart, it is lawfull for thee to be dipped, elſe not: But this Seal of Circumciſion is altogether ſuch, Gen. 17.10, 11, 12, 13, 14. with Joh. 5. 6, 7. And therefore Circumciſion cannot be the Seal of Grace and Remiſſion of ſins, which belongeth and is onely to be adminiſtred to Believers. Gal. 38.9. Gen. 12.3. Acts 10.43. with Acts 8.37.
Arg. 3That which bindeth unto the Law, and becommeth altogether unprofitable in a man, not keeping of the Law, that can never be the Seal of the ſame Covenant with Baptiſme; which confirmeth unto Believers, their juſtification from all ſinne, Acts 22.16. By a myſteriall burying of them into the death of Chriſt, Rom. 6.4, 6, 7. with Col. 2.12, 13. According to the tenour of the New Covenant, Heb. 8.12. Jer. 31. Whereby Believers onely are juſtified and delivered from the Law, Acts 13.39. Rom. 7.4.6.
But Circumciſion bindeth unto the Law, Gal. 5.3. And becommeth altogether unprofitable in a man not keeping the Law, Rom. 2.25. Therefore Circumciſion cannot be the Seal of the ſame Covenant with Baptiſme; which apparantly diſcovereth all ſuch Obligations and conditions: As appeareth by Pauls Epiſtles, exhorting unto duty from the benefit received; but never urging to the keeping of the Law, as a condition neceſſarily required; that we may hold or reap the benefit of the Covenant. The propoſition will appear3 more cleerly, if you examine Acts 13.39. Where any Idiot may obſerve, that if Circumciſion had ſealed the ſame promiſe of Grace and Remiſſion of ſins, whereby all that believe are juſtified (as Dipping doth) then that aſſertion of the Apoſtle had been falſe; viz. From which ye could not be juſtified from the Law of Moſes: For ſeeing they were circumciſed by the authoritie of that Law, Joh. 7.23. It muſt needs follow (according unto theſe men) that by the true ſence and right uſe of Circumciſion, they might have been thereby juſtified, as well as by faith in that Goſpell-promiſe, which there he largely openeth, Acts 13.32, 33.38. Foraſmuch as the Righteouſneſſe of God had been revealed in both, for the ſalvation of every Believer; as Paul ſpeaketh, Rom. 1.16, 17.
Arg 4If Circumciſion had been a Seal of the ſame Covenant of Grace and remiſſion of ſinnes, whereby Baptiſme is; then the Apoſtle cannot be free from the bloud of all men, Acts 20.26. No not of the Jewes or thoſe Gentiles, who were intangled, for want of a Right underſtanding in that particular. For as much as he never once declareth either to Jews or Gentils, how circumciſion was an old Seal of the ſame Covenant of Grace, which is now opened unto all, and aboliſhed only by the introduction of dipping, a new ordinance inſtituted by Chriſt, for to confirm the new Covenant unto believers.
But the Apoſtle would not call God to record a lie, Acts 22.26. And yet he never declareth this either to Jews or Gentiles. And therefore it can be no Seal of the Covenant of Grace and Remiſſion of ſins.
It may be, ſome jugling Artiſt, will endeavour to deny the latter part of the Aſſumption; by aſſuring the contrary by Col. 2.11, 12.
The Apoſtle doth not there ſo much as once intimate,Anſwer. that Circumciſion was an old Seal of the Covenant of Grace or that Baptiſme came in the Rome of it: But his ſcope is, to arm them againſt the undermining of Philoſophy, or worldly Elements, verſ. 8. Whereof Circumciſion is one, Gal. 4.3. And this he doth, by ſhewing how compleat and perfect they were in Chriſt, verſ. 9, 10. So that they needed not to run once to any rudiments of the world, for their further perfection; ſeeing they had the body and ſubſtance of all theſe ſhadowes, by being buried by Dipping into the death of Chriſt, verſ. 12, 13, 14. 16, 17.19, 20, 21. Now what conſequence is there, to ſay; Believers being buried with Chriſt by Dipping, have the very ſubſtance of all which was in any wiſe ſignified, or repreſented by Jewiſh ſhadows; And therfore are thereby exempted from all ſuch Ordinances, concerning meat, drink, or holydayes, &c. verſ. 14.20. Ergo, Theſe ſhadowes did ſeal the Covenant of Grace and Remiſſion of ſins, to all that were under them: Which is moſt falſe. For divers things under the Law have been ſignificant, which yet did not ſeal the Covenant of Grace to any ſoul in particular. And for Circumciſion,4 though the Apoſtle here, verſ. 11. As the Prophet elſewhere, Jer. 4.4. In doctrine or exhortation, have uſed ſuch a ſpirituall Allegory, as alludeth to the carnall right; yet neither of them (I think) do ſpeak of the carnall right as a proper ſigne peculiarly inſtituted, to ſignifie the ſpirituall Circumciſion: And though it were declared a ſigne, that God doth circumciſe our hearts (as you ſee the Sabbath in a ſence little different, Ezek. 20.20) yet that doth not prove it a Seal of that Covenant of Grace, whereby our hearts come to be circumciſed, with the Circumciſion made without hands, Jer. 31.33, 34. As Dipping is declared to be, &c. But the next will make this more evident.
Arg. 5If the Apoſtles in ſo divers Epiſtles, and upon ſo many occaſions, have alwaies inculcated, the enmitie of it as contrary to the Covenant of Free Grace and Remiſſion of ſins, abſolutely aſſerting the nullity of it, without any taxing of the abuſe, or any kinde of Remonſtrance concerning the ancient Right uſe, or the abolition of it, by the new Ordinance of Dipping, now inſtituted inſtead thereof, then certainly the Apoſtle knew it to be no Seal of the Covevant of Grace, nor would have any to conceit it ſo; having miniſtred neither matter nor occaſion, to ſuch erroneous imaginations.
But the Apoſtle hath conſtantly inculcated it, enmity to the Covenant of Free-Grace, &c. Phil. 3.2. With Gal. 5.2. With chap. 2. verſ. 3, 4. The nullity of it alſo, &c. Gal. 6.15. 1 Cor. 7.19. Without any inſinuation of its ancient right uſe, &c. Ergo, it was never any Seal of the Covenant of Free Grace and Remiſſion of ſins, &c.
Arg. 6That which maketh the Spirit of God, to proceed againſt the Univerſall Law of Nature, muſt needs be a forced Covenant, and no true tenent. But this opinion maketh the Spirit of God to proceed contrary to the, &c. therefore this muſt needs be a forced Covenant, no true tenent. The propoſition is proved, from Heb. 7.11. If therefore perfection were by the Leviticall Prieſthood, &c. What needed there another Prieſt to ariſe, after the Order of Melchiſedech, &c. Not be called after the Order of Aron; where he taketh it for granted, that in ſuch matters, even God himſelf multiplieth nothing without neceſſitie.
The Aſſumption is as evident. Aſſump.For if Circumciſion were a Seal of the ſame Covenant of Grace and remiſſion of ſins, to all Believers and their Infants; (which Dipping confirmeth to thoſe who rightly receive it: Then what needed thoſe who had the Covenant of Grace already ſealed unto them by Circumciſion, but eſpecially their Infants (as thoſe fond opinioniſts do groundleſly affirm) be ſealed again by Dipping, or Baptizing, ſeeing the former Seal left a viſible or practicall ſigne and Character in the fleſh? Whereas the latter of Baptiſme, leaveth no impreſſion at all, but proveth unto Infants an unprofitable Seal, being unto them afterwards a thing much more uncertain, then5 the promiſe it ſealeth; nay why did not Peter repreſent unto thoſe nricked penitenciaries, Acts 2.7. The right uſe of the old ſeale for their preſent conſolation, but peremptorily point them to the uſe of a new ſeal, without acquainting them at all with any abolition of the old; had they been ſeales of one and the ſame Covenant, even one and the ſame Sacrament, but only for change of the Element, as ſome with ſottiſh confidence do averre, then how could he without raſhneſſe in ſuch a trouble of their ſpirits, urge them unto a needles innovation? Nay how did he ſo ſlight the former, as to take no notice of both their confines, nor make them perceive the paſſage from the one to the other, but ſimply ſway their conſcience before he dye, ſettle or ſatiſfie their judgements.
Arg. 7If the Spirit of God uſe the promiſe of grace and remiſſion of ſinnes, Gen. 12.3. As the beſt argument to overthrow the Doctrine of circumciſion and the practiſe of i•, then that promiſe of bleſſedneſſe by remiſſion of ſin•, Gen. 12.3. Is farre different from that Covenant of Gen. 17, 7, 8. Which was ſealed by circumciſion, verſ. 9, 10, 11. (the reaſon of this propoſition is) for els the falſe teachers might have replied, that we do not overthrow the Goſpell which you preach, but only continue the uſe of the old ſeale. And therefore you alledge againſt us, the 12. of Gen. little to the purpoſe, as if we could conceit, that the promiſe, which was ſealed by circumſition to Abraham and his ſeed, ſhould now abrogate the uſe of Circumciſſion, whereby it was ſealed, and upon this erronions ſuppoſall, that the Covenant of Gen. 17. ſealed by Circumciſion was all one with Gen. 12.3. The Apoſtle had not omitted (according to his duty and uſuall Cuſtome, 2 Tim. 25. (Cor. 9.19) By gentle remonſtrance, to give them full ſatiſfaction, concerning the abolition of the old ſeale, and the introduction of the new, without any ſuch paſſionate clamour againſt the uſe of circumciſion as pernitious, and deſtructive to the Goſpell which he taught Gall. 2, 17, 18. with Gall. 5.10.
But the ſpirit doth uſe the promiſe of Grace and remiſſion of ſins as the beſt argument to overthrow the Doctrine of circumciſion and the practiſe of it, as doth appeare by Pauls argument,Aſſum. Gal. 3 8, 9, 10. 13, 14. with Gen. 12.3. His argument is thus, if the free promiſe of bleſſing by remiſſion of ſinnes be received by faith, then the practiſe of Circumciſion is pernitious, which by binding unto the Law, Gall. 5.3. Bringeth under the curſe, Gall. 3.10. To which thoſe our opinioniſts would have replied; No Paul, not ſo, for we hold circumciſion to bee or to have beeen, a ſeale of that bleſſing or righteouſneſſe, which is by ſaith: And if ſo; then ought Paul to have ſhewed the abolition, and not to have ſo manifeſtly impunged the very nature and condition of it, as pernitiouſly oppoſite to6 the very Goſpell-promiſe every where; ſo that he maketh that of Gen. 22.18. To be an argument alſo againſt the doctrine, and uſe of Circumciſion, as the underſtanding may obſerve from Gall. 3.16.18.25. with Cor. 4.3.
Ergo, the promiſe of bleſſ•dneſſ•by remiſſion of ſinnes. Gen. 12.3. Is farre different from that Covenant of Gen. 17.7.8. Which was ſealed by Circumciſion.
Arg. 8That which maketh the Kingdome of heaven to bee, and to have been holden in fee-taile by Abraham and his ſeed, and now by the faithfull and their ſeed, is falſe againſt the Scripture: but this opinion maketh even the ſpirituall bleſſings Epheſ. 1.3. to be holden in fee-taile by &c. therefore it is a falſe Commandement againſt the Scripture, the propoſition is proved.
Firſt, becauſe the Scripture ſpeaketh only of two generations, the one naturall, and therefore gendreth unto wrath: Epheſ. 2.12.3. The other ſpiriruall and ungendreth to the Kingdome. Iohn 3.5. And therefore rejecteth the former altogether, as no way intituling to the inheritance, though one be borne of the bloud of Abraham, Iohn 1.12.13. Neither will it availe them to ſay as Mr. Perkin•on Gal. 2. That a man is two wayes conſiderable either as a ſonne of Adam and ſo he begetteth Children of wrath, or as a believer, and ſo his faith intitleth his ſeed alſo to the ſame heavenly inheritance, by vertue of the promiſe. Gen. 17.
No man doth beget children as a believer,Anſw. for then every believer even the Eunuch. Acts 8. Should have done ſo, but man propagate•only as the ſonne of Adam, and if this promiſe concerne believers as begetting Children. Then though the Children be unlawfully begotten, even baſtard borne, to no earthly Inheritance, by our common Law ▪ yet through their parents Faith, and the promiſe they are borne to, an heavenly Inheritance, from the which they cannot fall but by actuall infidelity or diſobedience, and ſo ſtand in no need of the ſe•le eſpecially of Baptiſme, which is mearely theoreticall or doctrinall in the very form and Circumſtance of it, till they be able to underſtand, to ſay nothing that this contradicteth the very text Rom. 9 8. Where he maketh a ſpirituall uſe of that tipicall ſingling out the ſeed of Iſack. for the land of Canaan, viz. the Children of the fl•ſh are not the Children of God, except they be by the word of promiſe begotten ſpiritually, as Iſack was by promiſe borne carnally Gall. 4.28, 29 Neither can any with colour of reaſon contend, that God by his Teſtament thus bequeatheth and ſealleth this bleſſing unto them that they ſhall admit and receive with conſent unto all thankfull7 acknowledgement and return, then it is theirs till they doe reject it; and by conſequence, the ſpirituall bleſsing diſcend upon the ſeed of the Faith•ull, dying before yeares of diſcretion, after the manner of temporall lands holden in a Fee-taile.
That which raiſeth the preferment of the Jew far above the ſpirits intimation, anſwering to th•very queſtion concerning the profit of Circumciſion:Arg. 9that muſt ne•ds be a falſe and erronious conception forced upon the Scripture. Bu•to m•ke it a ſeal of the Covenant of Grace and Remiſſion of ſins,•s to raiſe the preferment of the Jew by nature, far above the ſpirits intimation anſwering to the queſtion. For Rom. 3. v. 1.2. Upon the queſtio•of the Iewes advantage, and the profit of of Circumciſion, he replyeth•hat the chiefe advantage is, that unto them were committed the O•acles of God, which is a great priviledge, and a ſingular preferment, a David himſelfe con•eſſeth: Pſal. 147.19, 20. by which meanes alſo the fi••t proffer of Grace was made unto them, Luke 24.46, 47. with Act. 13.46. But all this doth not to the born Iewes ſeal the Covenant of Grace, no more then our having of the Scriptures, doth ſeal Remiſſion of ſins to every ſoul now born in England; whereas the advantage of the Iew, and p•ofi•of Circumciſion, by this opinion ſhould have been incomparab•e; and not to be paralleld by any outward privildge: in that all born Iewes dying before the ſame or after Circumciſion, were deified and aſſuredly ſaved. And ſo that which the Scripture hath hid in God with ſome apparance of the generall hope for conſolation of parents, ſhould have been confirmed unto them by particular aſſurance.
Therefore this opinion muſt needs be a falſe and erronious conception forced upon the Scripture, &c.
Arg. 10If Circumc•ſion be a ſeal of the Covenant of Grace, then the Covenant of G•ace is not a Teſtament bequeathing benefit only to all who by Faith admit and rec•ive the ſame, but is a part or burthenſome compact hanging upon ſome actuall conditions, abſolutely required: in the not doing or performance whereof, the Covenant becometh voyd and diſanulled to both the parties concerned, Gen. 17.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. in that Covenant. And by this reaſon, if Pauls beleiving wife have an Idolatrous husband, which will not ſuffer the Infants to be dipped, the Covenant of Grace is diſanulled to them both: And whether ſhee ought to kill her child, let them determine, who plead for bloody violence to be inflicted on ſome by the au•hrity of Moſes his Teſtament Pact. But the Covenant of Grace is no ſuch, but a meer Teſtament, bequeathing freely matter of benefit, to all who receive; and admit it by Faith only: Therefore Circumciſion cannot be a ſeal of that Covenant of Grace.
8That which neceſſarily imployeth falling from Grace,Argum. theſe men cannot deny to be a falſe and wicked opinion.
But this conceit,Aſſump. &c. neceſſarily implyeth falling from grace; for either it belongeth to them in generall, viz. If they will beleive it, and ſo the promiſe of remiſſion of ſins belongeth to every man alive, Mark 16.15. or it appertaineth to them and their children in ſpeciall: till by actuall unbeleiſe, and diſobedience, they fall away and reject it. And ſo if there be no falling away, all their nation as well as ours, muſt needs have been ſaved. Ergo, theſe men cannot deny it to be a falſe wicked opinion, Rom. 9.27. The aſſumption is more evident amongſt us, where all are dipped, by vertue of that Covenant, Gen. 17. becauſe they are Abrahams ſeed; which yet they cannot be, except they be born chriſtians: Gal. 3.29. neither young nor old can be Abrahams ſeeds, except they be Chriſts firſt.
If the Covenant of Grace and Remiſſion of ſins was never intailed upon any man and his ſeed,Arg. 12but in the whole nature and condition of it, relating unto faith only in the partakers; then Circumciſion can be no ſeal of that Covenant of Grace.
But antecedent,Aſſump. if true that the Covenant of Grace was never intayled, &c. ſeeing it alwayes relateth unto faith only in all partakers, Gen. 12.3. with Gal. 3.8, 9. Heb. 4. Acts 27.17, 18. Rom. 3.25. Rom. 4.22, 23.24. Heb. 3.14. Now by theſe mens fantaſie, they were made partakers of Chriſt by Jewiſh generation, and circumciſion; as their own Infants are ſuppoſed to be by birth and baptiſme: whereas the Scriptures witneſſes, no promiſe of Grace and Remiſſion of ſins, but only to the perſonall beleivers.
If here any object,Acts 10.43. Acts 2.39.
I anſwer, that only concerneth the promiſe of the ſpirit; which was revealed by Joel, cap. 2.28. and doth follow the receivall of the Goſpell: Epheſ. 1.13. Gal. 3.14. as ſhall be plainly and clearly proved to any oppoſite, though it need no proofe; being evident from Peters whole ſpeech, and the verſe preceding the Text: therefore the conſequence is true alſo, that Circumciſion could not be a ſeale of the Covenant of Grace.
Firſt that of Paul,Object. Rom. 4.11. where it is ſtiled a ſeal of the righteouſneſſe of Faith.
Firſt,Anſw. it was not given to ſtrengthen the weakneſſe, but to honour the ſtrength of Abrahams Faith. And therefore doth the Apoſtle, Rom. 4. beat them oft from the uſe of circumciſion, as being nothing but a fleſhly badge, bearing witneſſe to the ſpirituall, eminency of Abrahams faith, he9 being thereby as it were marked out for an exemplary pattern to all beleevers, as father or chiefe of them.
Thoſe which are but any whit acquainted with the Greek tongue, doe know〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉ſignifieth an exemplary note to make any man or thing illuſtrious, and〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉is uſed in that ſence, to enoble by ſome eſpecial note, to which purpoſe that may be pertinent, Iohn 6.27. God the Father is ſaid to ſeal him, making him illuſtrious by all manner of teſtimonies. Now ponder well that this ſign was not given to him meerly, becauſe he was faithfull, for then it ſhould have been unto Noah long before, or at the leaſt to Lot now ▪ as well as to Abraham; much leſſe was it given in any relation to his weaknes ▪ ſeeing that he was ſo ſtrong that he ſtaggered not: Rom 4.20. and therefore not as a ſeal to confirm, but as a badge of honour for to credit, as this coherence doth conclude; but though it were a ſpeciall favour marking out his faith as exemplary, yet its nature and inſtitution ſheweth that it confirmeth nothing to him and his ſeed, but the land of Canaan: Gen. 13.15. with cap. 17.8, 9, 10. and Pſalm. 105.11. and Acts 7.5.8. where all may obſerve it a ſeal of a covenant concerning an outward bleſſing, Geneſ. 28.41. diſtinct from that Goſpell-promiſe, Geneſ. 12.3. which is received by Faith onely: Gallathians 1.8.9.14. Geneſis 15.5, 6. with Rom. 4.13.18. Gallathians 3.16.19. Now that Circumciſion is no ſeal of the righteouſneſſe of Faith I will prove it byan unanſwerable argument, viz. if Circumciſion bea ſeal of the righteouſneſſe of Faith in their ſence, then the Inheritance commeth as well by the Law, as by the Promiſe; the reaſon is, becauſe Circumciſion is nothing: and by conſequence no ſeal at all, except a man keep the Law: Rom. 2.25. 1 Cor. 7.19.
But that the Inheritance ſhould any way come by the Law, as by the Promiſe, is moſt contrary to Paul; Romans 4.14. where hee maketh all concurrence of the Law inconſiſtent with Faith, and the Promiſe, ſo farre as it concerneth our eternall inheritance. And therefore that ſence is blaſphemouſly contradictory to Pauls diſcourſe, and deſtructive to the pure doctrine of Iuſtification; now whereas ſome have conceited that Circumciſion ▪ did over and above its ordinary uſe, ſeal to the Iewes in generall, that Chriſt ſhould deſcend of them or their ſeed, in whom only Beleevers ſhould be ſaved, whether they were circumciſed or nor.
It ſealed no ſuch matter at all, ſo that if there had been no other Goſpell-promiſe beſides,Anſw. Geneſis 17. they muſt have ſought ſalvation in the Law, and by the Law onely: Gallathians 5.3. 1 Corinth. 7 ▪ 19. Acts 15.10. Rom. 2.25. ſheweth the perfection of a Beleever, buried10 by dipping into the death of Chriſt, unto which by Circumciſion they could not aſpire unto. The reaſon of Chamieras, as is moſt unworthy the wit and judgment of ſo learned and voluminous a writer, for (quoth he) that Covenant whereby God promiſeth to be a God to them and their ſeed, muſt needs be a covenant of grace and remiſſion of ſins, becauſe, (as he thinketh) God cannot be ſo but in Chriſt only.
It is apparantly falſe,Anſw. Pſal 50.1.8.9. there being divers relations whereby God is ſtiled the God of people, beſides that of remiſsion of ſinnes through Chriſt. Thus he is ſtiled the God of the ſpirit of all fleſh. Numb. 16.22. And as he is ſtiled the Saviour of all men, 1 Tim. 4.10 ſo why not the God of all men, though not by remiſsion of ſins in Chriſt but meerely in relation•o ſome other of his works or attributes; eſpecially by this typ•call relation wherein he ſo often calleth them his people, when they were his enemies: and hee giving out the bill of divorce againſt them. Hoſ. 4.6. with Mich. 6.3, 4, 5. And had not his outward covenant in ſome ſence intitled them unto God, they could have been no figure fit for enſample to the antitype, even the true Iſrael of God under the new Teſtament: Gal. 6.16. Pet 2.9. 1 Cor. 10.6.11. with Jer. 13.11. where you may note alſo that thoſe who would make circumciſion a figure of dipping, gaine nothing by it for be ▪ ſprinkling of Babies; for then it will follow, that as none were to be circumciſed, but the ſeed of Abraham; with Srangers, Proſel••es, and Slaves b•nght with mony: ſo none are to bee dipped but thoſe who beleive the doctrine of the Goſpell, Mark 16.17. or elſe proſeſſe the ſame Faith. And as the ſeed of Iſaack and of Iacob only were called to inhe••t in Canaan, ſo thoſe only who have beleived through grace, Acts 18.27. as the Eunuch, Acts 8.38. and not ſuch as Simon Maguc, Acts 8 13. who counterfeit the ſame confeſsion, ſhall inherit the heavenly Canaan. I hope the godly wiſe will conceive, that though the Covenant were the ſame, and the Sacrament alſo; but only for change of the Element (as the Baby ſp•inklers bear people in hand) ſo authorizing the prophane abominable abuſe of Zaedobipriſme, by the command for circumciſion; yet upon that c•nceit (if it were granted) no ſuch concluſion can truly be drawn to the abſolute diſhonour of Chriſt, and contradiction of his expreſs Will and Teſtament. But that foundation being rotten and falſe, then all the building muſt fall. And I doubt not but all men of apprehenſion will eaſily diſcern from the precedent arguments, how the Apoſtle in all his diſputations againſt circumciſion yieldeth it. And by conſequence that covenant of Geneſis the 17. As a priviledge pecultar to the naturall ſeed of Abraham, Rom. 2.17 25. the chieſeſt profit whereof was their, being born and bred under the Oracles of God, Rom. 3.1.2.
11But that ſpirituall (ſo different from the carnall) Gen. 17. Acts 7. Covenant of bleſsing or righteouſneſſe by remiſsion of ſins, Gen. 12.3. with cap. 15.6. Paul alleadgeth and proveth promiſcuouſly, or without difference, Rom. 3.21, 22, 23, 24, 25. appertaining unto the uncircumciſed alſo, Rom, 4.3.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. wherein he leaveth Abraham no ſeed but ſpirituall, Gal 3.7, 8.29. acknowledging neither naturall Jew nor ſonne of Abraham, but only thoſe who are made ſo by the will of God through the word of truth, Iohn 1.12, 13. with Iames 1.10. compared with Rom. 2.28, 29. Luk. 19.9. And as the Scripture vehemently rejecteth all concurrence of works in Iuſtification ſo doth it as plainly abtenounce all Birth priviledge: Iohn 1.13. Eph. 2. Iohn 3.5.6. as no way intitling to, much leſſe in ereſſing in the benefit of the covenant of grace, or promiſe of ſalvation. Now to convince any conſiderate man of this, there is one or two argument truly, a Podeſcticall and as unanſwerable as any of the former.
Arg. 13That which by its own nature and uſe was an intollerable yoak both to the Iewes and to their fore fathers, that could never in its true nature and uſe be a ſeal of the righteouſneſſe of Faith, or of the covenant of grace, or remiſsion of ſinnes.
The undeniable reaſon of this Propoſition is, from a principall granted by all, who have any light either of naturall reaſon or dialect call learning; oppotſia non poſſunt eidem attribui, ſecundum idem, ad idem, codem tempore; things oppoſite: viz. to ſeale righteouſneſſe and forgiveneſſe of ſinnes, and to bind unto the Law, Gal. 5.3. can never bee attributed to one and the ſame thing; as namely circumciſion, Secundem eidem: in reſpect of one and the ſame part, viz. the ſpirit or conſcience; ad idem: in relation to one and the ſame perſons, they are therefore Fathers, eodem. tempore at one and the ſame time; whether after the Law, or under it.
But circumciſion in its true nature and uſe,Aſſunsp. was an intollerable yoak both to the Iewes, and their fore ▪ fathers. Acts 15.10. Ergo, it could never be in its true nature and uſe, any ſeal of righteouſneſſe, or of the covenant of grace, or remiſsion of ſins; for then it ſhould be matter of benefit, and not matter of burthen, which the Scripture ſetteth in oppoſition incompatible; making them to be really, and eſſentially different. For what is by its own nature a burthen or bondage to the ſpirit, is formally different from that which is a matter of pu•e liberty and benefit to the ſpirit; as the ſeale of righteouſneſſe is, and muſt alwayes be, Rom. 6.4.14, 15. compared with Rom. 7.1.4.5 ▪ 6.
Arg. 14If the Covenant or Law o•ci•cumciſion were the only thing whereby boaſting was occaſioned, and that law of Faith (which by dipping is confirmed12 to beleevers, the only thing whereby boaſting was excluded; then that Covenant of Gen. 17. cannot be the ſame with that new Teſtament of grace and remiſſion of ſins, whereof Chriſt is the mediatour, Heb. 8.
For then circumciſion ſhould not have occaſioned (as Paul granteth) it did,Reaſon. boaſting, but have utterly diſanulled all diſdain towards the uncircumciſed; as the law of faith, and covenant of grace, are declared to doe: Acts 10.15.28. with cap. 15.9. where Peter affirmeth circumciſion to make ſuch a difference, as the law of faith doth deſtroy, aboliſh, and diſanull; Rom. 3, 27.
But the covenant or law of circumciſion,Aſſump. was the only thing whereby boaſting was occaſioned, Rom. 2.17.25. with cap. 3 12. and the law of faith the only thing whereby boaſting was excluded, Rom. 3, 27. Therefore the covenant of Geneſis 17. cannot be the ſame with that covenant or new Teſtament, whereof Chriſt is the Mediatour.
If any object that Chriſt is called the Miniſter of circumciſion,Object. Romans 15.18.
He was made the ſervant of circumciſion,Anſw. when he was made of a woman, and ſo made under the law, Gallathians 4.4, 5. that ſuffering, Gallathians 3, 13. as a curſed ſinner by the imputation of our iniquities, he might confirm the truth of God, and the promiſes made to the Fathers; Geneſis 12.3. Acts 13.32. with Hebrewes 9.14, 15. Romans 15.8.
Arg. 15Thoſe two covenants which differ in the object. Secondly in the matmatter. Thirdly in the forme. Fourthly in the end. Fiftly in the effect; thoſe are not onely (as ſome grant) really, but formally and effectually different.
But the covenant of Geneſis 17. which is ratified by circumciſion,Aſſump. differeth from that of Ier. 31.33, 34. with Heb. 8.6. which is confirmed to every beleever by Baptiſme. Gallathians 3.17, 27. with Iſai 42.6. and Acts 2 38 cap. 22 16 Firſt in the object, for that of Geneſis 17. reſpecteth the carnall ſeed in their generations, verſe 7 9. But that Geneſis 12 13. and Ier. 31 reſpecteth the ſpirituall ſeed only; Gallathians 3.7, 8, 9: Secondly in matter for that of Geneſis 17 containeth an outward bleſsing, concerning the poſſeſsion of and protection in an earthly inheritance, verſe 8. cap. 28.4. Acts 7.5.6. whereas this Covenant of grace, Iſa. 42.6. containeth ſpirituall bleſsings only ▪ Epheſ. 13. even Remiſsion of ſins; Rom. 4.6, 7, 8, 9. the free donation of an undefiled inheritance following upon the ſame, Acts 26.18. Thirdly in the forme, for that of Gen. 17. is onely Pactum, a certain pact ſuſpended altogether upon a legall duty or condition, exacted under penalty of ſevere temporall puniſhment, Gen. 17.10, 11, 12, 14. whereas this is Teſtamentum, a Teſtament bequeathing all benefit,13 Heb. 8.12. but requiring nothing beſides faith which it alſo begetteth, Acts 26.18. with cap. 18.27.
Fourthly in their ends, for that of Gen. 17. was together a nationall Church, Deut. 4.34. with v. 37. Ier. 13.11. God hath aſſayed to take unto a nation, &c. And becauſe he hath loved their Fathers, therefore he hath choſen their ſeed called the Church in the wilderneſſe, Acts 7.38. which people were carnally or typically holy, Exod. 19.6. with Eſai 9.2. Acts 10.28. appointed to a typicall land which God had eſpyed out for them, Ezek 20.5, 6. holden under the carnall rites and typicall ordinances impoſed on them by way of burthen, till the time of reformation, Heb 9.10. with Gal. 4.9. where circumciſion is reckoned as a beggetly Element, that ſo they might be a type of figure of every true viſible Church of Chriſt under this new Teſtament, Deut. 7.6. with Eph. 1.3.4.
But the end of this Covenant is to gather viſible Churches of Chriſt, which being begotten by the Goſpell, are by dipping entred into the communion of Saints; Holden by any viſible ſociety of beleevers meeting in one place, as you may ſee in the Church of Corinth: Chap. 6.11. with cap. 12, 13. and cap. 11, 20. cap. 14.23. the Churches of Galatia which were after the ſame manner begotten, Galathians 4 26.31. And thoſe who are thus begotten, are by dipping admitted to all the benefits of a viſible Communion: Acts 2.41, 42. which viſible Churches through the waſhing of water and the word, become true Antitypes really anſwerable to the nation of the circumciſed: and are, Galathians 6 16 ſtiled the true Iſrael of God; yea a choſen Generation, and an holy nation; 1 Pet. 2.9. which being born of the mortall ſeed, are begotten to an undefiled inheritance as appeareth from ſuch places, 1 Peter 2.9. with chapter 1.23. and 3, 4. Galathians 6.16. Epheſians 5.26, 27. Therefore were they a figurative people full of types for examples to any Church of the Gentiles, which had beleeved through Grace: 1 Corinthians 10 6 with Acts 8.37.
Laſtly, they differ in the effect; for that of Geneſis 17 depending on circumciſion is a beggerly rudiment, Galathians 4.9. which by binding unto the Law, Galathians 5.3. gendereth unto bondage onely, Gallathians 4 25. never yeelding any ability to performe; whereas that of Ieremiah 31 33, 34 is the very ſame with Galathithians 4 26. which following with Grace, gendereth unto Liberty; Galathians 4 31. from all guilt of ſinne and legall bondage: Galathians 5 1. with Hebrewes 10 15, 16, 17, 18. unto which the Law of Circumciſicion engageth, yea and this miniſtreth the ſpirit,14 Gal. 3.8, 9, 14. ſo that every one to whom this Covenant is confirmed by the Ordinance of dipping according to Chriſts Will and Teſtament (Non ponenti obicem, as they ſay) if he be no hypocrite, then every ſuch perſon ſo dipped hath truly put on Chriſt, Gal. 3.27. is waſhed from all his ſins; juſtified, and ſanctified: Rev. 1.5. with 1 Cor. 6.11. and hath ſome meaſure of faith. Rom. 12.3. according to the true tenour of that Covenant, which God who cannot he hath confirmed in Chriſt; ſo that where there is a lawfull ſubject of Baptiſme voyd of hypocriſy, there is a Iew in heart and ſpirit, Rom. 2 29. to whom according to Gods purpoſe and grace, 2 Timothy 19. all the benefits of the new Covenant are abſolutely confirmed by dipping, which is therefore truly called the laver of Regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghoſt; Titus 3.5. being alwayes (except the ſubject be unlawfull, or an hypocrite) accompanied with renovation of mind, as appeareth from Gal. 3.27, 28. with Col 3 17. But though the ſubjects of Circumciſion be lawful,•nd without hypocriſy; yet doth it not make him a Iew, in heart and ſpirit: much leſſe doth it abſolutely confirme the benefit of the new Covenant unto him, Rom. 2.28. But here we need not require the ſubject to be without hypocriſy, for the arranteſt and moſt apparent hypocrite of the whole nation was a proper lawfull ſubject of that Ordinance of Circumciſ. Ioh. 5.6, 7, 8. compared with that of Ier. 7.25, 26 Ergo, theſe 2 Covenants of Gen. 17. Ier. 31. are not only really, as ſome Sophiſters grant and ſay, but formally & eſſ•ntiall•different.
By this laſt argument any may underſtand how groſſ•ly they pervert the words of the living God, Ier. 23. even of the Lord Ieſus Chriſt, our only God and Saviour; who would have the Commiſsion of Chriſt, Matth. 28. Mark 16. to be a continuation of that Covenant, Gen. 17. by which command only the Miniſters of Chriſt have power and authority to beſprinkle babes, ſo blaſphemonſly exalting the ſervant above? his Lord, in making him to ſupply the effect of Chriſt Ieſus his Teſtament, by directing to the due adminiſtration of the Ordinance of dipping, in the houſe of him who is the Sonne and only Maſter; Heb. 3.1, 2, 3.5, 6. where you ſee verſe 5. that Chriſt was to interpret Moſes, but why? or how Moſes ſhould tell us the meaning of Chriſts Teſtam•nt, I could never yet underſtand. Againe, why did the ſpirit of Chriſt which was in Ieremiah, 1 Peter 11, 12 ▪ tel•us of a new Covenant; Ier. 31.33.34. And yet never once inſinuate how it was, but a renovation of the old Covenant. Gen. 17. with a little alteration in the change of the Element only: viz. dipping for circumciſing, upon which the Apoſtle Paul never putteth himſelfe to buſineſſe: Gal. cap. 1. cap. 2. cap. 3. cap 4. cap. 5. cap. 6.17. Though upon his fooliſh ſuppoſall, it had been the only point requiring his pains for clear proof againſt the oppoſite Iewes,
15Thirdly, when Chriſt aſcended on high and gave gifts, &c. for the gathering or inſtauration of the Saints: Eph. 4.8.11, 12. By what Spirit, Reaſon, or dialecticall dreame, can any conclude that the true Miniſters of Chriſt, without and againſt their Maſters commiſsion, vvere obl•ged to make Saints by beſprinkling the babies of all beleeving Gentiles; by that command of Geneſi•17.9, 10. If after examination vve ſtill remain blinded by ſuch a ridiculous babble, indeavouring to bury the truth, by ſhuffeling plain things into difficulty. Then ſhall I ceaſe to vvonder at thoſe vvho are ſo taken vvith the vain and fantaſticall ſuperſtitions of Popery, or elſe be ſealed vvith Mahomets fopperies.
The Church of Epheſus•s commended, Rev. 2.2. for trying thoſe that ſay they are Apoſtles, and are not; oh that our Profeſſours would try their Miniſters whether they come in by Scripture rules, and obſerve Scripture rules and commands: if they doe not they are falſe Miniſters, and lyers againſt the truth. And to that end let them prove that thoſe doctrines they teach, are the doctrines that Chriſt and his Apoſtles taught and practiſed, or they are other if not contrary; and then ſee the danger of teaching them, Gal. 1.8, 9. And that Baptiſme is a doctrine, ſee Heb. 6.2. we ought to avoyd thoſe that bring doctrine contrary to that received from Chriſt and his Apoſtles, Rom. 16.17.18. we are to contend for the faith once delivered to the Saints, Jude verſe 3. Chriſt bids teach and baptize, Matth. 28.19. They will baptize, and then teach. Chriſt ſaith, he that beleiveth and is baptized, Mark 16.16. They will baptize and then make them beleeveyrs if they can. Chriſt ſaith, teaching them to obſerve whatſoever I command; Matth. 28.20. They will obſerve what is right in their own eyes, Philip ſaith to the Eunuch deſiring to be baptized of him, if thou beleiveſt, thou maiſt; Acts 8.37. So faith is required of thoſe that are to be baptized which children cannot have in an ordinary way: Rom. 10. 14.17. Now children are not capable of being wrought upon by the word, and for any ſecret work, ſecret things belong to God, but things revealed to us and our children.
See 2 Epiſt. John v 7. and from v 5.10. v. 11. who now is an Antechriſt? the Papiſts as well as we confeſſe Chriſt to become in the fleſh, who then deny it? they that doe not ſet up Ieſus the Chriſt K•ng, Prieſt, and Prophet of his Church; will not be ruled by his lawes, ſubmit not to his teaching, make him not the only Prieſt and ſacrifice, theſe deny Chriſt to be come in the fleſh, and therein are Antichriſtian. 1 Iohn 4.3. The Papiſts deny him in his Prieſtly office, and I wiſh too many o•hers doe not in his Propheticall and Kingly office; ſee the danger of it, Deut. 18.18, 19 Acts 3.23. Luke 19.17, It is a fearfull thing to fall into the hands of the living God, Heb. 12.29.
16Oh that the Lord would perſwade his people to ſearch the Scriptures diligently, that they may not hang their religion upon any creature ſo long as I did, leaſt they ſmart ſo ſeverely for it as I have done; for he will not only render vengeance to them that know him not, but to them which obey him not; 2 Theſſalonians 18. The Lord in mercy awaken his people for Chriſt his ſake, AMEN.
Arg. 1That which makes the Traditions of men of equall authority with the Law of God, ought in no wiſe to be; Matthew 15 6 Mark 7 7. But the Baptiſme of Infants, thoug of beleeving parents doth ſo, Ergo, That ought not to be; The Minor is thus provided: That which is an action of Religion performed, and not one jot or tittle of the word requiring the ſame, that makes the traditions of men of equall authority with the Law of God: but the Baptiſme of Infants, though of beleevers, is an action of Religion ſuppoſed to be performed, and not one jot or title of the word requiring the ſame: Ergo, the Baptiſme of infants though of beleevers, makes the traditions of men of equall authority with the Law of God, and conſequently ought in no wiſe to be.
Arg. 3Every affirmative command of Chriſt hath its negative, ſo that whoſoever Chriſt hath commanded to be baptized ought ſo to be, and if o•hers prohibited: but the affirmative command of Chriſt to his Apoſtles, Mat. 28.18. in that they ſhould teach all nations baptizing them, (that is thoſe that are taught) by themſelves, or ſome other: Ergo, The Apoſtles were prohibited from baptizing any that were not firſt taught, if the Apoſtles were prohibited in the negative of Chriſts command touching Baptiſme from baptizing, any that were not firſt taught either by themſelves or others, then ought not the infants no not of beleevers, to be baptized, becauſe the Apoſtles or other Miniſters could not, nor cannot know them to be ſo taught in their infancie; ſeeing they make no profeſſion of faith and repentance. But the Apoſtles were prohibited from baptiz•ng any that were not firſt taught, either by themſelves, or other ▪ in the negative of Chriſts command touching Baptiſme, by conſequence of the former argument: Ergo, The infants though of beleevers, ought not to be baptized.
Arg 3That which overthrowes the nature of the Covenant of Grace, ought in no wiſe to bee: But the baptiſme of infants, though of beleevers, doth ſo: Ergo, the Baptiſme of infants ought in no wiſe to be. The proof the minor. That which is adminiſtred upon a ſuppoſed intereſt in the covenant of Grace without Faith in the perſon ſo intereſted that overthrowes the nature of the covenant of grace, becauſe perſons have intereſt therein no otherwiſe then by Faith, Romans 4.16. Gallathians17 3.9.29. any thing elſe concluded ſo, makes the promiſe or covenant void, Rom. 4.14. Gal. 3.18 But the Baptiſme of infants though of beleevers, is adminiſtred upon a ſuppoſed intereſt in the covenant of grace; without faith in the perſon ſo intereſted, (viz the faith of their parents) Ergo, The Baptiſme of infants, (though of beleevers) overthrowes the nature of the covenant of grace, and conſequently ought in no wiſe to be.
Arg. 4That which overthrows the nature of Chriſts true viſible Church, ought in no wiſe to be. But the Baptiſm of infants, though of beleevers doth ſo. Ergo, it ought in no wiſe to be. If the matter of the church be only regenerat perſons, and the matter of the viſible Church ſuch only as appeare ſo by the profeſſion of faith and repentance, then to baptize infants; is to contradict this, and to overthrow the nature thereof; ſeeing they are borne in ſinne and make no appearance to the contrary: but that they ſo remain. But the matter of the Church are onely regenerate perſons, Iohn 3.3.5. and the matter of the viſible Church only ſuch as appeare ſo by the profeſſion of faith and repentance, as all the Epiſtles of Paul written to the Churches doe prove: Rom. 8.15. 1 Cor. 4.15. as theſe inſtances inſtead of many doe make it appear. Therefore to baptize infants (though of beleevers) is to overthrow the nature thereof, and conſequently ought in no wiſe to be.
Arg. 5That which makes Religion ſubſiſt in the deed done now in the time of the Goſpell, ought in no wiſe to be, Phil. 3.3. Iohn 4.23.24. But the Baptiſme of infants, though of beleevers doth ſo, Ergo, it ought in no wiſe to be The minor is thus proved: That which is an action of Religion done, and no faith in the perſon of the doer, required in the doing of that thing, that makes Religion to ſubſiſt in the deed done; but the Baptiſme of infants, though of beleevers, is an action of Religion performed, and no faith required in the perſon of the doer, in the doing of that thing: Ergo, the Baptiſme of infants, though of beleevers, makes Religion to ſubſiſt in the deed done in the time of the Goſpell, and conſequently ought in no wiſe to be.
Arg. 6That which reviveth Iudaiſme, and ſo denieth Chriſt to bee come in the fleſh, ought in no wiſe to be; 1 Iohn 4.3. 2 Iohn 7. But the Baptiſme of Infants, though of beleevers doth ſo, therefore, &c. The ſecond Propoſition proved thus.
That practice which is grounded upon the typicall ſeed, which typed out Chriſt the true promiſed ſeed, and ceaſed at his coming:•hat practice now in reſpect of the ground of that practice, reviveth Iudaiſme in the Type, and denieth Chriſt the truth of the type, to become in the fleſh. But the Baptiſme of infants, though of beleevers is grounded upon the typicall ſeed which typed out Chriſt the true promiſed ſeed, and ceaſed18 at his coming, Gal. 3.16.19. Therefore that being practiſed, now reviveth Iudaiſme in the type, and denyeth Chriſt the truth of the type to become in the fleſh, and conſequently ought in no wiſe to be.
Arg. 7That which makes the world and the Church all one, and confounds the diſtinction that ought to be betwixt them, ought in no wiſe to be, Col. 4.5. 1 Pet. 2.12. Col. 2.20 2 Cor. 6.14. But the baptiſme of Infants though of beleevers doth ſo: therefore it ought not to be. The ſecond propoſition is thus proved, thoſe which adminiſter the ſpeciall priviledge, the Ordinance of entring perſons into the Church, from common cauſes which doe belong to the world, as well as to the Church, doe make the world and the Church all one, and confound the diſtinction that ought to bee betwixt them. But to baptize infan•s though of beleevers, is to adminiſter the ſpeciall priviledge, the ordinance of entering perſons into the Church, from common cauſe which doe belong to the world, as well as to the Church; (to wit) the generall offer of promiſe, Matth. 28.18. Acts 2.39 which is to be offered to every man and woman in the world, Mark 16.15. or elſe the being borne of beleeving parents, which agrees to Iſmael and Eſau as well as to Iſaack and Iacob; and all in this reſpect being bu•fleſh, born in ſin and children of wrath, Iohn 3.6. Pſal. 51.3. Eph. 2.3. Therefore to baptize infants, though of beleevers, is to make the world and the Church all one, and confounds the diſtinction that ought to be betwixt them, and conſequently ought not to be.
But circumciſion,Object. the ordinance of entring perſons into the Iewiſh Church, was adminiſtred upon perſons from the ſ•me common cauſe above, mentioned; and yet it did not make that Church and the world all one, nor yet confound the diſtinction that was betwixt them, and the world, therefore the conſequence doth not follow.
The Church of the Iewes did not differ from the world,Anſw. in the ſame cauſes that the chriſtian Church doth: for they were a nation ſeparated and ſet apart by God by the covenant of circumciſion, Acts 7.8. from all other nations; to worſhip at Ieruſalem, Deut. 7 6, 7, 8. and 12.6.13.14. Iohn 4.20. But the chriſtian Church are part of the ſame nation, begotten and born by the immortall ſeed the word and ſpirit of God, Iohn 3.3.5. Iames 1.18. 1 Pet. 1.23. to the ſaith of the truth. Rom. 11.20. Gal. 3.26. by which only they have right to baptiſme, Acts 8.37. and 10.47. and 11.17. and are to ſhine as lights before the world in the places where they live, Ph. 2.15.16. 1 Pet. 2.12. And hence it followeth, that although circumciſion according to Gods command, did from ſuch common cauſes enter perſons into the Church, and yet did not confound the diſtinction, they being a diſtinct nation from the reſt of the world; yet, if perſons of the19 ſame nation without any command from God be baptized, and thereby entered into the Church from common cauſes belonging to the world, ſuch as are above mentioned: That neceſſarily makes the Church and the world all one and confounds the diſtinction that ought to bee betwixt them, and therefore the objection from circumciſion is nothing to hinder the former conſequence, but that it remaineth firm and ſound.
Arg. 8That which unites perſons with the Church of Rome, and Papiſts; ought in no wiſe to be, Rev. 18.4. But the baptiſme of infants, though of beleevers, doth ſo: therefore it ought in no wiſe to be. The ſecond Propoſition is thus proved, whereſoever the baptiſme is one, the Church and people are one; But the Papiſts and Romes baptiſme, is one with the infants baptiſme, though beleevers. Therefore the baptiſme of infants makes one with the Church of Rome and Papiſts.
That the Papiſts and Romes baptiſme, is one with infants baptiſme, though of beleevers; I prove becauſe they baptize infants, and there be ſome beleevers amongſt them, elſe God would not call them from them, Rev. 18.4. Whoſe infants are there baptized; but eſpecially becauſe there is no difference in infants, as infants, unleſſe God make ſome difference; now there is no difference known between the beleevers infants, and the Papiſts infants: and we are all born Papiſts by nature, and what hinders that we are not all Papiſts? but converſion, or education, or outward reſtraint, and what was it that brought all to be Papiſts at firſt, from Apoſtolicall, to be Apoſtaticall; but the baptizing of infants? whereby religion came into act before it was wrought in the heart, and ſo they became chriſtians in name, and were indeed againſt Chriſt in nature; and ſo were Antichriſtum, and ſo were a Church of Chriſt in name, and a great one too: yea. a catholick one though againſt Chriſt, and ſo Antichriſtian in nature; and thus they looking upon one Miniſter as chiefe, whom they made Pope, he muſt needs be Chriſts Vicar in name, though hee were againſt Chriſt indeed: and ſo the Antichriſt who when they had made him, they muſt needs adore and worſhip him, and all the world wonders and worſhips this beaſt; ſo hee compels all by fraud and force to bee of his Church, both great and ſmall: Rev. 13.16. And beſides, all that are baptized, are ſuppoſed to be beleevers, but all Papists are ſuppoſed to be baptiſed; Therefore all Papiſts are ſuppoſed to be beleevers. And then to baptize the infants of Papiſts, is to baptize the infants of beleevers, and and there is no difference in baptiſme then one in Church fellowſhip with them which ought in no wiſe to be; therefore infants, no not of beleevers, ought not to be baptized.