natural Seed of Inchurched-Parents be now ceased in these Gospel-days what then mean's that Scripture Rom. 11.28 spoken of the Israelites to be called in these latter days That they are beloved for the Fathers sakes It would be sad and lamentable if believing-Parents now under the Gospel should have no such Priviledge left them in reference to the eternal Estates of their poor Children Heretofore Church-Members had a promise that God would be the God of their Seed and Circumcise the hearts of their Seed to love the Lord with all the Heart and all the Soul Gen. 17.7 Deut. 30.6 but now by the coming of Christ it is ceased This is sad indeed What visible grounds of hope of any saving Grace or Mercy have Inchurched-Christians now in reference to their Children more than Turks and Pagans have Durus Sermo yet some have been so bold as in plain terms to say so But are they ceased indeed when and where hath God repealed them Not by John the Baptist as we have made appear Nor could I yet ever see that he hath done it by any other hand Hence therefore they must be in force still Hath God given his people promises of food and raiment and other temporal things for their encouragement and comfort 1 Tim. 4.8 and left them no promise at all now in Gospel times to help their faith concerning their poor Childrens eternal Estate whose souls they prize more than their own lives The Apostle saw something in it when he said we that are Jews by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles Gal. 2.15 And why not also in a safe sence Christians by nature and not sinners of the Turks or Pagans who are yet strangers from the Covenants of promise Eph. 2.12 as the Gentiles generally then were You will say we are all by nature Children of wrath Eph. 2.3 And was not Paul and those Jews so too and yet the Apostle makes that distinction between them And whence was it but from God's Covenants in which they externally were even before their Coversion And why there should not be the like Priviledge of Children of Inchurched-Parents I never yet could see And hence such a child may go to God and plead Lord thou art my Fathers God Exod. 15.2 and hast promised to be my God And a Parent may go and plead Lord thou hast promised to be my God and the God of my Seed and to circumcise their hearts to Love thee Deut. 30.6 with Gen. 17.7 O! let it be so according to thy promise Thou hast said I will pour my Spirit upon thy Seed and my blessing upon thine offspring Isa 44.3 and then one should say I am the Lord 's c. see v. 5. they should engage themselves to the Lord and to his Church by the strongest bonds And this is a Gospel-promise and belonging to Gospel-times and a great part of that blessing of Abraham that is come upon the Gentiles Gal. 3.14 Why then should any contradict it Is not the second Commandment still in force to parents in Church-Covenant with God in reference to their Children whom they have given over to God in his Covenant Hath he not there said He will have mercy on thousands of them that love him and keep his Commandements That is on such Parents as give up themselves to God in the Commands of his Instituted Worship in reference to their Children Psal 112.1 2. even to a thousand Generations Deut. 7.9 But repayeth them that hate him to wit in a sinful neglecting or rejecting his instituted Worship to their face v. 10. And this is one way whereby God doth testifie it even by rejecting their Children so as not to vouchsafe them the External Priviledge of his Covenant and means of Grace See an eminent instance of it in Esau and his posterity who sold his birth-right Heb. 12.6 which was then a Church-Priviledge and is therefore called a profane person and so lost the blessing from himself and his see the like in Ishmael and his Generations I conclude then that John Baptist did not upon that change discharge the Church-Seed of Abraham which I shall yet a little further explain by opening the Children of the Flesh and the Children of the Promise which are accounted for the seed Rom. 9.6 7 8. 1. Negatively 1. By Children of the flesh cannot be meant the natural Children of believers as their natural Children Nor 2. Their Children that have only sin and corruption in them for then Isaac must have been a Child of the flesh For he was the natural Son of Abraham and by nature sinful 3. By Children of the promise cannot be meant only such as are really-converted For many that were of Isaac's Posterity and so Children of the Promise were not so and some in Gospel-Churches are not so now 2. Affirmatively First by Children of the Flesh are meant 1. Of old Ishmael and his Posterity begotten by strength of nature which was the Type 2. Now in Gospel-times all such as look for righteousness and life by their own personal performances or abilities whether in whole or in part and that not only invisibly but visibly and Ecclesiastically also as the Apostle said of Jerusalem in his time Gal. 4.25 Jerusalem that now is the Antitype of the other in bondage with her Children Secondly by Children of the Promise are meant 1. Of old Isaac and his Posterity in the line of Jacob which was the Type 2. Now in Gospel-times all such as look for righteousness and life alone by faith in Christ his righteousness only according to the Covenant of Grace And these again are either 1. All such as are true believers indeed who look by a true and lively-Faith to Christ and his Righteousness only 2. Or such as profess only and pretend to do so but indeed do not These latter seem and appear to be Believers to Men to the visible-Church but are not really-such before God Yet even these are Children of the Promise in the genuine sence of the Scripture and not Children of the Flesh in the Apostles sence Gal. 4.21 22 23 c. God doth and will indeed distinguish between the spiritual seed and those that are meerly the Church-seed of Abraham but Men cannot unless by some miscarriages they discover themselves and appear to be what they are as Simon Magus did Acts. 8.23 And thus under one we have an exposition of that Eâdem fideliâ duos parietes Gal. 3.7 They which are of Faith the same are the Children of Abraham they which are of Faith to wit true Believers indeed as Abraham was are Spiritually and savingly the Children of Abraham And they which are of Faith to wit Believers in appearance only before the Church only they are only Ecclesiastically the Children of Abraham And this is sufficient to entitle them to Church-Ordinances and their Children to Baptism the initiatory Seal of the Covenant And this also helps us to expound Gal. 3.29 If ye be Christ's then are
ye Abraham's Seed c. Men may be said to be Christ's and also to be Abraham's seed 1. Spiritually and Invisibly 2. Ecclesiastically and visibly only 1. Spiritually and Invisibly as to Men In foro Dei before God alone who is the only knower and searcher of the heart and Tryer of the Reins And so none are Abraham's seed but such as do truly and savingly-believe as Abraham did This is the Faith of God's Elect and peculiar to such as shall be saved 2. Ecclesiastically and visibly In foro Ecclesiae before Men only to the visible-Church And in this sence all such as make a rational and credible profession of Faith in Christ to the judgment of Rational-Charity in a Church-way they are Christ's and Abraham's Seed And then it amounts to this to wit If ye be Christ's spiritually then are ye Abraham's Seed spiritually and shall be Eternally-blessed with faithful Abraham And if ye be Christs Ecclesiastically-only and in the judgment of Men of the Church-only then are ye also Abraham's Seed Ecclesiastically only and in the judgment of Men only and may expect only an External and Temporal blessing and so we have the Exposition also of Gal. 3.9 And that this is the Apostles sence is plain in this chapter and in other places of this Epistle Ye are all saith he the Children of God by Faith in Christ Jesus Gal. 3.26 Were they indeed all of them True Believers and so all of them Children of God spiritually and savingly Doth not the Apostle tell them He was afraid of them some of them at least that would be under the Law lest he had bestowed upon them labour in vain And that he travelled with them in Birth again till Christ was formed in them Gal. 4.11.19 They made a better shew once Chap. 3.1.3 4. and Chap. 4.15 but now he was in doubt of them yet these he calls the Children of God by Faith in Christ Jesus They were yet so Externally being yet a Church of God though at present troubled and seduced by false Teachers from whose errors he hoped and laboured to recover them Take another Text like unto this Gal. 3.2.7 As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ And v. 28. Ye are all one in Christ Jesus Undoubtedly if they had put on Christ Spiritually and savingly they would never have put him off again And had they been once in Jesus Christ Spiritually and savingly they would never have gone out of him again It 's manifest therefore that some of them put him on and were in him Externally only and in outward profession only before Men. For such branches there are found in Christ the true Vine considered as head of the visible Church John 15.2.6 And our Brethren must experimentally acknowledge that it is so in their Congregations too often What you say pag. 37. That nothing short of the Spirits-Birth can orderly-admit to Water-Birth i. e. Baptism I suppose you mean and Spiritual Ordinances is fully answered to before as to the substance of it Persons making a credible profession of the Spirits birth to the judgment of Rational-Charity guided in judging by the Rules of of the Word may orderly be admitted to Water-Birth as you phrase it and spiritual-Ordinances as appears by Simon Magus and others who yet had but a shew of the Spirits-Birth not the truth and reality of it Acts 8.8 with v. 22.23 The reason is because Men who cannot see directly immediately and infallibly into the heart are to judge of them The same answer will serve to that of Christ to Nicodemus and to that which is cited out of Dr. Owen And as to that of Dr. Taylor it is suitable to his boldness and design gratis dictum and there may rest till he give us some Scripture-proof CHAP. VI. YOur assertion and proofs in your sixth Chapter have respect only to immediate and grown-Members who alone we acknowledge are capable of the Directions and priviledges you mention Children of such are but Mediate-Members as hath been shewn and are such as to whom those things do not belong The Apostle therefore mentions the duties priviledges of Immediate Adult-Members only I do not hold that a Gospel-Church is constituted of Infants but of grown-Persons professing visible Saints and to such the Apostle speaks yet the Infants of such are also Members though of another kind The Church may be a Church though there be at present never an Infant in it but I question whether it be so if there be no men grown-persons in it I would ask whether Women were capable of all those directions given by the Apostle to those Churches you may as well say they were not Members of the Church because they were not subjects capacitated for those directions Women were not capable of Church-judging and some other Church-Acts therefore are not members of the Church I suppose you will not like such arguing If Infants are not Members because they are not capable of the Apostles directions to the Churches then Women must not be Members because they also are uncapable of them If it were granted to be true that those first inventers of Infant-Baptism as you stile them did so miserably miss it in the Subjects applying the Spiritual Ordinance to ignorant Babes yet Childishly ridiculous is too slight an expression for so miserable a mistake But you have not yet proved that there were such Inventers of Infant-Baptism The Scripture gives us ground to conclude that it was on foot long before those Inventers you intimate and that God in Christ was the Inventer of it The ground of which we have shewed in Christ's Commission already As for some that hold Paedo-Baptism let them maintain their own Principles and Practices if they can I think some can never justify them by Gospel-Rules and I believe it hath been an occasion to many Beza in 1 Cor. 7.14 to turn against Paedo-Baptism for my own part I am of Beza's mind that they are to be confuted that admit all Infants to Baptism a thing saith he unheard of in all the Ancient Church Yea I shall add nor any but such one of whose Parents at least is of a Gospel-Church and so the Child a Mediate-Member thereof who afterwards must not be admitted as an Immediate-Member and partake of all Church-Ordinances without his own credible profession of Faith and Repentance and entring into Covenant in his own Person This would remove many scruples and objections which they cannot well free themselves from that practise otherwise CHAP. VII To your seventh Chapter Testimonies of Councils and learned Men. YOu say you produce not humane Authorities for any proof but by way of Illustration c. To make manifest that not only Scripture-Authority but even Antiquity it self is altogether for Believers and not for Infant's-Baptism In Answer to which I shall at present return these things that follow 1. That we build not Infants-Baptism on humane Authority
and is of use to Children when come to Understanding to mind them of their Duty We are Children of the Covenant that God made with our Fathers Acts 3.25 And Sealed it unto us in our Infancy and shall we turn our backs upon God far be it from us 4. Circumcision of old and Baptism of Infants now is for the use of the Parents as well as the Children and they are supposed to have the use of Reason You grant that Abrahams Circumcision was to assure him of the Promises made to him and his Seed p. 217. It seems then that Godly Parents have need of something to help their Faith concerning their Seed their poor Children and the Initiatory Seal of the Covenant to their Child is such a help to them Besides the Church have an use of it as hath been shewn before and they are supposed to understand 5. The present ability to make use of Baptism is not the Ground upon which it is to be dispensed to an Infant but the Gracious Covenant of God under which the Infant of an Inchurched-Parent Externally and Visibly is together wiih his command in the like case of old which as to the substance was never yet reversed You say Baptism is not as Circumcision which was a Sign not improper for Infants and you add the reason to wit because it left a Signal impression in their flesh to be remembred all their days but so cannot Baptism say you be to any Infants And why I pray is not Baptism also a Sign not improper yea very proper for Infants It seems it is because it leaves no signal impression in their flesh to be remembred all their days I shall examine your reason and then you will see the weakness of it 1. How could circumcised-Infants tell when they came to Age whether they were not born without a praeputium or foreskin Experience shew's that there are often very strange defects and obliquities in Generation Some are born Eunuchs Math. 19.12 2. Or if it were cut off when they were Infants how could they tell by what means Some Children as Paracelsus that famous Chymist and Physician have had their privities or some part of them bitten off by a Swine or some other Creature And what could assure them that they were not so 3. Suppose it were cut off by Men yet how could they tell that it was done in way of an Ordinance of God They could have no assurance of all or of any of these things but from humane Testimony only unless you will say They had it from Divine Revelation for which you have no ground Hence then an Infant Baptized in Infancy hath as good ground of assurance from a humane Testimony and may as well remember all his days that he was Baptized though he hath no signal-impression in his flesh as an Infant-Circumcised might have that had that signal-Impression in his flesh that he was Circumcised in his Infancy The one hath a humane Testimony or Tradition to assure him and the other in conclusion hath no more which is sufficient in this which is only a matter of fact 4. Even an Adult-person when he is dipped hath no more than a humane Testimony that he was Baptized for he cannot hear the words of the Baptizer when he is under the water Yet he takes it for granted that he was Baptized into the name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and remembers it all his days By these I hope you will see the weakness of your Reason And so I come to your fift Question and Answer Quest 5. Whether Circumcision was administred to Believers as Believers and to their Seed only p. 205. which you alter p. 218. and say to their Seed after them and add as such to which Baptism was to correspond Your Answer is By no means And your Reason is because Circumcision was an Ordinance which by the Institution belonged to all the natural Lineage of Abraham good or bad c. I Reply 1. Circumcision was by God's appointment administred to those Males that were of the Church in Abraham's Family and afterwards that were of the Church of the Jews and so continued and to their Male Children also Gen. 17. And Baptism now in these Gospel-days is by the appointment of the same Gracious God to be administred to such persons as are of a Gospel-Church and so continue and to their Infants also Go ye and Disciple all Nations Baptizing them c. Matth. 28.19 As Children of Inchurched-Parents were Discipled into the Church of the Jews and were Circumcised so now Children among all Nations that are Discipled by means of their Discipled-Parents should be Baptized by Christ's Commission as hath been proved And were not those Inchurched-Parents to Believe in Christ to come as now Inchurched Parents are to Believe in Christ already come Was not their attendance upon the Sacrifices and Ceremonial-Worship a profession of their Faith in Christ to come at least in the judgment of Charity What if many of them did not savingly Believe Is it not so now also Are all that are Baptized in your way true Believers do all of them Believe with all their heart I Believe you dare not say so You grant Abraham was a Believing-Parent and a Father to them all but you say He was a publick Common-Father which reacheth not the Case in hand To which I Reply Abraham may be considered in a twofold capacity 1. As an Inchurched-Believer and the natural Father of Children 2. As the Father of the Faithful then and also in all after-Ages and as Heir of the World In this latter sence no Believer ever was or shall be such a Father as Abraham was But in the former sence Every Inchurched Believer that hath an Infant or Infants is to be such a Father as Abraham was Abraham as an Inchurched-Believer was such a Father to his natural Children as by God's appointment did Externally interess his natural Children in God's Covenant and the Visible Initiatory-Seal thereof I will be thy God first and then the God of thy Seed therefore Circumcise them And this Priviledge the Children of Inchurched-Parents have now under the Gospel But you say if that were granted that Priviledge would not stand the natural Children of Abraham in any stead to admit them to Baptism Matth. 3.7 9. John rejects them calling them a Generation of Vipers who said they had Abraham for their Father For Answer 1. These were not Infants to whom John spake but gross notorious Hypocrites who carried their Hypocrisie in their foreheads so as that John could perceive it and continued obstinate and Impenitent 2. The Baptism of John was an Ordinance now newly-instituted and belonged to the New-Testament-Dispensation Mark 1.1 2. c. And those Pharisees being Adult-persons and notoriously corrupt standing in opposition to Christ and to the purity of the Gospel and power of Godliness there was good Reason why John should require them to repent before they
of explaining your self Your words seem to relate to Gal. 5.2 3. when Circumcision was abolished by the death of Christ and no Ordinance of God the Apostle tells them then that if they were Circumcised Christ would profit them nothing for it would be as if they had said and held that Christ had not died and satisfied for sin and so such a one would be a debtor to do the whole Law Circumcision being one of the Ordinary Seals of God's Covenant under that Legal Dispensation until Christ should come to fulfil the Law would now by their abuse and perverting of it engage them to perform perfect obedience to the whole Law in their own persons under penalty of Eternal damnation He speaks to such as it seems would joyn their own performances and legal Ceremonies and Christ's Righteousness together So that this doth not reach your purpose for you speak of Circumcision as it was a blessed Ordinance of God in force engaging the Jews to keep the whole Law of Moses in an Evangelical manner looking to Christ alone for Righteousness to justifie them and the Apostle speaks of it as now abolished by Christ and perverted by some of these Galatians who would make a mixture of their own personal Righteousness the Legal Ceremonies and Christ's Righteousness together in the business of their Justification As for the rest of the phrases had you told us what you mean by the Law of Moses and what by the Law of Christ We should then have been able to judge of your Argument but now it must remain with your self If in Moses Law you include the Moral-Law I must assert that that also is the Law of Christ and brought under Christ for Gospel-Ends which I suppose you will not deny Thus much to the fourth 5. Circumcision say you was administred to all Abraham's natural Seed without any profession of Faith Repentance or Regeneration whereas Baptism to the Spiritual Seed was only upon profession of Faith c. which more fully appears by three Instances c. For Answer 1. It was by God's command to be done upon Infants of Inchurched-Parents who were not capable then of making any such profession and we know no absurdity that Baptism should now be administred to Infants of Inchurched-Parents though they can make no such profession of Faith c. 2. Circumcision was administred not only to all Abraham's natural Seed but to his Church-Seed to wit Proselites and their Male-Children and the Children of his Servants who were themselves Circumcised Exod. 12.48 when Abraham was Gen. 17. 3. As for Adult-Persons to be circumcised why was not the same or like profession of Faith and Repentance required of them as of Abraham himself God requires of him the Fruits and effects of both and that before he was circumcised Gen. 17.1 I am God Almighty walk before me and be upright And how could he do so either Invisibly to men or Visibly without Believing and Regeneration suitable to those Your self grant that Abraham received the sign of Circumcision the Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had before And it is an impregnable Truth that Circumcision did mediately signifie and Seal Regeneration Jer. 4.4 with Deut. 30.6 and Heart-Circumcision as your self have granted p. 223. How therefore can you prove that those of years that were to be Circumcised were to make no profession of Faith and Regeneration It 's probable that it was not indeed so manifest and express as what is required now in Gospel-times but that there was not any at all suitable to the Church under that Dispensation is gratis dictum and without proof Did Proselytes make no kind of profession of Faith before Circumcision How then could the Church of Israel know what difference there was between them and their Heathen Neighbours Did they no more but offer themselves to be Circumcised only And did the Church admit them upon that offer without any further transaction certainly that would have been the way to make bad Church-work When you give better proof we shall either Embrace or else Answer your Argument I now come to examine your three Instances First what you mean by a Spiritual-parent I cannot understand only I guess you mean the Holy Ghost and then that Instance as to the substance of it hath been Answered before An Inchurched Parent both then and now gives right to the Initiatory Seal to the Child Secondly because say you a Legal p. 222. Ecclesiastical Typical Holiness when Land Houses and Trees were holy qualified for Circumcision whereas only Evangelical and personal Holiness was a meet qualification for Baptism I Answer As Ecclesiastical and Federal Holiness qualified for Circumcision of old so Ecclesiastical and Federal Holiness doth now for Baptism as hath been proved What you mean by Typical Holiness here and of what was Typical I understand not because you have not here declared it But you seem to make the Holiness of Children then the same with Land and Trees Was the federal Holiness of Children then the same with that of Land and Trees If there be not now an Evangelical-Ecclesiastical-Holiness what Holiness is that which a Hypocrite hath whom you Baptize A legal-Ecclesiastical Holiness it is not for that say you is past and gone Typical Holiness it is not for that be it what you please to call it is also vanished Real Spiritual-Holiness it is not for he is an Hypocrite What then will you call it If it be not an Evangelical-Ecclesiastical and Federal Holiness it is none at all and why then is he Baptized Thirdly say you because strangers and Servants bought with mony and all ignorant Children of eight days old yea Trees were capable of Circumcision whereas only Men of understanding capable to Believe with all their heart and give an account with their mouths were to be esteemed capable subjects of Baptism I Answer 1. Were not those strangers and Servants bought with mony Men capable of understanding 2. Were they not instructed by Abraham before they were Circumcised Abraham was a long time a Believer before God put him and his Family into that Church-Estate and commanded them to be Circumcised as you will easily grant And God speaks of him as one that had experience of Abraham's Care Industry and Faithfulness that way Gen. 18.19 And how do you know that God gave not a Blessing to his Endeavours at least so far as that they outwardly made some profession of Faith and Regeneration suitable to the State of the Church in those days Is it probable or rational to think that Abraham ran upon the Men of his Family as upon a Company of Bruit Beasts to Circumcise them without instructing them what the mind of God was in it Surely that had been to deal with Beasts and not with Men. 3. Children of inchurched-Parents of eight days old were capable of Circumcision then and so they are of Baptism now though they cannot give an account with their mouths
which I hold their Parents ought to do 4. But that Trees also were capable of Circumcision I suppose you will not be able to prove If you diligently examine the Text and consult judicious Commentators upon it you will find no such sence as you and some others put upon it Levit. 19.23 Hear what the Learned Buxtorfius that great Hebraician and Antiquary in the Jewish writings saith upon the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 First it signifies to hold or account one uncircumcised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Praeputiatum vel obthuratū habuit vel censuit Levit. 19.23 Et ob thurabitis obthurationem ejus juxta Rab. Solomonem i. e. arborem impuram fructus ejus pollutos abominabiles cenfesebitis sicut praeputium seu cutis obthurans membrum virile Interdum significat praeputium absculit quasi Depraeputiare dicas Depraeputiabitis i. e. auferetis praeputium ejus i. e. fructus ceu impuros decutietis ut Chaldaice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. removendo removebitis fructus ejus i. e. abjicietis tanquam immundos Buxtorf or closed up Hence Rabbi Solomon upon Levit. 19.23 Ye shall close up the closing thereof that is ye shall account the tree unclean and the fruits of it polluted and abominable even as the foreskin or skin that closes or stops up the member of a Man Secondly It signifies to take away the foreskin or Uncircumcision of any thing and then it is as much as if he said Ye shall shake down the fruits of it as unclean Or as the Chaldee by removing ye shall remove the fruits thereof that is ye shall cast them away as unclean For the first three years they might not eat any of the Fruits not put them to any profitable Use nor sell them to Infidels and if any did eat but so much as an Olive he was to be beaten by the Law saith Ainsw out of Maimony upon that Scripture It 's plain hence that the Uncircumcision and Circumcision here was in reference to the impurity of the Fruits of the Trees and not to the cutting or gashing of the Tree the Fruits were to be unclean and as uncircumcised unto them It will be time now to gather up your Argument that we may see the Validity of it If Strangers Servants c. all ignorant Children of eight days old yea and Trees also were capable of Circumcision then Circumcision was administred to all Abraham's natural Seed without any profession of Faith Repentance and Regeneration At Ergo. Let reasonable Men judge of the inconsequence of this Proposition having before read what I have Answered to the particulars in it I now come to your sixth proof 6. Circumcision was to be a Sign of Temporal Blessings and Benefits to be enjoyed in the Land of Canaan whereas Baptism was to be a Sign of many Spiritual Benefits viz. Remission of sins Justification Sanctification and Eternal Salvation To which I reply 1. And why was it not a Seal rather than a Sign or at least as well as a Sign to assure them of the Promise of that Land unto them was it not a Seal of God's Covenant to them as hath been shewed before And is not Baptism now the like Doth it not Seal outward Temporal Blessings and Benefits promised though implicitly in the Covenant as well as Circumcision did 2. And was Circumcision a Sign and a Seal only of Canaan unto them You by and by after grant that there are in some things an Analogy betwixt Circumcision and Baptism to wit both of them signifying Heart-Circumcision and an Initiating into the Church p. 223. And why did you not express them also when you said Circumcision was to be a Sign of Temporal Blessings and Benefits to be enjoyed in the Land of Canaan As if it had signified only those Temporal Benefits to them This Seem's not fair dealing but rather an imposing upon your inadvertent Reader And had you fairly granted this sooner it would have spared you a great deal of needless Labour Circumcision then by your own grant signifies Heart-Circumcision and Initiating into the Visible Church even as Baptism also doth which is that we plead for And if it did signifie so then both the Parents and Children-Circumcised had an advantage hereby to seek unto God to Circumcise their hearts who had signified and Sealed it to them in that Holy Ordinance 3. If Circumcision signified Heart-Circumcision to those that were Circumcised then it must also signifie Remission of sins and Justification by the Blood of Christ and Sanctification also and consequently Eternal Salvation following those Benefits which they were in that Order to look after of which Canaan was a Type unto them And then what substantial difference is there between Baptism and Circumcision This were to Seek a knot in a Bulrush as the Proverb is 4. To wave the force of your own grant you tell us though it were a Sign of Initiating into the Church yet it was a different-Church different Subjects and Church-Members upon different Grounds and to different Ends c. To which I return what if it were a different Church in some Circumstances Was it not a Church of God a Church of God's instituting and constituting Did it not consist of the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham and afterwards continued unto his Posterity into which the Christian Gentiles were ingrafted and into which the Jews and Israelites shall be again ingrafted in these latter days of the Gospel see Rom. 11.17 23 24 26 27 31. Were not their Children then Externally and Ecclesiastically in Covenant and Members of the Church as the Children of Inchurched Parents and did then partake of the Initiatory Sign and Seal of the Covenant and shall their Children then be left out when God shall again ingraft their Parents in Weigh the Promises made to these Gospel-times when God shall bring them in Their Children shall be as afore-time and their Congregation shall be established before me Jer. 30.20 with Deut. 29.10 11. to v. 16. They are the Seed of the blessed of the Lord and their off-spring with them Isa 65.23 The Children of thy Servants shall continue and their Seed shall be established before thee Psal 102. last See more Ezek. 37.25 26. The Promise is to you and to your Children Acts 2.39 The Grounds and Ends also that are of God's appointing are for the substance the same as hath been proved though in some Circumstances they may differ God having enlarged his Grace towards poor wretches now in these Gospel-days And that Analogy and proportion which you your self do grant in the main substantial things signified by Circumcision and Baptism together with what I have evidenced out of Coloss 2. do give us sufficient ground to conclude that Baptism is come into the room stead Use of Circumcision notwithstanding all that you have brought to the contrary which I hope doth appear by what hath been replyed to you before And whereas you say by
dispensed to Abraham and his Family with respect to a visible-Church-Estate and by that Covenant so dispensed by God and received by them they became the Church of God 4. That the natural seed and Children of Abraham and the rest of the members of that Church in his House were externally and ecclesiastically within that Covenant of Grace I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Gen. 17.7 which is meant not only of his Spiritual Seed but also of his Church-Seed in their Generations v. 9. 5. That Circumcision was then by God's appointment the ordinary Initiatory-Seal of that Covenant under that Ecclesiastical Dispensation 6. That the Male-Infants of those inchurched Parents were then signed and sealed with the Seal of Circumcision as well as their Fathers 7. That it is the same Covenant of Grace that was made with Abraham as to the substance of it that is now come upon us Gentiles 8. That there are Temporal Blessings included in the Covenant now as well as Spiritual 9. That now in these Gospel-days there is an External and Ecclesiastical Dispensation of this Covenant as well as there was heretofore to the Church in Abrahams Family whereby visible Gospel-Churches are constituted 10. That Children of an Inchurched-Parent are now within the External and Ecclesiastical-Dispensation of this Covenant mediate members by means of their Inchurched-Parents as well as heretofore the Church-Seed of Abraham 11. That Baptism is now by God's appointment the ordinary Initiatory Seal of the Covenant under that External and Ecclesiastical-Dispensation instead of Circumcision of old 12. That all the Legitimate-Infants of Inchurched-Parents being Disciples and mediate-Members ought to be baptized as well as Infants of Old were Circumcised God having now enlarged his Grace and given such a Seal as Females might partake of as well as Males and Infants as well as their Parents A friendly Answer to H. D. about Infant-Baptism CHAP. I. IN Page 105. of your Book you say we shall find both Example and Command for Women's receiving the Lords Supper and in Pag. 106. you say Let but as good Proof appear for Infants-Baptism and it shall suffice I shall now essay by the Lord's help to make as good Proof appear if not better that is clearer 1. The Example you bring is out of Act. 1.14 we read say you That Mary and other Women were gathered together and that these Women with the rest of the Disciples were alltogether in one Place and continued stedfastly in the Apostles-Doctrine and fellowship and breaking of Bread and Prayers Acts 2.42 44. It being expresly said that all that Believed were together You take this to be an evident Example that Women received the Lords Supper therefore that there is ground in Scripture to admit them but that there is not the like Example of any Infants that have been Baptized In Answer to which I shall first premise four Things in general and then Answer more particularly 1. I am not against inchurched-Women's-receiving the Lords Supper any more than against inchurched-Men but do believe they have an equal right unto it whil's they continue in a right estate in the Church But 2. This Example that you bring and the Command also as afterwards I shall shew is not express nor so clear as you make it to be 3. That there is as much room for Objections against it as there is for Objections against the Baptizing of Infants as I hope I shall make appear and that there is as much evidence and clearness for the latter as you judge to be for the former 4. All the evidence that your Example and Command will afford you for Womens receiving the Lords Supper you must deduce by way of consequence and that very darkly too from what you bring And if so I hope you will use the same candour integrity and right Reason in allowing what will rationally follow from the Scriptures that shall be produced for the Baptizing of inchurched-Infants Veniam dabimus petimusque Vicissim Now more particularly to your Example 1. It is not here expresly-said that these Women were Believers Act. 1.14 but you must gather it by consequence from this and other Scriptures compared together 2. That this Assembly was not the same that is not mentioned Acts 2.42.44 For this was to constitute a new Apostle in the room of Judas and wâ—â— somewhat before as appears Acts. 2.1 The other is spoken of the multitude of Jews and Gentiles converted afterwards when the day of Pentecost was fully-come and the Spirit given in that miraculous gift of Tongues 3. Here is no express-mention that those Women were in and of that great Assembly Acts 2.42 44. who continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of Bread and Prayers How do you know but that they might be dead or sick or upon some other occasion absent as Thomas was before John 20.24 As here is nothing exprest to the contrary so nor any thing expresly affirmed that they were present 4. Nor is there any express-mention of any other Women in that great Assembly Acts. 2.42 44. though afterwards there is Chap. 5.14 when the number was increased If it be objected that Sapphyra is afterwards mentioned Acts. 5.1 2. I Answer neither doth that expresly and directly prove your Assertion For 1. It is not expresly said that she was a Member of the Church though by consequence we may gather she was 2. If she were It is not said that she received the Lords Supper for she might be dead before she received it 3. You cannot say she was one of those that are spoken of Act 2.42 44. for she might be one of those that were afterwards converted to the Christian Religion Cap. 3. and Cap. 4. when the number was much increased Chap. 4.4 to five thousand Men. 5. The words upon which you lay the stress of Womens receiving the Lords Supper here are in express-terms against you though you take them expresly for you your words to prove that those Women did receive the Lord's Supper Acts 1.14 with Acts 2.42.44 are these It being expresly said say you that all that believed that all that believed were together Let us now fairly-examine the Greek Phrase and we shall find it expresly of Men and not of Women I doubt not but you know the Gender of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth expresly limit it to men and not to Women As if he had said all the Men that believed were together continued in the Apostles Doctrine c. and in breaking of Bread And if you examine the rest of the Chapter Acts 2. You shall find it spoken expresly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of and to men and not women yea some of them the same men that are said to believe and to continue in the Apostles Doctrine and breaking of Bread In v. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every Man heard them speak not woman In v. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
Children of the Church of the Jews were some of those that were to be circumcised after the manner of Moses then some of those on whom they laid the yoke of Circumcision after the manner of Moses must be Children of Inchurched-Parents But Children of the Church of the Jews were some of those that were to be Circumcised after the manner of Moses Gen. 17.12 Therefore some of those on whom they laid that Yoke must be Children of Inchurched-Parents to wit Children of eight days old Hence it is plain â primo ad ultimum that Children of Inchurched-Parents one of them at least are Disciples and by our Lord's Commission should be Baptized The true order then is this 1. That Gentile Parents should attend to the preaching of the Gospel and be converted by it 2. That then they should enter into a Gospel-Church-Estate that is be Discipled 3. And upon that should be Baptized themselves 4. And that their Infants also being by the Lord's appointment received in with and by means of their Parents or Parent at least as mediate-Members and by the Lord called Disciples they also as well as their Parents should by his Commission be Baptized they being as truly and compleatly mediate-Members in their kind as their Parents are immediate Members in their kind I shall give one Argument more for the Disciple-ship of the Infants of Inchurched-Parents If to be one of Christ's Externally and Ecclesiastically as Matth. 26.73 Mar. 14.69 70. Luke 22.58 And to be with Christ Externally as Matth. 26.69 71. Mar. 14.67 Luke 22.56.59 be the same thing with being one of Christ's Disciples as appears John 18.17.25 Then Children of Inchurched-Parents being Externally and Ecclesiastically related to Christ and Externally with Christ and of his Kingdom the Church as Matth. 19.13 14 15.13 14 15.16 must of necessity be Disciples Dr. Worth To clear this distinction of Church-Members take what followes Church-Members called by the name Disciples are of two kinds or species 1. Immediate that do actually in their own persons having first approved themselves to the Church receive and lay hold of the Covenant of Grace held forth to them in a Church-way for themselves and their Seed and giving up themselves and their Seed to the Lord and to his Church Gen. 17.7 by the will of God This they do for their Seed as middle-persons by God's appointment and not as publick persons 2. Mediate by means of their Parent or Parents one or both And hence ariseth the Distinction of Immediate and mediate Church-Members distinct from each other in kind which may thus be proved Prop. Such as is the confederation of little Children such is their Church-Membership Assump But their confederation is Mediate Conclus Therefore their Church-Membership is mediate also This is the Argument of that reverend and accomplished servant of God Mr. John Davenport The Proposition is evident because Church-Confederation is the proper and formal-cause and reason of Church-Membership Et cui forma tribuitur vol adimitur eidem formatum The Assumption is also clear for it is plain that all such Childrens confederation is in and by their Parent or Parent 's confederating for them Mediante Parente And this makes their Membership Mediat Were this distinction generally held by them that hold Paedobaptism our dissenting Brethren that are against Infant-Membership and Infant-Baptism would be freed from a great Temptation For they see that if Children be Church-Members of the same kind and species equally with their Parents then when they are grown up they may by virtue of that Member-ship Relata enim non suscipiunt magis minus challenge a right to all other Church-Ordinances because they are Church-Members as their Parents were and stand in a right Estate in the Church having never been cast out I must confess that by such a succession of Members as this is the Church would be sadly corrupted But if this Distinction of Immediate and Mediate Members were held then might our Brethren easily see that the Membership of Children which is mediate would not entitle them to full Communion with the Church in all Ordinances proper to the Adult but they must become Immediate-Members by their own credible profession of Faith and Repentance to the satisfaction of the Church and laying hold of the Covenant solemnly themselves as their Parents have done before them And this would be a way according to God to maintain a succession of Infant-Members to whom there are divers Priviledges belonging tending to their Conversion and yet to keep the Church pure See Mr. Baxter's Book of Confirmation wherein he hath solidly proved the substance of what I here assert And now it will be requisite to recollect what hath been more largely discoursed and to apply it to the scope intended I have shewed that there are as many and as probable objections against both the Example and command that have been produced by H. D. for Womens receiving the Lord's Supper as are against the Baptism of Children of Inchurched-Parents And that there are if not clearer yet as clear Arguments out of Scripture for the latter as for the former and therefore as little reason to object against the latter as against the former My intent is not to quarrel but rather to compose this difference if the Lord see it good CHAP. II. AS to to the Baptism of Believers I know none that are for Infant-Baptism do oppose it provided 1. That they be Believers in a Gospel-Church-Estate 2. That they be such Believers as have not before been Baptized in their minority But the former part of your book tending to prove that only Actual Believers should be Baptized I cannot perceive that your proofs do confirm it either from Scripture or humane Testimonies The generality of them if I apprehend them rightly speak only of Adult persons and therein we agree with you that Adult persons ought to testifie their Faith and Repentance to the judgment of Rational Charity of the Church guided in judging by the Rules of God's Word before they are admitted to be Members and to Baptism And I believe you cannot but judge that the Testimonies you bring from Mr. Perkins Mr. Baxter Dr. Owen and some others were so intended and not at all against Infants I shall leave that to them that are concerned and are yet alive to explain and vindicate their own sence But as for some others who as you render them speak more punctually to your purpose which I have neither time nor Books to examine I look upon the case of Infant-Baptism as little concerned in them the sacred Scripture alone as you confess being the only Rule that can satisfie Conscience Yet were it not too tedious a task I could shew you many mistakes in your apprehensions of divers of them And you may see Answers to sundry of them in Dr. Homes and some others which yet you take no notice of I grant that all Adult Persons to be admitted to the Church
thy God will Circumcise the heart of thy Seed Circumcise your selves to the Lord and take away the foreskins of your heart They should seek to the Lord to do it for them And you hold the End and Use of Baptism and Circumcision the same in some of the main things they signifie 2. To the Parents Baptism now as Circumcision of old is a comfort and encouragement to the Parents to stir them up and encourage their Faith to pray and wrestle with God for the Conversion of their Children and to train them up in the way that they should go I bless God I have experienced this to be a Truth and still do and would not leave this Priviledge in the behalf of my Children for all the World 3. To the Church also They have a present Use of the Baptism of Inchurched-Children for thereby they may reflect upon the rich Grace and Goodness of God to them and their Seed and be put in mind of their Duty to their Children to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Hereby also they are minded of their duty of watchfulness over the Parents of such Children to see that they train them up in the ways of the Lord A duty too much neglected And also to mind them of their engagement to such Children in case their Parents should die or be impoverished they having been solemnly consecrated to God in the presence of the Church and owned by them Lastly That it is the duty of the Church as well as of the Ministers of it to pray for converting Grace for such Children whom they have seen solemnly consecrated to God See the judgment and practice of the Waldenses afterwards and under the Seal of the promise of Regeneration CHAP. V. In your fifth Chapter p. 35. you would prove Believers-Baptism to be the only Baptism from the New-Testament-Dispensation so differing from that of the Old Testament-Church which you say was national consisting of the natural and fleshly Seed of Abraham TO which I Reply If by Old-Testament-Church in this place you mean the Church as it was first constituted in Abraham's Family Gen. 17. I must deny it to be National for it became not National till the Lord brought them out of Egypt and set up a National-worship amongst them at Mount-Sinai And this is expresly called the Old-Covenant in reference to the New-Covenant under the Gospel see Heb. 8.8 9. I will make a New-Covenant not according to the Covenant that I made with their Fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the Land of Egypt And to this that of the Prophet Ezekiel hath relation Chapter 16.8 I entred into a Covenant with thee and thou becamest mine Therefore the Covenant made with Abraham when God put him and his Family into a Church-Estate is not that National-Covenant which the Apostle calls the Old-Covenant Heb. 8.8 9. and now gives way to the New but is that blessing of Abraham which for the substance of it still remains and is come upon the Gentiles Gal. 3.14 But by the Old Covenant which is now out of doors is meant as the Lord himself explains it Heb. 8.9 That National-Covenant that he made with their Fathers when he led them out of Egypt unto Sinai the Moral Law being then given with Terrour and the Ceremonial Law annext unto it as their Schoolmaster to lead them to Christ then to come who by his death fulfilled it and put an end to it nailing it to his Cross Col. 2.14 And this is called the Old Covenant in reference to the New one made now in the Gospel-days which is the Covenant made with Abraham revived and freed from those loads of Ceremonies wherewith it was once burdened Now it is not new in respect of the main substance and essence of the Covenant for they are both the Covenant of Grace see Haggai 2.5 Gods Spirit was among them then see also Isa 6.3.11 but in respect of the new manner of Dispensation of it the Articles of Grace being now more express promises instead of precepts and the Seals of it more clear easy significant and suitable to a Covenant of Grace As the Commandment of Love is called an Old Commandment and a New-Commandment in a different respect only 1 John 2.7 8. so may one and the same Covenant of Grace be called old and new in a different respect Hence follows 1. That the Nationality of the Church of Israel did not consist in this that they were the natural and fleshly Seed of Abraham but by virtue of the Covenant dispensed in a national way after they came out of Egypt For God's promise to Abraham to wit I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy Seed after thee in their Generations for an everlasting Covenant to be a God to thee and thy Seed after thee was long before that Church became National 2. That worldly Sanctuary Carnal Ordinances a Temporary Levitical Priest-hood and multitude of Ceremonies did not belong unto the Church in Abrahams Family but were peculiar to the Church as National which began near about 400 years after Gal. 3.17 viz. when God brought them out of Egypt If by spiritual Seed of Abraham p. 36. you mean those that did truly and savingly Believe as you seem to take it for you do not at all distinguish between Spiritual and Ecclesiastical then it is apparently untrue For in the New-Testament-Church there was an Ananias and Sapphyra and a Simon Magus who yet were regularly admitted to the Church though they were not true Believers And here I must again return you to your own experience and practice Therefore upon that change John Baptist did not discharge that Priviledge of the Church-Seed of Abraham as you say he did I mean of the Infants of Inchurched-Parents from any such right in the New-Testament as you affirm But he speaks to the grown-persons that rested in that Priviledge and boasted of their being the natural Children of Abraham though they continued impenitent unregenerate slighting and rejecting Christ on whom John directed them to believe compare Math. 3.7 8 9 11. with Acts 4.19 not at all persorming their Covenant-duty In like manner we may now safely say to Children of Inchurched-Parents that are grown up and please themselves that they were the Children of such Parents and harden themselves in impenitency and unbelief as John did then Think not to say we are the Children of Godly-Inchurched-Parents This will neither free you from unquenchable fire nor bring you to Heaven nor admit you as Adult-Members into a Gospel-Church and into full Communion with the Saints therein in all Church-Ordinances but you must bring forth fruits meet for Repentance at least to the judgment of Rational-Charity or else you cannot be admitted thereunto This therefore doth not exclude the Infant-seed of a Parent admitted into a Gospel-Church and continuing in a right Estate therein If the Church-Priviledges of the
2. I have not all the Authors at hand whose Testimonies you produce to examine them you may possibly misapprehend and mistake them 3. Some of the Authors you produce which you say are faithful impugners of Infants-Baptism as a humane and Antichristian Tradition and Invention whom you say we shall find by plentiful Evidence to be none of the least are expresly-contrary to what you affirm In particular the Waldenses whom you so highly extol for what they have said and practised against Infant-Baptism Which thing gives just cause of suspicion that you may have mist it in others as well as in them Take their own words out of John Paul Perrins History translated out of French by Sampson Leonard Printed Anno 1624. In Book 1. Chap. 4. He brings in objections and false Accusations laid upon that people And pag. 15. The 4th Calumny saith he was touching Baptism which it is said they denyed to little Infants but from this imputation saith he they quit themselves as followeth The Time and Place of those that are to be Baptized is not ordained but the Charity and Edification of the Church and Congregation must serve for a Rule therein c. And therefore they to whom the Children were nearest allied brought their Infants to be Baptized c. And then he renders the occsiaon of that Calumny True it is saith he that being constrained for some certain hundred years he tell 's us not how many to suffer their Children to be Baptized by the Priests of the Church of Rome they deferred the doing thereof as long as they could possibly because they had in detestation those humane inventions which were added to that Holy Sacrament which they held to be but pollutions thereof And for as much as their Pastors which they called Barbes were many times abroad in the service of their Churches they could not have the Sacrament of Baptism administred to their Infants by their own Ministers which the Priests perceiving charged them thereupon with this Imposture which not only their Adversaries have believed but divers others who have well approved of their life and Faith in all other points What can be more plain Again in Chapter 5. pag. 30.31 King Lewis the 12th being informed by the Enemies of the Waldenses dwelling in Provence of many grievious Crimes imposed upon them sent to make Inquisition in those places the Lord Adam Fume Mr. of Requests and a Doctor of Sorbon called Parvi who was his Confessor They visited all their Parishes and Temples and found neither Images nor so much as the least shew of any Ornaments belonging to their Masses and Ceremonies of the Church of Rome much less any such Crimes as were imposed upon them but rather that they kept their Sabbaths duly causing their Children to be Baptized according to the order of the Primitive Church teaching them the Articles of the Christian Faith and the Commandements of God To which the King replied they were better Men than he or his People Again Book 2. Chap. 4. pag. 60 61. We have but two Sacramental Signes the which Christ hath left unto us the one is Baptism the other the Eucharist which we receive to shew what our perseverance in the Faith is as we have promised when we were Baptized being little Infants See more Doctrine of the Waldenses and Albingenses Book 1. Chapter 3. pag. 43. implied line 6. and plainly asserted towards the end of the page Whereas Baptism is administred in a full Congregation of the Faithful it is to the End that he that is received into the Church should be reputed and held of all for a Christian-Brother and that all the Congregation might pray for him that he may be a Christian in heart as he is outwardly esteemed to be a Christian And for this Cause it is that we present our Children in Baptism It is also necessarily-implied Book 3. Chap. 4. pag. 99. Where they deny the Popish additions to Infant-Baptism but not the Baptism it self Hence I cannot but wonder that you should so peremptorily assert that the Waldenses were such faithful impugners of Infant Baptism as an Antichristian Tradition and Invention when these Testimonies are so expresly and Diametrically to the contrary Thus much of the third thing premised 4. The humane Authorities you produce though some of them were Godly Men yet it is manifest that the Authors admitted many other absurd things concerning Baptism and some of them as you confess deferred it a long time after they were converted out of a superstitious apprehension as Constantine himself did and others that you Enumerate p. 69. and their Baptizing Catechumens only at Easter and Pentecost And why might they not defer their Infants Baptism out of the like superstition It seems most probable that they did so and therefore their practice and Testimony is of little worth 5. That their silence in the first Centuries after Christ concerning the Baptizing of Infants is no considerable argument against it A non dici ad non esse non valet consequentia But indeed it seems rather an Argument for it It may rather be interpreted that there was no question concerning it nor opposition made against it in those Centuries therefore no mention made of it But afterwards when it came to be questioned and opposed in Century 4. and 5. then there stood up those that maintained it and much trouble there was about it It is not much that I shall say to particulars though I shall not be altogether silent To Century 1. I except against Baptizing by Lay-Men and Women as not regular Though some judicious persons who look upon it as irregular do not count it a Nullity if it be dispensed in the way of an Ordinance In the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and not ludicrously fieri non debuit factum valet It should not have been so done but now it is done it is valid not a Nullity As for the manner of it by dipping I shall speak to that afterwards To Century 2. I see nothing in it but what is proper to grown persons which we do not deny Your Argument hence must be Here 's no mention of Infants-Baptized therefore none were Baptized which is answered a little before To Century 3. p. 63. The latter of the Testimonies you quote out of Mr. Baxter is plainly against you and not contrary to what is in the former but rather explains it You say Mr. Baxter saith that Tertullian affirms that in the Primitive-times none were Baptized without an express Covenanting which shew's that he speaks of Adult-persons in reference to other Adult-persons and not in reference to Infants As if he had said those Adult-persons were Baptized that did expresly-Covenant other Adult-persons that did not so were not Baptized What doth this make against Infants with whose parents God doth Covenant in reference to them Or if you will God Covenanteth with them and they with him mediately by their
Parents Again that in the days of Tertullian Men had liberty to be Baptized or to bring their Children when at what age they pleased Is not this against you It seem's by this that in Tertullians time Men brought their Children to be Baptized and yet you bring this of Tertullian against the Baptism of Children What you bring out of Eusebius makes nothing to your purpose Dionysius say you taught in the School of Alexandria those that were to be Instructed in the Faith before Baptism What Argument is in this against Infants-Baptism Were there not many brought in to be Christians that at their Conversion had Children grown up so that they could not regularly be admitted as mediate-Members by their Parents as middle persons Covenanting for them and so could not regularly be Baptized by vertue of their Parents Covenanting yet notwithstanding these Children were instructed and Catechised that so they might be converted and fitted to make a profession of Faith and Repentance to the Church themselves and so be Baptized Doth not this rather shew the care that then was of Instructing and Catechizing Children which is a thing that hath been too much neglected To Century 4. Decrees of Councils I must return my general Answer the Testimonies you bring all except two respect only Adult-persons between whom and Children in Minority you know the Paedo-Baptists make a difference and if I greatly mistake not the most of your Testimonies in your Book are of that sort which I confess may exceedingly prevail with those who are byassed already and such as are willing to receive them rather by number than by weight Your Testimony out of Basil p. 65. was partly answered to in Cent. 3. None were to be Baptized but Catechumens that is such as were Catechised but he doth not say that all that were Catechumens were to be Baptized for some of them might be Baptized before in their Infancy and yet they were Catechised as well as those whose Parents were lately Converted from Heathenism But suppose it were granted that Basil As for these and St. Augustin whom you afterwards mention you may see an Answer long since in Dr. Homes which you take no notice of Gregory and the rest you mention pag. 69. were Children of Believing-Parents i. e. such as were Believers when those Children were born which your Testimonies do not prove and yet were not Baptized till aged can you indeed approve of their superstition therein you tell us that some were made Bishops before they were Baptized and some deferred it till they were Old and ready to die Is such superstition to be approved how could they regularly communicate in the Lord's Supper till then or omit it all that while I believe your Conscience cannot approve of it for my part it is rather an Argument to me that if any of their Parents were Christians when those Children were born they out of the same superstitious conceit would not Baptize them in Infancy when they should have been Baptized and they being trained up in a superstitions Tradition put it off till age it being just with God to visit such Inventions by leaving Men to greater degrees of them This then doth not hinder the derivation of Infant-Baptism from the Apostles we having grounds from Christs-Commission and other Scriptures also to conclude the right of the Infants of Inchurched-Parents to Baptism To Century 5. and 6. The Testimonies in both have respect to Adult-persons to whom there is now also preaching and Instruction in the Churches of Christ before the administration of Baptism even to their Infants and it is of Use not only to the Parents but also to the Church And if we were to Baptize Adult-persons we would Preach to them first To Century 7. The first of your Testimonies doth expresly and signally speak of Adult-persons No Adult-person but such who had been well-instructed and Catechised and duly examined should be Baptized If it had excluded Infants it should have been said No person whatsoever and not No Adult-person The second also rationally implies it and the other two tend rather to prove dipping than to exclude the Baptizing of Infants To Century 8. All the Testimonies intend Adult-persons without excluding Infants The rest is Answered in Century 6. To Century 9. The same general Answer serves to this also And Rabonus in your pag. 81. Emphatically saith as you quote him The Adult were first to be instructed in the Faith c. which we deny not But how could Strabo tell what was done in the first times that lived 800. years after unless he had it from the Scripture or from some other Authentick writer who lived in those times And if he had so he should have named the Author To Century 10. 11. Still of Adult-persons you have taken much pains to prove what we never deny to wit that Believers not yet Baptized should be Baptized The most of your Testimonies do not in my small judgment so much as hint that Infants should not be Baptized or that Believers Baptism is the only Baptism which is the thing you undertake to prove And what is that word which if taken away causeth Baptism to cease pag. 82. It must be either the Word or Words used in Baptism to wit I Baptize thee in the Name of the Father Son and Holy-Ghost or else it must be the Word of the Covenant to which Baptism as a Seal is annexed And this is usually opened to Adult-persons when they are to be Baptized and to the Parents and the Congregation when an Infant is to be Baptized and is afterwards to be opened to the Child when it is capable of understanding it I cannot but observe many uncouth and Hyperbolical expressions and Similitudes of the Ancients concerning Baptism that accord not with the Scriptures which I believe you would be as loth to own as we are though you use them as Rods to beat your Brethren To Century 12. Some of your Testimonies here as in many other places as I conceive speak not to the point at all And others of them speak against Baptizing such as have not really a true saving Faith as well as against Infants Some others are truly Popish To your second Paragraph there I suppose you will not find that it was the Custom of the Churches that were worthy of the name of Primitive to Minister Baptism only at the Feast of Easter and Pentecost but some ages after the true Primitive Churchs when men's-Inventions bare more sway And though some perhaps Godly and Learned Baptized-Children out of a conceit of the absolute necessity of Baptism unto Salvation and washing away Original Sin yet that doth not prove that then Infants began to be Baptized It is fallacia Accidentis vel â dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter To Century 14 15 16. This Chapter labour's with the same disease that the former ones did to wit so speaking of Adult-persons as not to deny Infants And as for
him Let this be the more carefully marked because Inferences and deductions from Scripture concerning Infants-Baptism are denyed So for Examples some are more expresly and explicitly laid down others more implicitly and covertly You have given instances of the former and I have given instances of the latter Lydia and her House The Houshold of Stephanas Baptized Again Go ye and Disciple all Nations Baptizing them Here is an express-command to Baptize such as are Discipled but what this Discipling is and who are these Disciples is not expresly laid down here but we must look what may be gathered from other Scriptures to give us light therein which I have spoken to before This distinction thus cleared I must deny your Assertion and positively affirm the contrary That there is a precept implied in the New-Testament for the Baptizing of Inchurched-Parents-Infants and as clear if not more clear than that you produce for Womens receiving the Lord's Supper You own the one though the Command and Example you produce be very implicite and entangled with many things that occasion doubting and yet you own not the other I suppose you may easily discern that the Testimonies you bring out of Luther Calvin and some others have respect only to an express Command and Example and not to an implicit one And therefore if you had dealt like a candid and punctual Antagonist you would either have owned what they held and thought as they did concerning an Implicit Command or else you would have contravened and opposed that only As for Calvins judgment see his Institutions lib. 4. Chap. 16. Artic. 5 6 7. He gives divers arguments to prove that the Baptism of Infants was instituted by God 1. saith he We have the same Promise that Israel had heretofore in Circumcision for Infants Therefore they are not to be driven away from the sign of Baptism when they are partakers of the thing-signified And then in the Article he tells you the Covenant is the thing-signified to them Diserte namque pronunciat Deus Circumcisionem infantuli loco sigilli futuram ad obsignandain foederis promissionem That is God expresly saith that the Circumcision of a little Infant should be instead of a Seal to confirm the Promise of the Covenant 2. His second Argument to prove it to be instituted of God is taken from the Covenant of Abraham which is common to us Christians 3. His third Argument is taken from the Act of Christ so courteously embracing the Infants that were brought unto him See there more at large By all which it appear's that though Calvin might deny that there was any express Command for Baptizing of Infants yet he held an Implicite Command which is the thing I was to evidence CHAP. II. To your Chapter second of Infants-Baptism disproved AS for your humane Authorities against Infant-Baptism they are of little force to overthrow it when we have so much reason out of the Holy-Scripture as hath been shewn to establish it But whereas you assert that there was no authentick practice of it for 300. years to wit next after Christ and his Apostles I shall in opposition thereunto give you what Mr. Philpot that honoured Martyr of Christ hath left us in the Book of Martyrs vol. 3. pag. 607. 608. in a Letter to a friend of his Prisoner in Newgate at the same time concerning Infant-Baptism who out of divers ancient Authors produceth the contrary to what you affirm The Baptism of Infants saith he was not denyed till above 300 years after Christ And you say that the Baptism of Infants came not into the Church till above 300 or 400 years after Christ His words are these Auxentius one of the Arrian-Sect was one of the first that denied the Baptism of Children and next after him Pelagius the Heretick and some others there were in St. Bernards time as appear by his writings And in our days saith he the Anabaptists an inordinate kind of Men stirred up by the Devil to the destruction of the Gospel see pag. 607. They are his words and not mine for I Believe and hope better things of many in our days what-ever they might be then And afterwards pag. 608. finally saith he I can declare out of Ancient-Writers that the Baptism of Infants hath continued from the Apostles times unto ours Neither that it was instituted by any Councils neither of the Pope nor of other Men but Commended from the Scripture by the Apostles themselves Origen saith he who lived 200 years after Christ upon the declaration of the Epistle to the Romans expounding the sixth Chapter 8. v. That the Church of Christ received the Baptism of Infants from the very Apostles Hierom about 400 years after Christ maketh mention of the Baptism of Infants in the third Book against the Pelagians and in his Epistle to Leta Augustine about 400. years after Christ reciteth for this purpose a place out of John Bishop of Constantinople in his first Book against Julian Chap. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For this cause we Baptize Children c. And he again to Hierom Epist 28.8 That Cyprian who lived about 250 years after Christ not making any new decree but firmly observing the Faith of the Church judged with his fellow-Bishops that as soon as one was born he might be lawfully-Baptized The place of Cyprian saith he is to be seen in his Epistle to Fidus. Augustine in writing against the Donatists lib. 4. Chap. 23 24. saith That the Baptism of Infants was not derived from the Authority of Man neither of Councils but from the * By Tradition he means not an unwritten Tradition but a Scriptural one such as the Apostle mentions 2 Thes 3.6 2 Thes 2.15 Tradition or Doctrine of the Apostles Cyril who lived in Julian's time upon Levitic cap. 8. approves the Baptism of Children and condemns the iteration of Baptism These Authorities of Men saith he I do alledge not to tie the Baptism of Children to the Testimonies of Men but to shew how Men's Testimonies do agree with God's Word and that the verity of Antiquity is on our side and that the Anabaptists have nothing but lies for them and new imaginations which feign the Baptism of Children to be the Popes Commandment Thus far Mr. Philpot. To which let me add out of Calvin's Institutions Lib. 4. Chap. 16. Art 8. In English thus Quod autem apud simplicem vulgum disseminant longam annorum seriem post Christi resurrectionem praeteriisse quibus incognitus erat Paed obaptismus in eo faedissime mentiuntur Siquidem nullus est scriptor tam vetustus qui non ejus originem ad Apostolorum seculum pro certo referat That which they scatter among the simple Common-people saith Calvin that a long tract of years passed after the Resurrection of Christ wherein Paedo-Baptism was unknown in that saith he they most shamefully lye for there is no Writer so Ancient which doth not refer it 's Original to the age
of the Apostles as an undoubted-Truth If you would see more how Ancient Authors brought by some against Infant-Baptism do indeed either not speak against it or else do speak for it read Mr. Cobbet's vindication of the Covenant and Church-Estate of Children c. From pag. 213. to the end of the Book by which you will discern how Men have at least misapprehended and mistaken them and brought them to witness what was never in their thoughts nor the import of their words See the like in Doctor Homes to whose answers you should have replied and not have brought in the same things as if nothing had ever been said against them CHAP. III. In Answer to your Chapter third AS for the Arguments drawn from humane Tradition for Baptizing Infants I leave them to those that are willing to build their Faith upon humane Tradition But as for consequential Arguments deduced from Scriptures to justifie the Baptizing of Infants those I must stick unto as knowing that nothing can naturally and per se of it self flow out of the Scriptures of Truth but Truth And every grain of Truth is to be prized above the World And you have no more but Consequences to prove that Women should partake of the Lord's Supper and those also much entangled and obscured with difficulties I must profess if consequences be not valid that naturally flow from Scriptures rightly understood I know not what to make of much of the Holy Scripture neither will you As to that Math. 19.13 14. Calvin will tell you how Baptism comes to be concerned in it Institut lib. 4. Chap. 16. Artic. 7. This is not lightly saith he to be passed by that Christ commandeth Infants to be brought unto him adding a reason to wit because of such is the Kingdom of Heaven and afterwards he declareth his will by his deed when having embraced them he commends them to his Father by his praying for them and blessing of them If it be meet that Infants should be brought to Christ why not also that they should be received to Baptism which is the badge of our Communion fellowship with Christ If theirs be the Kingdom of Heaven why should the sign be denyed them c. See more there As to that of John 3.5 Let them plead for the Baptism of Infants from that Text that see more than I do in it I shall not side with them nor conclude as they do that there is no other way to Regenerate and save Infants though I dare not exclude Baptism if God please then to work Nor shall I deduce the Baptism of Infants from Mark 16.16 upon this ground that they are Believers or upon any other inspired habit of Grace within them which is wholly hidden from man having a clearer surer more solid and visible ground to build upon not only from Christ's Commission as hath been proved but also from the Covenant made with Abraham and his Seed externally in a Church-way Gen. 17.7 and repeated Acts 2.39 together with the Analogie of Baptism with Circumcision than the initiatory Seal of Gods Covenant and dispensed to Infants and also from that federal holiness mentioned 1 Cor. 7.14 which you deny and make it to be only a Legitimacy of such Children What if others saw it not in ages past that Holiness there is taken for federal Holiness Neither did you your self see formerly many Truths that now you do and yet they were in the Scriptures then as well as now We have cause therefore to bless God that hath given to any of his Servants to discern the Truths that lay hid from the former Ages and in particular this among others of the federal Holiness of Children of Inchurched-Parents I confess my self not so much an Antiquary as to say who was the first founder of this Interpretation nor have I ancient Commentators at hand to examine but if Zuinglius were the first as you affirm we have cause to honour him and to bless God that revealed it to him And now I come to answer to your reasons given against it 1. It doth not contradict the Gospel-Dispensation but well suits with it the Lord not having straitned but enlarged his Grace now in Gospel-times and the visible tokens of it 2. This federal Holiness of Infants of Inchurched-Parents is not an entayling Grace to Nature nor Regeneration to Generation but is an entayling of God's Covenant in it's External and Ecclesiastical dispensation to the natural-Seed of Inchurched-Parents which they should improve also for their Regeneration It is therefore your mistake to take Grace absolutely and only for Regenerating Grace as if we held this Holiness to consist in Regeneration and Inherent Sanctification For we acknowledge that we and our Children are all by Nature Children of wrath as well as others Eph. 2.3 But we and our Seed being at least Externally in God's-Covenant have an advantage left us by our Gracious God to press him for regenerating Grace for our Children which he hath indefinitely and conditionally promised And our Children when they come to discretion for themselves This priviledge and advantage they want who are strangers from the Covenants of promise as being without Christ without hope and without God in the World Eph. 2.12 but being under the Covenant they have a visible ground for their hope which they should improve for converting-Grace leaving secret things to God If then you ask what Holiness this federal Holiness is It is a Relative Holiness by way of separation and Consecration God hath Externally-Consecrated Inchurched-Parents and their Seed to be his people comprehending them within the External and Ecclesiastical-dispensation of his Covenant and thereby hath entitled them to the Initiatory Seal thereof the susception of which even infants are capable of And here again I must mind you that your Assertion doth necessarily imply that whosoever is Baptized must be truly-regenerated and sanctified which hath been often confuted before 3. Hence this federal Holiness of Infants doth not at all contradict the experience of former and latter times as you say it doth Had not Abraham an Ishmael and Isaac an Esau And yet both of them when Children were federally Holy What I pray did Esau sell when he sold his Birth-right for which he is called a profane person Heb. 12.14 And what if Parent 's now Inchurched neglect their Duty and have Children that when grown up do slight their Priviledge and walk wickedly neglecting their Duty required of God as indispensably-necessary to the establishment of Covenant-Relation and transgressing those Commands they were obliged to observe Is it not an aggravation of their Sin that they were once Children that were devoted and consecrated to God You will easily grant that it was a great Sin to turn any consecrated thing to a common and profane Use And is it not so here for Children that were externally consecrated and related to God in his Covenant to turn from him in stead of seeking him and to give up
to the other that believes Believers as to all lawful things have a lawful use of them as they are Men but they have also this more than any Unbelievers have to wit a Sanctified Use of them as they are Believers To the pure all things are pure Tit. 1.15 that is not only lawful for so Meat Drink Physick Plowing Marriage c. are even to Heathens but they are also holy in and for the use of Believers But to the impure and Unbelieving Meat Drink Apparel Marriage Plowing c. though in themselves lawful yet nothing is pure and Sanctified to them but even their Mind and Conscience is defiled The Plowing of the wicked is Sin Prov. 21.4 2. Though this Sanctified Use and Enjoyment is necessarily implied in that phrase Sanctified in the Believing Husband and in the believing Wife yet that is not all but there is somewhat more intimated which is more to our purpose and to the scope of the place and why we should lose a grain of it I see no reason Mr. T. For both the Parents being as it were the common root of the Child if both are unholy and unbelieving the Child is unclean in the Apostl's sence But saith the Apostle If either the Father or the Mother be a Believer the Child is not unclean but holy notwithstanding one of the Parents be an Unbeliever For that Parent which is an Unbeliever is sanctified in that Parent which is a Believer I say sanctified in him so that by vertue of that Parent who is a Believer the other that is an Unbeliever becomes with the Believing Parent the root of an holy Child as if he or she were a Believer too the Blessing following the Believing party The Vnbelieving Parent is Sanctified In the Believing one and so with the Believing one is the root of an holy Seed Hence we see that there is no reason why we should change the signification of In into To but great reason why we should give it it 's proper signification As to that of Ezra 10. It was an Obligation peculiar to the Nation of the Jews before Christ came in the flesh and before the Partition-Wall was broken down between Jews and Gentiles And that it respected the Jews only and also for that space of time is apparent thus An Infidel-Husband turning Proselite was not bound to put away his Wife though she still continued an Infidel And thus much to that phrase Sanctified in the Believing-Husband and Sanctified in the Believing-Wife Now of the Childrens being Unclean and Holy I assert 1. Negatively By Vnclean here is not meant Illegitimate or Bastards nor such only as have Sin in them for so those Children the Apostles calls Holy have Nor by Holy is meant Legitimate Nor do the Scriptures you alledge make it good From what I pray was the Bastard who was Illegitimate excluded Deut. 23.2 not from Legitimacy only but from the Congregation of the Lord. He was accounted unclean and unholy in reference to that and might not partake of the priviledges of the Covenant as other Children might He was not to be accounted federally-Holy as other Children of the Jewish Church were which your self doth grant p. 190. And as to that of 1 Thes 4.3 4 5. It doth not prove Legitimacy to be Holiness but there is something more in it For the Apostle speaks not here to the Gentiles that knew not God v. 6. but to visible Saints-Inchurched who were visibly at least and in the judgment of Charity in God the Father and in Jesus Christ Chap. 1.1 And it was the Will of God that they should walk not only in a Civil and sober manner for so many Gentiles did that knew not God but also in a Sanctified manner that every one of them should possess his Vessel in Sanctification and Honour even in their married-estate and not in the lust of Concupiscence God expects that his people even in a married-estate should not only be honest but also Holy That they should consecrate themselves whole to God And again that by honesty and purity the Saints might be discerned from them that know not God Beza in loc And as to that of Malachy 2.15 it doth not at all oppose what we hold The words are not a Holy Seed as you render them pag. 199. but a Seed of God that is God instituted Marriage between but one Man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and one Woman he created and joined but one Woman to one Man though he might have made many more but one I say that their Children might be a Seed of God And Legitimate Children may be called a Seed of God because born in Marriage which was instituted of God for all Mankind But this Seed of God common to all Children born of Parents in lawful Marriage is not equivalent unto those Children which the Apostle calls Holy 1 Cor. 7.14 for their Holiness depends not only upon that lawful-Marriage of the Parents but principally and properly upon one of them as a Believer Denominatio sumiâ—ur â potiori in whom as a joint-root of the Child the Unbeliever is said to be Sanctified ut supra Again neither by Holy is meant such as they might make a holy use of For so a repenting and Believing Parent might of a Bastard or of other Children of Infidels Nor is it meant the same with the Infidels being Sanctified in the Believer 2. Affirmatively and Positively 1. By Vnclean is meant such Children one of whose Parents was not at least a visible-Believer who never consecrated himself and his Children to God in his Covenant 2. By Holy is meant such Children one of whose Parents at least was a visible-Believer and Member of the Church of Christ who had given up himself and his Children to God in his Covenant Such were Holy with a Covenant and Church-holiness Mr. Cobbet Antiochus destroyed the holy people or people of the Holy ones Dan. 8.24 among which were Children destroyed as well as Parents And how were they Holy Even by vertue of the Holy-Covenant Dan. 11.28.30 32. in which all the Jews Externally and Ecclesiastically were together with their little Ones Deut. 29.11 12. Against which Holy Covenant the Enemies had indignation Dan. 11.30 The Children were a part of that body of people redeemed from Egypt which were called Holy Deut 14.2 and Deut. 26.18 19. and cap. 28.9 Take the sum of the words in this ensuing Paraphrase Unless your Interest in the Covenant of Grace and your Faith therein which in a Church-way ye profess have so much influence on your Infidel Yoke-fellows as to Sanctifie them not only to your Conjugal Use but also to Sanctifie them in you both of you being together one Common-root of your Children it cannot be of force to your Children to render and denominate them Holy but they must be unclean as if ye had been both Infidels But this latter ye do not question to wit whether your Children are Holy And
therefore why should ye question the other to wit whether you may conscionably abide and have Conjugal Communion with your Unbelieving-Yokefellow This sence of the Text is plain and clear and suitable to the Apostles scope And hence as long as this Covenant-Interest holds in force neither rejected by the Parents as Rom. 11.20 nor they suspended nor cut off by a just Church-Censure as 1 Cor. 5.4 5. nor by God's just hand as Rom. 11.15 17. even so long as the Covenant is Ecclesiastically of force to the Childrens federal and Church-Estate see Ezek. 16.8.20.21 23. And thus I hope I have cleared this much controverted Text of Scripture wherein I suppose are answered the main things that are brought against it but yet I shall answer as briefly as I can to some particulars that such as are not so well able to discern them under other heads might see them here To pag. 194. Argument second It seem's to me an unweighed and inconsiderate Assertion to say that the Holiness of the Children 2 Cor. 7.14 is of no other nature than that spoken of the unbelieving Parent in the Text and therefore that if one will entitle to the Ordinance so will the other This is neither consistent with the Truth as may be seen before nor with your self for you tell us pag. 192. that the unbelieving-Husband's being Sanctified to his Believing Wife is that she might freely-converse with him in the Conjugal-Estate c. and the Holiness of the Child was his Legitimacy Judge impartially whether these are the same To your third Arg. p. 194 195. That this Text is not to be limited to Infants c. I Answer it is to be limited to Infants and Children in minority For if they be 30 40 or 50. years old as you speak they are to profess personally their Faith and Repentance and to lay hold of the Covenant themselves before they can regularly be Baptized To your fourth Argument p. 195. Why this federal Holiness of Children that we speak of cannot be a New-Covenant-Holiness that must qualifie and entitle to Baptism first because it cannot be known say you for the Parent professing may be a Hypocrite and then you Baptize a wrong Subject In Answer to which 1. Though I am heartily sorry in some respect yet in another I am glad to hear you speak so plainly In other places you are more dark and silent but here you plainly express your mind It seem's then you Baptize no Hypocrites and I heartily wish you did not Do you certainly and infallibly know that all that are Baptized in your way are true real Christians and not Hypocrites Surely that cannot be known by you And why then are they Baptized It 's too apparent that divers such persons are Baptized in your way I pray consider how this your principle and practice can consist and stand together As for us we know that such Parents are Church-Members whose Infants we Baptize but when you Baptize a Hypocrite you Baptize a wrong Subject Ex ore tuo c. 2. We do not Baptize a wrong Subject when we Baptize the Infant of an Inchurched-Parent that is an Hypocrite He appears a Saint to the Church and as such they received him his Hypocrisie is hid from them as Judas's was from his fellow-Disciples A Member of the Church he is and hath as good a right in foro Ecclesiae before the Church to all Church-Ordinances as the most sincere Christian in the Church hath both for himself and his Child 3. That this federal-Holiness is a New-Covenant-Holiness and sufficient to entitle the Child to Baptism Is there not an External and Ecclesiastical Dispensation of the New-Covenant now as well as an Internal and Spiritual And is there not an Ecclesiastical and Church-Holiness which Hypocrites may have as well as true Saints which is also a New-Covenant-Holiness Whereby they have an external-right to New-Covenant-Ordinances Hath not the Hypocrite Baptized in your way a New-Covenant-Holiness Is he not Externally in the New-Covenant and therefore you admit him to be Baptized you think also that he is spiritually and savingly in the New-Covenant but afterwards it appears you were mistaken And so it is your Opinion that tends to Baptize a wrong Subject and not ours We go upon more sure and certain grounds and such as may be known and through Grace we know Consider good Sir of these things which in Love to the Truth I present to your self and to others You add a second Reason thus If this federal-Holiness be a New-Covenant-Holiness that must qualifie and entitle to Baptism then no Unbelievers Child is in Covenant or Elect I must profess this is strange Arguing and wants a deal of Rational Glue to joyn the Consequent to the Antecedent When we speak of federal-Holiness we speak of what is Visible External and Ecclesiastical and if you have not taken notice of it formerly I beseech you observe it now for I perceive and have long observed that the want of a right apprehension of this is one great cause of difference about Infant-Membership and Baptism But to your Argument If you repeat the whole Syllogism you will find four terms in it The Antecedent of the Proposition speaks of an External Right to Baptism and the Consequent is of a saving-Interest in the Covenant and of Election which is yet higher We easily grant that an Unbelievers or Pagans Child may be Elected from Eternity and may be if God please savingly in the Covenant of Grace and a true work of Grace in his Soul in a way and time unknown to Man and yet we can truly say that such an Infant his Parents being Infidels hath not that federal-Holiness which the Children of Inchurched-Parents have and so hath not an Immediate Right to Baptism For 1. He hath no Right by means of of his Parents for they are both Infidels Secondly nor by his own profession for he is not capable of making any and so the Church can have no knowledge of it I grant he hath fundamentally a Right but not formally Jus ad rem but not jus in re A remote Right not an Immediate It seem's to me by your expression and what I have heard from some others of your perswasion That you make on 's being in the Covenant and Election to run parallel without distinguishing of the one or the other which I have observed to be a cause of great mistakes especially to many honest and simple-hearted-Christians who are not able to see their way through it I shall therefore speak something to it Election falls under a two-fold consideration in respect of the Object unto which persons may be said to be Elected 1. To Eternal Life and happiness and the Graces of the Spirit preceding it as means certainly tending thereunto 2 Thes 2.13 1 Pet. 1.1 2 3 4. Eph. 1.3 4. 2. To External Church-Ordinances and Priviledges Deut. 7.6 7. Psal 65.4 likewise the Covenant is considered as Internally and savingly Dispensed
or as Externally and Ecclesiastically Dispensed Now if you take both of these together in sensu composito in a compound sence then I grant that the Covenant is no larger than the Vein of Election but they run parallel But if they be taken in sensu diviso in a divided sence for Election only unto Eternal Life and Salvation and Saving-Graces then I deny them to be equal For there is also an Election of some unto External Church-Covenant-Ordinances and Priviledges who are not Elected unto Salvation A Church-Member living and dying in Hypocrisie was within the Covenant Externally and Ecclesiastically dispensed Else how came he to be a Member of the Church which consists by the Covenant which is as the Cement that joyn's them together Yet such a One was never in the Vein of Election unto Eternal-Life which is absolute and not conditional as some Blasphemously hold Hence when it is said the Covenant is no larger than Believing that is It belongs to none but true Believers It is thus to be understood to wit as to the enjoyment of the saving benefits of it it belongs as Immediately to none but true Believers but as to the External proposal and tender of them and Ecclesiastical and Temporary Priviledges of the Covenant so it may and doth belong not only to true Believers but also to such as make a credible profession of true Faith in a visible congregation though they be not true Believers indeed to their Children also To conclude this If the Covenant be no larger than the Vein of Election unto Salvation and no larger than true Believing then some of these absurdities must needs follow 1. Either there must be no Hypocrite in any visible Church for he is not in the Vein of Election to Eternal Salvation and therefore Matth. 13.37 38 39 c. 47 48 49 50. not within the Covenant and this is flatly-contrary to the Scripture and to known experience see also Rom. 9.1 2 3 4. 2. Or if there be any Hypocrites in the visible-Church they must be certinaly-Elected to Salvation For Being in the Visible Church they are within the Covenant as hath been proved and the Covenant being no larger than Election they must of necessity be Elected 3. Hypocrites in the visible-Church must be Damned or Saved Damned they cannot be because they are within the Covenant as I have proved And the Covenant being of the same Latitude with Election they are Elected to Salvation and must not be Damned or if they be God must change his Decree which is Blasphemy even to think Again Saved they cannot be for God never Elected any unto Salvation that lived and died Hypocrites and he will not change his mind And hence according to that Tenet Hypocrites can neither be Damned nor Saved 4. If the Covenant be no larger than Election unto Eternal Life and Salvation and no Infants are in the Covenant then all Infants-dying must be damned For according to this Opinion they being not in the Covenant are not Elected and not being Elected cannot be saved unless the unchangeable God change his Decree that is change himself Hence we see that what we hold is free from that absurdity which you would fasten upon it and the absurdity lies at your own Door But it seem's all my labour is in vain that I have spent in proving this Holiness of Children 1 Cor. 7.14 to be a federal-Holiness because say you Be the Holinese here what it will it is neither here nor else-where assigned to be a ground of Baptizing Children upon c. To which I Answer 1. That if this Holiness be federal which you acknowledge all Children under the Law had yea I shall also add as the Children Inchurched in Abraham's Family had which was long before the Law then if those Children were by God's appointment sealed with the Initiatory Seal Circumcision the same Covenant that God made with Abraham and his Seed being come upon us Gentiles Gal. 3.14 with Acts 2.39 Our Inchurched Children also are to be Sealed with the Initiatory Seal of the Covenant now under the Gospel Especially considering this that God hath never revoked it but hath brought Baptism into the place of Circumcision Col. 2.11 12. And you your self grant so much implicitely in saying that Circumcision and Baptism serve to the same end and that there is an Analogy in some things betwixt the one and the other Pag. 223. But 2. I have already proved out of Christs Commission that Inchurched-Parents Children are Disciples and so federally Holy and by the same Commission to be Baptized And the reason why Women and Females under the Law were not Circumcised nor commanded to be Circumcised was because of an Incapacity in Nature they having no Praeputium or Foreskin as the Males had and what other Reason there might be is hid from us With Reverence I may say It could not suit with the Wisdom and goodness of God dealing with his people in the way of a Covenant of Grace to command a thing impossible I pray what was there in the first Institution of Baptism in John the Baptists time concerning the Baptizing of Women We hear nothing of them expresly till a long while after Acts 8.12 And as for their right to and receiving of the Lord's Supper I suppose we have shewn you as much obscurity in it as you can object to us concerning the Baptism of Inchurched Infants CHAP. IV. Answer to your Arguments of Circumcision examined p. 204. and to the Questions you make and Answers seven in all Quest 1. WHether Circumcision called the Gospel-Seal did belong of old to all in Gospel-Covenant First you deny Circumcision to be the Seal of the Gospel-Covenant to all Believers and so do I there were many Believers before Circumcision was instituted and so they could not be Sealed by it Be it so that Circumcision was tied to the Church in Abraham's Family and afterwards to Jacob and his posterity Might not God do with his own what he would What if God denyed it to others out of the Church in Abraham's Family and afterwards in Jacob's posterity that people might joyn themselves to them as Proselytes which is most probable Are not many Believers without the Seals of the Covenant now because they do not or cannot joyn themselves to a Gospel-Congregation Will you therefore deny Baptism and the Lord's Supper to be the Seals of the Gospel-Covenant to all Believers Are they not instituted of God to be Seals unto them if they come in a right way to enjoy them Again you say there were some to whom the Covenant did not belong who received that called the Seal of Circumcision as Ishmael You indeed Answer this your self in the next words when you say This Covenant was not to be Established with him but with Isaac Gen. 17.20 21 25. It was not to be Established with him to be made to stand and abide with him He doth not say that the Covenant in
that External-Dispensation did not belong to Ishmael or that he was not in the Covenant in that Ecclesiastical administration of it when he was Circumcised from what was he cast out was it not from the Covenant against which he mocked in Isaac Gen. 21.9 10. and from the Church and the External Priviledges of it in which he was Externally before Here you again miss it because you do not distinguish between the Covenant in its several administrations Some of those you mention that you say were not Sealed with Circumcision were within the Covenant Spiritually and Savingly others that were Sealed were in the Covenant Ecclesiastically and Externally to which latter sort alone Circumcision was annexed Some were only Ecclesiastically in it and some others were both And some only Spiritually and not Externally and Ecclesiastically Your Argument therefore makes not against us at all for you speak not ad idem and so there can be no opposition If you had dealt as an artificial and candid Disputant you would have singled out that wherein the difference lay and have opposed that only and not have fallen into the Paralogism of Ignoratio Elenchi of the mistake of the state of the Question This Answer concerning Ishmael will serve to the rest and I see no cause to doubt whether the New-Covenant-Promises under this Ecclesiastical-Dispensation did belong to all the strangers in Abraham's House that were Circumcised according to God's appointment They were part of Abraham's Church-Seed Quest 2. Whether the New-Covenant and that mentioned in Gen. 17. be the same To which the sum of your Answer is that the Covenant in Gen. 17. was a mixt-Covenant as the Seed was which you thus explain to wit as Abraham by Promise stood in a double Capacity to wit The Father of a Nation to wit the natural Israelites So to be also a a Father of many Nations comprehending the Spiritual Israel whether Jews or Gentiles And so accordingly the Promises say you were of two sorts sometimes respecting his natural Seed whether Domestick or National who were say you Typical of the Spiritual c. and others again respecting in a peculiar-manner the spiritual Seed the Family of the Faithful viz. the Elect of whom through Christ he was Father and which are Evangelical and in special manner belonging to the New-Covenant And hence you infer that much of the mistake and errour lies in this by applying that to the one which belongs to the other for want of distinguishing the promises that are often so mixed that the one may be taken for the other I shall first gather up the sum of this into divers positions and then give in my Answer 1. You say The Covenant in Gen. 17. was a mixt Covenant to wit because the promises of it were partly of Temporal partly of Spiritual things I suppose this to be your meaning 2. As the Seed was and so you make the Covenant to depend upon the Seed which you say were Natural-Israelites or Spiritual Israel the Elect. 3. You say the Natural Seed was Typical of the Spiritual 4. That the Temporal Promises respected his natural Seed and the Spiritual and Eternal ones his Spiritual Seed viz. Elect and true Believers 5. And that these Spiritual and Eternal or Promises of Eternal and Spiritual Blessings do in special manner belong to the New-Covenant now in these Gospel-days I judge this to be the sum of what you assert To which I reply 1. That the Covenant in Gen. 17. was no more a mixt Covenant than the Covenant is now in these Gospel-days The New-Covenant doth not now exclude Temporal Blessings Godliness hath the Promise of this Life and of that which is to come 1 Tim. 4.8 The Lord indeed then made them an express Promise of Temporals the Land of Canaan which was also a Type of Heaven and Promises of Spiritual and Heavenly things more covertly and sparingly And now he makes Promises of Spiritual and Heavenly things more clearly expresly and frequently and of Temporals more implicitely and sparingly May not you as well call this a mixt-Covenant 2. The Covenant doth not depend upon the Seed as you intimate but the Seed upon the Covenant The natural Seed then were the natural Children of Abraham running in the posterity of Isaac through Jacob and his posterity And these Natural-Seed of Abraham were also his Church-Seed and to these the Covenant Externally-belonged as also to the Proselyts and their Children The Spiritual Seed of Abraham that were Elected to Eternal Salvation were also a part of that Natural and Church-Seed God promised to be a God to both in a diverse respect And so he is now in these Gospel-days if rightly-understood Gospel-Churches are the Church-Seed of Abraham and God is their God Externally in Covenant as he was to the Church of old And he is the God of the Spiritual-Seed that are now those that are Elected unto Salvation to both in a diverse respect as before And your not owning of this is the fundamental cause of this Controversie which yet is so plain that I know not how you can deny it For are not Hypocrites in Gospel-Churches the Church-Seed of Abraham who profess such a Faith as Abraham did though they have not the Truth and reality of it Hypocrites they are and yet you look upon them as within the Covenant of Abraham and therefore you Baptize them and yet they prove not to be so at last I have spoken largely to the substance of this before 3. You say The natural Seed was Typical of the Spiritual As the Birth of Isaac to wit not by strength of Nature but by Promise which did prefigure those that are born of the Spirit and that look for Righteousness and Life alone by Faith in Christ I suppose this is your meaning according to Gal. 4.23 24 25 26. To which I Answer That this Spiritual Seed which you say is typified by the natural as it respects Gospel-times is to be considered either as such indeed or as such in shew and appearance only in the judgment of the Church who are to judg after the sight of their eyes and the hearing of their Ears and cannot look directly into the heart and know â priori as Christ doth by the power of his Godhead Isa 11.3 And thus it makes not against us but for us and against you For do not Gospel-Churches consist of the one as well as of the other Nay when Christ the Bridegroom shall come again will not the Kingdom of Heaven to wit some Gospel-Churches consist all of them of foolish Virgins which shall have Oyle in their Lamps to wit a profession and outward appearance of true Faith and Grace but no Oyl in their Vessels none of the Spirit and true Faith and Grace in their Hearts Matth. 25.1 2 3 c. What can be more plain 4. The Temporal Promises say you respected his Natural Seed and the Spiritual and Eternal-ones his Spiritual-Seed viz. the Elect and
then were not who were Strangers from the Covenants of Promise and Aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel in the 12th verse of the very same Chapter Overthrow this Truth if you can Again another of your Inferences is If God made his Covenant of Grace with the Posterity of Believers then say you would Grace be a Birth-priviledge and Regeneration tied to Generation contrary to John 3.3 and John 1.12 13. This hath been fully Answered to before This External-Covenant-Grace we hold is a Birth-priviledge of the Children of Inchurched-Parents and is an advantage to Parents to cry to God for Converting-Grace for their Children and a strong engagement to them to train them up in the way of the Lord and to Children when grown to cry to God for Converting-Grace for themselves The Lord thy God will circumcise the heart of thy Seed to love the Lord thy God c. Deut. 30.6 Again you infer Then must all the Posterity of Believers be saved unless you will hold falling from Grace To which I reply that what hath been already said will easily Answer this It doth not at all yield such an Inference But this we may safely say and hold that the Posterity of Inchurched-Believers have an advantage tending to Conversion and Salvation that other Children have not it will be their great sin greater Condemnation if they improve it not Nor do we hereby necessitate the Doctrine to be true that Men may fall from Grace that is from inward sanctifying Grace They may indeed fall from that outward Covenant-Grace as Ishmael and Esau did But as we do not hold this to be Inward Sanctifying Grace so we cannot necessitate the Doctrine to be true that Men may fall from it for then they must fall from what they never had Another of your Inferences is Then must we tie up and confine the Grace of God's Covenant to the Children of Believers only and then what hope say you for the Children of Unbelievers Contrary to the Experience of all Ages c. To which I return which also hath been mentioned before 1. Grace is either External Covenant-Grace or Internal Spiritual and Saving Grace We do not tie up by our Tenet the Internal Spiritual and Saving-Grace to the Children of Believers only but leave unto the Soveraign Lord his Prerogative-Royal to bestow his Grace upon whom he will Rom. 9.15 18. 2. But this I must affirm that Infidel-Parents and their Children want that priviledge that Christian Inchurched-Parents and their Children have I pray what Visible help have you that deny this to encourage your Faith to Believe and put you on to pray for the Conversion and Salvation of your Children What no Promise from God concerning them in which you may wrestle with him in their behalf and no Promise left for them to further them in it any more than Children of Heathens This were sad indeed I bless the God of all Grace I have experienced the contrary and do daily I knew a Godly Parent of your perswasion who was sadly perplext about the Eternal Estate of a dying-Infant What visible ground of hope have we for dying Infants if there be nothing left us in Gods-Covenant Your last Inference is Then is the Covenant of Grace overthrown concluding an Interest without Faith Rom. 4.14 derivng a Title by natural Generation To which I reply that hath been Answered already The Covenant of Grace is not thereby overthrown but established For 1. The Faith of one Inchurched-Parent at least hath been visibly professed and the Covenant visiby-accepted which hath given an Interest to the Child And 2. Hence the Natural Legitimate Child of such a Parent hath thereby a visible Title which is that we plead for Then you come pag. 213. to that Scripture Acts 2.38 39. which you grant if rightly-understood to be Parallel with that Gen. 17.7 But I cannot agree with you in your sence of it For first what you say agrees not with the Truth Secondly nor with your self 1. Not with the Truth For the Promise there seems not the Promise of the Spirit in those extraordinary gifts of it wherewith God adorned the Church then mentioned out of Joel 2.28 For first that Promise of Extraordinary gifts of the Spirit doth not belong to all Believers and Inchurched-Parents in all Ages as that other doth Acts 2.38 39. Secondly nor is effectual-Calling the only condition of obtaining those Extraordinary Gifts For many that were and are effectually-called had them not and some might then have them that were not effectually called as is apparent in Matth. 7.22 23. Thirdly Remission of sins is here Promised to all these Jews and is here held forth to them as Externally belonging to them to urge them to Repent and Believe which is not so much as named in Joel 2. Fourthly it is apparent that the Guilt of that cursed wish Matth. 27.25 His Blood be upon us and our Children did stagger them and occasioned the Apostle in express-Terms to mention that promise to them to their Children which the Promise of those Extraordinary Gifts could not cure They were prict in their heart v. 37. For that great Sin especially and needed remission of sins and wounded for that curse they had wished upon their Children and the holding forth of this Promise was to oure them both which thing the other of Extraordinary Gifts could not do Fifthly though Sons and Daughters might fall under the notion of their Children yet Old men mentioned as distinct from them could not so which yet are mentioned in Joel 2. These two Scriptures then speak not to the same thing and so are not the same Promise Yet if any do still suppose them to be the same let them read what Mr. Sydenham hath said upon that Text in his Book for Infant-Baptism Thus I have shewn why I conceive that your interpretation of that place in Joel doth not agree with the Truth in making it the same with Acts 2. 2. I shall now shew that it doth not agree with your self In pag. 213. You say that that Promise Acts 2.39 is the giving of the Spirit Joel 2.28 and doth follow the Receiving of Christ in the Gospel and the obeying his Commands Ephes 1.13 Gal 3.14 Acts 5.32 Therefore say you Acts 2.38 Peter exhorts them to Repentance and Faith in order to the receiving of it And afterwards you say therefore the Promise to wit in Acts 2.39 is not made but upon condition of Calling and Faith and Baptism And in pag. 214. The Promise is given as a Motive why they should Repent and be Baptized I must confess my weak understanding cannot reconcile them Review them more distinctly and judg of them The Promise Acts 2.39 is the giving of the Spirit prophesied Joel 2.28 The same Promise follows the receiving of Christ Peter Exhorts them to Repentance and Faith in order to the receiving of it The same Promise is not made but upon condition of Calling Faith and Baptism and
Jews if you Repent and Believe and to your Children if they Repent and Believe and to those that are afar off even as many as the Lord our God shall call to wit if they Repent and Believe For those words As many as the Lord our God shall call being according to this Interpretation the exegesis exposition and limitation of all that went before and in your sence taken for effectual Calling only it must necessarily be added And then this must needs follow that one may be effectually called and yet not Repent and Believe whereas Repentance and Faith are infallible fruits of effectual Calling Besides here is another absurdity will also follow that the Promise and Covenant of Grace as we have shewed it is doth not belong unto them until they were also Baptized for that also is mentioned together with Repent And then it will follow that one must be Baptized before he hath any Way Right and Interest in the Covenant of Grace which indeed is according to the Proverb to put the Cart before the Horse Having thus opened and cleared that Scripture Acts 2.38 39. I shall now argue from it Prop. That part of Mankind which was once by God's appointment Externally in the Covenant of Abraham and sealed with the ordinary Initiatory Seal of that Covenant and were not cast out by Christ at his coming but on the contrary confirmed therein have still by God's appointment an External-Interest both in the Covenant of Abraham and in the ordinary Initiatory-Seal thereof now in these Gospel-days Assump But Children of Inchurched-Parents are a part of Mankind which was once by God's appointment Externally in the Covenant of Abraham and sealed with the ordinary Initiatory Seal of that Covenant and were not east out by Christ at his coming but on the contrary confirmed therein Conclusion Therefore Children of Inchurched-Parents have still by God's appointment an External Interest both in the Covenant of Abraham and in the ordinary Initiatory Seal thereof now in these Gospel-days The Assumption is apparent as hath been already shewed And if you deny it we require of you in the name of the Lord to shew us out of the Holy Scripture when or where Christ by his coming cast them out either by himself in person or by any otherimployed by him I have already shewed that he did it not by John Baptist nor by his Apostles For by them in Acts 2.39 he hath confirmed it And that he did it not in his own person appears by his courteous Reception of Infants brought unto him and rebuking his Disciples for hindering them to be brought That they were once Externally in Abraham's Covenant by God's appointment is plain I will be thy God and the God of thy Seed Gen. 17.7 That they were Sealed you your self instance in Esau pag. 206. who you say was not in the Covenant and yet Sealed viz. with Circumcision See your Margin there with that in the line We shall add more in replying to the fourth Question The Proposition is plain and clear If they were once interessed Externally by God's appointment in Abraham's Covenant the Seal of it not cast out by Christ but by him Confirmed therein they must still have an Interest in them Thus much to your third Question and your Answers to it Now to your fourth Question and your sence of it Quest 4. Whether Circumcision was a Seal of the New Covenant to the Children under the Law so pag. 205. But in pag. 216 you use other terms viz. To the Believers and their Seed You roundly deny it to be a Seal to the Children and much less a Seal to them of the New-Covenant It was only say you a sign put into the flesh of the Infant but a Sign and Seal only to Abraham c. And in p. 218. Your humane Testimony which you approve of saith It was a sign to the rest of the Jews that they were Abraham's Seed That is only that they were Abraham's Seed must be your meaning or else you speak fallaciously To which I Reply 1. Of what was it a sign to Abraham's Seed was it indeed only that they were Abraham's natural Seed was it not a sign unto them of the Circumcision of their heart to love their Covenant-God with all the heart and all the Soul which God promised Deut. 30.6 and called for from them Jer. 4.4 that they might improve it by seeking to God to do it for them And were not their Parents to make the same use of it in reference to their Children How can you evade this Nay do not you your self afterwards grant p. 223. that Circumcision signified Heart-Circumcision 2. And why not a Seal unto them also Not that they did already Actually-Believe as Abraham did before he was Circumcised But 1. That God was their God Externally in that Covenant Gen. 17.7 and would continue to be so if they did not afterwards reject him 2 Chron. 15.2 2. And that in particular God would be found of them if they sought him 2 Chron. 15.2 and would not only Communicate the outward and Temporary Blessings of the Covenant to them but also means of Grace and not only so but Converting-Grace by those means 1 Chron. 28.9 Thou Solomon my Son know thou the God of thy Father and serve him with a perfect heart and a willing mind If thou seek him he will be found of thee but if thou forsake him he will cast thee off for ever You grant pag. 217. that Circumcision was a Seal or Confirmation of that Faith which Abraham had before and to assure him of those special Promises made to him and his Seed both Carnal and Spiritual It seem's then you made not a full enumeration of all the particulars of which Circumcision was a Seal to Abraham in pag. 216. I would here ask you Were not those Spiritual Seed Carnal before they were Spiritual If so as you cannot deny was not Converting-Grace for them promised and Sealed to Abraham in his Circumcision according to this your Assertion And seeing Abraham could not know the particular persons that should be so made his Spiritual-Seed nor any Man else in after-Ages did not God therefore make the Promise of their Conversion Externally in general and Indefinitely Deut. 30.6 and Sealed it to Abraham and his Seed that so those that were in Gods Eternal purpose to be converted and saved might through Grace lay hold of it and others that wickedly slighted it might be left without Excuse If this were Sealed to Abraham and the same Promise came along to his Seed and they also had the same Seal that Abraham had how then comes it to pass that it should not be a Seal to them also who were so deeply-concerned in it to assure them that God would Circumcise their hearts if they sought him in his own way for he saith He will yet be inquired of by the House of Israel to do it for them Ezek. 36.37 with v. 26 27.
Blessed be God I have heard a Child upon his dying-Bed plead this Covenant with God for his Grace to the great satisfaction of my Soul To come now to the Second part of your Answer that as Circumcision was not a Seal to Children under the Law so much less a Seal to them of the New-Covenant say you pag. 216. In stead of which in pag. 218. you say New-Testament Answ I like not the changing of your Phrases as you have done in this Question and your Answer to it You cannot but know that there lies a fallacy in this Phrase as you have applied it here and changed it Pardon my boldness I have before distinguished of the New-Covenant It may either be taken for the Covenant of Grace in opposition to the Covenant of Works or for the Covenant of Grace under the New-Testament-Dispensation as opposed to that same Covenant under a more legal-Dispensation So it is called New Heb. 8.7 8 13. It being the Covenant made with Abraham revived Gen. 17. freed from all those legal Ceremonies wherewith it was burdened before which have had their accomplishment in Christ and having only a few plain and simple Ordinances annexed to it 2 Cor. 11.3 suiting with a pure Gospel administration even as that Covenant made with Abraham had suitable to that Dispensation before the Law was given This being premised I Answer That Circumcision Gen. 17. was a Seal of the New-Covenant to wit the Covenant of Grace as it was opposed to the Covenant of Works made with Adam before his fall and also as it was opposed to the same Covenant for the substance of it under that Legal Administration at Sinai and afterwards And though there be a difference between the Administration of it in Abraham's Family and the Administration of it now under the New-Testament in some few circumstances of New Ordinances yet the Ordinances then were but few and suitable to that Administration of the Covenant of Grace then made with Abraham and his Family Circumcision then being one of the ordinary Seals of that Covenant in a Church-way dispensed and the Passeover the other For it 's useful for us to observe that Circumcision began not with the Ceremonial Law at Sinai but was long before a Sign and Seal to Abraham and the Church in his Family which was more correspondent to a New-Testament Church in Gospel-times than the national Church of the Jews was And hence saith Christ Moses gave unto you Circumcision not because it is of Moses but of the Fathers John 7.22 that is of Abraham Isaac and Jacob that were long before Moses To conclude this Circumcision we see was both a Seal to Children under the Law and a Seal of the Covenant of Grace Externally and Ecclesiastically dispensed beginning in the Church in Abraham's Family and continued all along in the Church of the Jews until Christ put an End unto it by his death I had almost slipt-over that Expression of yours pag. 218. That nothing is a Seal of the New-Testament but the Holy Spirit Eph. 1.13 and 4.30 I confess it 's a strange Paradox to me Is Believers Baptism no Seal with you Nor the Lord's Supper no Seal Alas poor Believers How have you been deluded Have you so often come to have the pardon of your sins sealed and God's love in Christ fealed unto you in the Lord's Supper and now you are told it is no Seal Ther 's none else if you will believe it but the Holy Spirit I thought it had been an External-Seal appointed by our Lord himself Surely such Assertions as these are do tend to destroy all outward Ordinances of Christ though I hope you never intended it This is like to that of some others there is no word of God but Christ and so do destroy the Authority of the Holy Scripture And like that 1 Cor. 1.12 I am of Christ and care not for Paul nor Apollos nor any Ministers whatsoever Again you say neither is Baptism more than Circumcision called a Seal it is called a Figure say you 1 Pet. 3.21 and a Sign proper only to Men of understanding c. And not as Circumcision which was a Sign not improper for Infants because it left a signal impression in their flesh to be remembred all their days but so cannot Baptism be to any Infants say you p. 218 For Answer That Circumcision was a Seal and that also to Infants hath been proved and your self have acknowledged it to be a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to Abraham though you deny it to be so to all others And though Baptism be no more a Seal than Circumcision was yet I hope you will allow it to be as much a Seal as that was The Gracious Lord hath made a Covenant of Grace and is willing his people should be confirmed of the Truth of it And hath he put no Seals to it to confirm it Certainly this is a new and strange Doctrine which the Faithful knew not in former Ages You say Baptism is called a Figure and a Sign c. 1 Pet. 3.21 I Answer The Apostle there speaking of the Souls saved by water in Noah's Ark tells us that Baptism was a Figure or Type 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 like to that Type Cui nunc respondens exemplar vel Typus Baptismi saith Beza The Ark born up by the Water wherein Noah and his Family were was first a Physical and Instrumental-cause and means of their Temporal preservation of the saving of their lives Secondly God appointed it to be a Type and Sacrament to them to signify and Seal Eternal Salvation to them through Believing in Christ without whom no Salvation is to be had Now saith the Apostle Baptism is a Type Answering that Type signifying and sealing Externally Salvation to all those and only those that are or shall be in Christ by Faith But say you it is a Sign and Figure proper only to Men of Understanding representing Spiritual things and not as Circumcision c. I Answer first The want of the Use of Reason and Understanding in an Infant is no Essential Defect or Impediment as to the External Susception of Baptism no more than it was heretofore of Circumcision which was a Seal of God's Covenant as hath been proved and signified the same things as to the main and substance of them that Baptism now doth By your Argument therefore no Infant should ever have been Circumcised 2. The God of Grace in the External administration of the Covenant of Grace to the Infants of Inchurched-Parents is before hand with them I will be the God of thy Seed Gen. 17.7 and will Circumcise the heart of thy Seed Deut. 30.6 put 's his Seal to it for their assurance and encouragement to seek God for Converting-Grace And they are to be instructed in it when they come to understanding 3. Hence the Infants of Inchurched-Parents are engaged to the Lord and Circumcision of old and Baptism now doth Seal that engagement
the same Argument we may as well conclude that it cometh in the Room and stead of the Ark Manna Rock c. It is a grand mistake for Circumcision was one of the two Ordinary Sacraments and Seals of God's Covenant given to Abraham and the Church in his Family about four hundred years before the Ark Manna or that Rock you speak of Gal. 3.17 There were many extraordinary Sacraments that God appointed to that Nonage-people or Heirs under Age to use the Apostles phrase Gal. 4.1 2 3. which God in mercy gave to help their Faith upon special occasions and emergencies besides some that you mention to wit the Brazen-Serpent for one which was but occasional Jo. 3.14 15. But Circumcision was one of the standing Sacraments and Seals annexed to the Covenant under a Church-dispensation all along into the place of which Baptism by the Lord's-appointment is come which holds proportion with it in all the main things it signified and Sealed And hence 5. You will easily have an Answer to those Popish absurdities and abominations you would fasten upon our Tenent We do not affirm meerly from the Analogy that Baptism is come in the room of Circumcision for if we had not something out of Scripture to warrant it we durst not pin it upon a meer Analogy If therefore Papists or other superstitious wits by arguments drawn from Analogies bring-in Jewish Rites as High-Priesthood National Churches Orders of Priesthood and other innumerable Rites and Ceremonies without any Institution of Christ or New-Testament Authority we have as good ground left us in Scripture to convince them as you have and I hope should be as ready to do it as occasion shall be offerred And thus I have done with your sixth Question propounded long before and your Answers to it now come to the seventh Quest 7. Whether the not-Baptizing Infants makes the Priviledges under the Gospel less than the Circumcising them under the Law p. 205. which you somewhat alter p. 228. saying less than under the Law who had then Circumcision Your Answer is not at all and give your reasons why Not-Baptizing of Infants makes not Gospel-priviledges less than legal First they were not say you Circumcised because Children of Believers or sealed with a New-Covenant-Seal as being in the New-Covenant but upon the account of a Birth-Priviledge as of the natural lineage and Seed of Abraham as a Typical Shadowy thing c. I Reply 1. Were not their Parents professing-Believers at least under such a profession as suited that Dispensation Did they not attend upon the Sacrifices which pointed their Faith at Christ to come And were not they as they grew up to come before the Lord and say A Syrian ready to perish was my Father c. See Deut. 26.5 to v. 12. and there they were to worship before the Lord And afterwards v. 27. to avouch the Lord to be their God as he also avouched them to be his People v. 26. Was there no profession of Faith in all this 2. Were they not Sealed with the Seal of the Covenant of Grace under an external and Ecclesiastical Dispensation I suppose you will not say it was the Covenant of Works though when it became National it was given in somewhat a legal manner 3. What was that Birth-priviledge Did it not depend upon the Covenant Ecclesiastically dispensed and submitted to I will be thy God and the God of thy Seed Gen. 17.7 And did it not run in the natural Lineage and Seed of Abraham as they were his Church-Seed as hath been shewn I pray consider what were the Proselytes and their Children who were also Circumcised they were not at all the Natural Seed of Abraham but they were his Visible-Church Seed 4. You say Circumcision was to distinguish them from the Nations and to keep that line clear from whence Christ according to the flesh should come Suppose this last to be true of Abraham's natural Seed what was this to the Proselytes and their Seed from whom Christ was not to come yet they were to be Circumcised 5. You say there is no such thing in the Gospel the Body and Substance being come the shadow was to vanish and pass away no Birth-priviledge but the new Birth c. I Answer 1. There is no such thing as Bodily Circumcision in the Gospel that is indeed abolished But 2. That there is no Birth-priviledge of the Children of Inchurched-Parents under the Gospel but the new-Birth that I must deny and have already proved that there is And that that Birth-priviledge is a means and help tending to the New-Birth if it be rightly improved Christ is the common Father of Inchurched-Parents and their Seed now in these Gospel-days and they are Externally and Ecclesiastically Christ's and Abraham's Seed and in the same sence Heirs of Promise as hath been already proved And this Priviledge is not a Bondage and a returning to the Type and Shadow as you term it but a blessed Fruit of the Covenant made with Abraham who hath a Church-Seed now as well as heretofore What else is the Hypocrite that you admit if he be not one of Abraham's Church-Seed He is not one of Abraham's Seed Spiritually and Savingly nor hath the New-Birth indeed yet you judge him to have it Ecclesiastically and hence you Baptize him So much to your first Secondly neither ought such a thing say you to be any more esteemed the loss of a priviledge than our not enjoying literally a Holy-Land City Temple Succession of a High-Priest c. I Answer 1. The loss of Baptizing the Infants of Inchurched-Parents under the Gospel would be the loss of a great priviledge both to Parents and Children which under the Law they did enjoy For it would be a loss of that which signified and Sealed God to be their God and the God of their Seed and to Circumcise their hearts to love the Lord and to signifie their initiating into the Church by your own concession and this would be the loss of no small Priviledge and therefore we cannot easily bear this loss 2. It is the loss of a Priviledge also in reference to Temporal Blessings and External Ordinances and means of Conversion As Canaan was an External Blessing signified and Sealed to them by Circumcision so Temporal Blessings are to us and our Infants by Baptism Psal 111. For it is a Sign and Seal of God's Covenant wherein Temporal Blessings are also implied and in the Explanation of it by other Scriptures expresly promised So also for External means of Grace 3. It is the loss of a Priviledge also in reference to Heaven and Eternal Happiness there of which Canaan was a Type unto them that if they did truly Believe in the Messiah then to come and walk in the ways of God Eternal Salvation was Sealed unto them thereby All those we must lose and yet esteem the loss of them the loss of no Priviledge 4. There is not the like Reason of the loss of Baptism
when to meet with a right Subject for you do not hold an Hypocrite to be in the Covenant of Grace at all Spiritually and Savingly he is not in the Covenant of Grace for he is an Hypocrite Externally and Ecclesiastically he is not as you hold for you will not own an External and Ecclesiastical Dispensation of the Covenant of Grace now in the days of the Gospel Yet Baptize him you do upon this conjecture that he is a true-Believer but afterwards he appears to be otherwise Now I beseech you deal ingenuously and see who is at an utter uncertainty when to have a right Subject of Baptism if you be not But as for our Subject we know where to find him We can know whether he be Externally and Ecclesiastically within the Covenant or no but cannot say infallibly he is a a true Believer or Elect unto Salvation which is out of our reach to understand and shall leave it to those that are resolved to go upon such uncertain Grounds So much to your second Reason 3. You say neither can the Child when grown up have any certain knowledg that such a Ceremony viz. as Baptism hath past upon him in Infancy he having no Infallible mark thereof as the Circumcised-Infant had This hath been punctually answered to before I shall therefore conclude against all your Demonstrations as you call them that Inchurched-Parents would lose a great and inestimable Priviledge under the Gospel if their Infants were not Externally and Ecclesiastically interessed in the Covenant and in Baptism the Seal of it and so would the Infants too and in this respect their Priviledges under the Gospel would be less than theirs under the Law I shall add further to what hath been objected 1. That our Ministry is not successive as theirs of old was to the first-born and afterwards in the Family of Levi and more particularly of Aaron We own no such thing in owning the Birth-Priviledge of Infants 2. A Gospel-Church-Estate in reference to Adult and Immediate Members is not successive For 1. It 's requisit that such persons should make a personal credible profession of Faith and Repentance and lay hold of the Covenant themselves Isa 56.4 5 6. as the Eunuch which might be the Child of a Jew must do now in these Gospel-times 2. It 's apparent that many Children of Inchurched-Parents who in their Infancy were Mediate-Members do never when grown make such a profession and lay hold of the Covenant themselves and so do never become regularly Immediate Members but some do draw back and of such God hath said His Soul shall have no pleasure in them Heb. 10.38 And thus in respect of Adult-Children of Inchurched-Parents the Church now is not successive But 3. A Gospel-Church-Estate in reference to the Infants of Inchurched-Parents is successive as it was in the Church in Abrahams Family and afterwards among the Jews as to the substance of it The Infants of Inchurched-Parents were then Mediate Members I will be thy God and the God of thy Seed Gen. 17.7 And so they are now in these Gospel-days The Promise is to you and your Children Acts 2.39 4. Hence it will clearly follow that the Church under the Gospel would be less priviledged and blssed than that in the Family of Abraham and afterwards among the Jews if it were not thus successive in reference to the Children of Inchurched-Parents For both Parents in reference to their Children and Children in respect of themselves would be deprived of a Church-priviledge and Blessing which both Parents and Children of old did enjoy Which is most unsuitable and contrary to the Grace of the Gospel which is enlarged and not straitned and contrary to the whole current of Gospel-Prophecies to Inchurched-Parents and their Children For Inchurched-Believers could not in the due latitude and extent of it be Heirs according to the Promise as Gal. 3.29 If their Children should be Externally excluded from the Promise For the Childrens-right to the Promise in it's External and Ecclesiastical Dispensation is a part of the Fathers Inheritance I will be first thy God and then the God of thy Seed And it is worth our notice that those very Gospel-Promises concerning the Seed and Children do run first to the Parents and are made Immediately to them in reference to their Children Their Children shall be as afore-time and their Congregation shall be established before me Jer. 30.20 They are the Seed of the blessed of the Lord and their off-spring with them Isa 65.23 All thy Children shall be taught of God Isa 54.13 eminently to be fulfilled when Gods time shall come that all Israel shall be saved Rom. 11.26 more Psal 102. last Ezek. 37.25 26. And hence it must needs stick with us and be a Cordolium and heart-breaking to us to lose so great a part of our inheritance from our selves and our Children If Inchurched-Parents should not be a means to convey unto their Infants an External Interest in the Covenant of Grace and a Right to Baptism now the Initiatory Seal of it then surely there must be a breach and a Rupture in the Covenant of Grace to God's people and their Seed which we can by no means admit of For we and our Gospel-Church-Estate and our Children would exceedingly suffer by it we having lost a priviledge which they of old enjoyed and nothing in the stead of it CHAP. V. The Ceremony of Baptism whether it be by dipping or Sprinkling THe Ceremony of Baptism say you is by Dipping p. 232. not by sprinkling You would prove it first by the proper and genuine signification of the Word c. For which End you produce divers Learned Authors that Baptizo properly signifies to Dip Plunge Overwhelm put Under Cover-over to die Colour which is done by plunging Yet p. 248. you grant it signifies washing Acts 22.16 Tit. 3. and Heb. 10. But say you it is such washing as is by Diping To which I Answer That the Use of the Word in Scripture which is the authentick expositour of it self gives us ground to interpret it washing by way of Sprinkling or pouring on of Water and not by Dipping What the Apostle terms divers Washings or Baptisms so the Greek Heb. 9.10 he afterwards calls sprinkling sprinkling the unclean v. 13. and v. 19. He sprinkled both the Book and the People and v. 21. He sprinkled both the Tabernacle and the Vessels of the Ministry And this is more than all humane Authorities Add to this 1 Cor. 10.1 2. Our Fathers were all Baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea I wonder you should bring this place to prove Dipping How were they Baptized in the Cloud but by the bedewings of it They were aspersed with the Atoms of the moisture that was in it And how were they Baptized in the Sea Were they plunged in it as Pharach and his Egyptians were I cannot think you will say so But they were sprinkled by the Waters as they passed by Where by the way observe
could wash my hands as clean that way as you could wash yours by dipping them into the water and I should not count her a Slut that would so wash her hands when they were foul Our experience therefore you see tells us that there is as effectual a way to wash our dirty-hands by pouring water upon them as by dipping them Besides unless you rinse or rub as well as dip you will not easily make clean work of it and if this your similitude hold you must not only dip the person you Baptize but you must rinse or rub him too to signifie his cleansing You take away the cavils of unseemliness from dipping by saying It is the fruit of â—â—â—rnal Wisdom Unbelief and shunning the the Cross and so no other than to reproach the Wisdom of Christ c. I Answer Were it apparent from Scripture that Christ had ordained Dipping and himself so practised it as you affirm I hope through the Grace of Christ many of his people would not count it undecent as now they do And there must be clearer light to convince them that are considerate of it than any you have yet held forth And I much wonder that you who will not admit of Consequences concerning Infants-Baptism which are far more rational and certain should content your self with such uncertain ones as you have brought for dipping I would only recite out of Mr. Cobbet p. 212. what he saith out of Nicephorus lib. 13. cap. 19. of the flying of the Women naked being beset with armed-Men as they were to be Baptized and that sad story of a Priest defiling of a Woman when to be Baptized Then as to the hazard of health you say known experience doth amply refute that vain Imagination You will not be offended I hope if the experience of some others be set against yours It is more than probable that some have presently upon it fallen into a Fever which cost them their lives And I could tell you of some Eye-witnesses credible-persons who saw both the Baptizer and the Baptized in danger of drowning and had very probably been both drowned if one had not leapt in from the bank in his Clothes and relieved them both I would not have mentioned these things had not your words required an answer for it is Truth and Peace that I aim at and not Contention and bitterness To your Chapter V. pag. 253. I Answer Having as I trust given satisfactory Answers to what you have said and in some measure evidenced and confirmed the contrary-truth those several mischiefs absurdities and contradictions cannot justly be charged upon our practice I shall mention them very briefly having spoken to most of them amply before Only I must tell you that the Errours you charge our Doctrine and Practice with do not naturally and perse follow from them but they are accidental to them as far as they are Errours They are the Errours of Persons only not of our Doctrine nor of our Practice according to our Doctrine And therefore you injuriously charge them upon our Doctrine Practice It is fallacia accidentis As for what is Truth in any of them we own and have proved it before but the most of them you falsly charge upon us Let those that own what is Erroneous in their Expressions make them good if they can or rather repent of them Our Assertion of Infant-Interest and Baptism will stand without them 1. Baptizing of the Infants of Inchurched-Parents is not an altering of the Order of Christs Commission as hath been proved but it is acting according to his Commission Disciples we have proved them to be and so by Christ's Commission to be Baptized Repentance and Faith visibly-professed at least should precede in grown-persons not so in Infants but their Baptism and being Externally in the Covenant of Grace is to engage and stir them up to seek to God for Repentance and Faith And this Answer will undermine all the rest of your absurdities mischiefs and contradictions It 's no changing of the subjects that Christ hath appointed Nor a frustrating of the holy and Spiritual Ends of Baptism but a means to attain them if it be rightly-improved Nor doth it invert the Order by sprinkling or pouring water upon the face Nor doth it naturally and of it self introduce any Errour or false Doctrine We do not hold that it is to take away Original Sin Nor that it doth of it self work Grace and Regeneration yet we dare not limit the Lord that he should not work it then or at any other time when he pleaseth And that it was an Apostolical Tradition we own it no otherwise than from their writings and practice recorded in the Scripture If any make it an unwritten Tradition let them please themselves with their own fancy Nor doth it maintain that Children have Faith though it is beyond your reach to say this or that Child hath no Faith secret things belong to God But that they are Disciples of Christ and in Christ's School we have proved though they have not yet learnt one Letter That all the Infants of Inchurched-Believers are Externally in the Covenant of Grace and federally-Holy I have proved and you cannot prove it to be an Errour or false Doctrine Nor doth it defile and pollute the Church either by bringing false matter therein who are no Saints by calling neither capable to perform Duties nor enjoy priviledges Those words Saints by calling if you mean such as have Actually answered the call of Christ in his word at least in the judgment of Charity respect only-Adult-persons who are immediate-Members and not Children who are Mediate Members by means of their Inchurched-Parents as middle persons appointed of God to convey them into that Estate and Relation This distinction will free the Church from pollution of which more hath been said before We do not hold that a Church is gathered or made up only of Infants but of grown persons who alone are able to perform Duties But Infants are capable of enjoying Priviledges Is it not a Priviledge for God to be their God Externally in Covenant To be under a promise of God's Circumcising the heart and to provide them outward means for that End Some of your perswasion have held that they have great priviledges They are then true matter of the Church as visible in their kind and do not pollute and defile it By your Argument the Children of the Jews must be false matter for they were no Saints by calling nor could they perform duties yet they were mediate members of the Church and a part of that holy-people as hath been shewed Nor doth it lay a Foundation of Ignorance and prophaneness but the Contrary as I have abundantly proved Nor is it a confounding World and Church together nor bringing the World into the Church and turning the Church into the World You will see the contrary if you impartially-weigh what I have said before This reasoning of yours is as much against Children
of the Jews heretofore as against ours now Was the World and the Church confounded in the Church in Abraham's Family and afterwards Their Infants were of the Church then You may easily see a way to solve this doubt if you consider that their Infant-Membership gives them not a Title to the Membership and Priviledges of Adult-Members but they must attain to those by a credible profession of Repentance and Faith and laying hold of the Covenant themselves Nor do we hereby introduce and establish any much less many humane Traditions and Inventions of Antichrist nor take God's name in vain but Sanctifie his name in giving to our Children what his Gracious Majesty hath bequeathed to them Nor is it of it self a bone of contention among them that own it or oppose it but by accident only to wit through their ignorance or perversness Nor is it of it self any just occasion of hatred wrath and persecution c. Nor doth it confirm the whole Antichristian Interest as you say you have made good in your Preface Nor doth it maintain that persons may have Regeneration and Grace if you mean spiritual and sanctifying Grace before calling but only External-Covenant-Grace Nor that Adult persons may be visible-Church-Members regularly before Conversion credibly professed Nor that persons may Repent Believe and be Saved by the Faith of another yet that the Children of Inchurched Believers may be Baptized we do hold Nor that those Types and shadows that are in Christ fulfilled and abolished are at all profitable now to be practised though we hold the Doctrine of them of profitable use still But we cannot comply with you that the legal Birth-priviledge as you call it was a Type or Shadow of the Regenerate seed now in Gospel-days and so must cease which I have spoken to before Nor doth it revive Judaism and out Christianity but maintains that Gracious Covenant made with Abraham and his Church-Seed Gen. 17.7 It is that Ancient Covenant of Grace dispensed in a Church-way to Abraham and his Family that is solemnly laid hold of to enter Christians their Seed into the Visible-Church no new humane Invention instead thereof Is it not by this Covenant laid hold of and professed that your Churches consist See Isa 56.3 4 5 6 7 a prophecy of Gospel-times If not they cannot be said to be the Church-Seed of Abraham Nor doth this tend at all to Exclude Believers Baptism that have not been Baptized before but to establish it And there is good reason as hath been shewed to deny those that were only Mediate Members and Baptized in Infancy the right of the Church-Membership of Immediate Members and the Priviledges peculiar to them until by their own credible profession and laying hold of the Covenant themselves they become Immediate Members see Isa 56.4.6 7. Isa 62.5 Isa 44.3 4 5. As for those that hold the Children of Inchurched-Parents to be Members of the same species and kind with them and hold not the distinction of Mediate and Immediate Members I think your Assertion will reflect upon their Principle and Practice for I could never yet see how they could free themselves rationally from the plea of such Children when grown up owned still by them as Members of the same kind with their Parents and having no gross-Crimes to lay against them and yet deny them the Priviledges of Adult-Members I must leave it to them to make it out for I shall not undertake it See Mr. Davenport's second Essay in Answer to the Synod at Boston I have often thought that this and some other like things have been an occasion of stumbling to some of your perswasion who have not been able to see how such should be rationally satisfied and the Church kept free from pollution and therefore they have opposed the Membership and Baptism of Children As to your first contradiction I must crave pardon if I tell you it wants Charity and Candour You may easily see that Dr. Owen speaks of Adult-persons only though perhaps he hath not exprest it And indeed Sir I find you have been often guilty of that fault in your Book I suppose you would count it a piece of dis-ingenuity and want of Charity if one should construe some speeches of yours in that manner As for Instance speaking of Abraham say you All whose posterity were to be marked therewith that is with Circumcision p. 228. and p. 230. You say There were all the Families and Tribes of Israel and all proselyted strangers with their Children without distinction of good or bad to be Circumcised Now if one should charge this upon you that you meant the Woman and Female-Children should be Circumcised for they were part of the Tribes and Families of Israel or that all the posterity of Abraham by Keturah in their Generations were to be marked with Circumcision which also you have denied I doubt you would not think your self well dealt withal Yet thus you have done with many others and I hope you will see it and Repent of it Baptism is a Symbol of present Regeneration in the judgment of Charity to Adult-Persons but of future Regeneration to Infants The Lord thy God will Circumcise the heart of thy Seed Deut. 30.6 To your Second pag. 257. Baptism truly figures Implantation into Christ and consequently Communion with him in the vertue of his Death Burial and Resurrection but the outward manner and Ceremony doth not particularly represent all those things as I have before proved To your third is Answered in the first To your fourth I Answer that the similitude of Marriage of which Baptism may be a Declaration is not to be extended to every thing that belongs to Marriage Similitudo non currit quatuor but to be applied only to that particular that it is brought to illustrate You know I suppose that similitudes do not run upon all four Christ is compared to a Thief if any should extend that similitude beyond what Christ in tended it he would make Thievish-work of it The scope of that place Eph. 5.25 26 27. is not to shew how the soul was married to Christ and what consent was required but to set forth the great love of Christ to his Church in Justifying Sanctifying and Saving them from whence he draws an Argument to press Husbands to love their Wives as is plain there And he being the head of the Church as Visible as well as Invisible his Love to her is great in affording means to those Spiritual and Saving Ends And so Infants will come under it but not Stones and Bells c. But I pray further consider whether according to your arguing any Infant can be Spiritually and Savingly Married to Christ and so be saved He is not capable of giving consent not to restipulate no more than Stones or Bells or Church-Walls I Believe God saves some Infants but not Bells and Stones To the fifth hath been Answered before To your sixth I Answer That Godly Men do not
into Covenant with her Isa 62.5 Isa 56.4 6 7. and engage themselves by the strongest bonds to the Lord and his Church See this plainly Isa 44.3 4 5. One shall say I am the Lords c. I shall readily confess that Infant-Baptism of Inchurched-Parents keeps us upon the old bottom of that Ancient Covenant of Grace made with Abraham and his Church-Seed as well as his spiritual Seed and that is no dishonour nor damage to us But it keeps us not upon the old Romish Antichristian bottom nor doth it make us symbolize with the Church of Rome as it is now Antichristian but with the Church of Rome as it was once Apostolique planted and watered by the Apostles It 's known that Baptizing of Infants was in Use long before the Whore of Rome was in being And if she yet retain an Ordinance of God and we symbolize with her in that as far as it is God's Ordinance the Lord will not blame us for it though Men do ' Hear what Mr. Philpot saith Book of Martyrs Vol. 3. p. 607. Indeed saith he if you look upon the Papistical Synagogue only which hath corrupted God's word by false interpretations and perverted the true Use of Christ's Sacraments you might seem to have good handfast of your opinion against the Baptism of Infants But for as much as it is of more Antiquity and hath its beginning from God's word and from the use of the primitive Church it must not in respect of the abuse in the Popish Church be neglected or thought not expedient to be used in Christ's Church If this Argument be valid why do you use Baptism at all and Dipping Which thing the Papists use I hope it now appears that the mischiefs absurdities and contradictions that you have loaded Paedo-Baptism and Paedo-Baptists with are false mischievous and absurd and contradictory to the Truth and therefore not to be defended and charged upon us by you but to be repented of To your Chapter VI. Pag. 261. Wherein you say The Nullity and utter Insignificancy of Infants-Baptism is made appear in that it wants the Essentials to wit Matter and Form And coming to shew that it hath not a right matter in stead thereof you bring in the Subject and say The right Subject of Baptism is wanting Here I must crave leave to tell you that you miss it in your Logick For Matter is one of the two Essential Causes that gives being to the effect but the Subject is not so but in order of Nature at least it follows the Effect It is Argumentum modo quodam consentaneum and not Absolute consentaneum as Cause and effect are Here then is a Transition a genere ad Genus The matter of Baptism is Water and the External form of it is the due application of it unto the person in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost which I have shewed to be a pouring of water upon the face and not a dipping of the whole person under water raising him up again to figure our Burial Resurrection with Christ as you affirm it doth in the outward Ceremony of it I have spoken largely to that before evidencing it to to be a Sign and Seal of our Implantation into Christ Externally at least and so of our Union and consequently Communion with him in his Death Burial and Resurrection but not that the outward form of Baptism doth expresly and particularly represent those things unto us which is the thing you would have to introduce Dipping Here then we see are the Essentials of Baptism to wit Matter and Form the Subject is no part of the Essence of Baptism that belongs to the third Commandment But Baptism it self to the second The one is a piece of Instituted-Worship the other the Subject to whom it is applied and the Application as to Infants of Inchurched-Parents determined long before and never reversed but confirmed now in Gospel-times which cannot be said of Bells and Churches and such like things as Papists wickedly-Baptize An Infant of Inchurched-Parents is not of the Essence of Baptism it self as neither was heretofore an Infant of the Essence of Circumcision Baptism is one thing and the Infant is another The Infant is but one sort of the Subject of Baptism and is not of the Essence of the Ordinance as neither is a professing-Believer but he is one sort of the Subject Recipient to whom the Ordinance is dispensed The Infant Subject was determined in the Covenant long before and was never cast out and therefore should still enjoy that Priviledge it being the same Gracious Covenant for the substance that God made with Abraham and the Church in his Family that is come upon us Gentiles Gal. 3.13 and not another which being continued and extended to In-Churched-Parents and their Children in Gospel-days there needed not an Express Command for their Infants that they should be Baptized And this kind of Arguing is not from one Covenant to another as some would have it but from one and the same Covenant and the Initiatory Seal of it to another Initiatory Seal of it which by God's appointment is come into the place of the former long since abolished As for what you say pag. 263. There is no Covenant where there is no consent and therefore there can be no Covenant with Infants for they cannot give consent It is very untrue For 1. It is contrary to Scripture Deut. 29.10 11 12. How did the Infants of the Jews consent And yet God made his Covenant with them for they are expresly mentioned and were some of that Body of People that entred into a Covenant with God that day Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God Your Captains with all the Men of Israel your little ones that thou to wit Collective Israel of which the little ones were a part shouldst enter into a Covenant with the Lord thy God and into his Oath which he maketh with thee this day Here we have God making his Covenant not only with them but with their little ones expresly who were not capable of giving their consent but their Parents in whose Power they were did restipulate for them How contrary is your assertion unto this 2. It is also contrary to reason and common experience Do not Fathers often Covenant for their Children in Leases and Deeds of Land and also bind them to several Cnoditions and others Covenant to them and their Children Do they not often settle an Estate upon a Child that knows nothing of it and engage their Child to such and such Tearms though he be not capable of giving his consent yea sometimes a Child in the womb If therefore God that gave me my Child and also a Fatherly-power over him condescend to enter into a Covenant of Grace with me and with my Child Externally at least promising to be my God and the God of my Child Have I not power to enter my self and my Child into