and our not-enjoying a Holy Land City Temple and succession of a High-Priest c. For Circumcision was a Sign and Seal of the Covenant and so were not those things the high-Priest was a Type of Christ and that Type was fulfilled in him and we need no succession therein as there was before in the Priesthood which was appointed successively until the Time of Reformation Heb. 9.10 But as for the succession of Infant-Members of the Church I say Infant and Mediate Members that was long before the High-Priesthood in Abraham's Family and the Church there and is not of the same nature with the Priest-hood And whereas you make this succession Typical as that of the Priest-hood was I must crave leave to tell you that it is a Type of your own making and not of the Lord's and a Shadow of your own substance and therefore I must leave it to follow you I never yet could understand by any thing that I have read and heard nor have you as yet proved that the Infant-Membership and Circumcision of Children heretofore was a Type of the Membership and Baptizing only of Adult-Believers under the Gospel and that that priviledge which Infants of Inchurched-Parents had then by Generation from their natural-Inchurched-Parents was a Type of all Church-Members under the Gospel only by Regeneration When you have solidly and out of the Holy Scripture proved this I shall then consider of your Therefore towards the latter end of that Paragraph p. 229. But till then I shall conclude that we should to use your words be great losers by the bargain But perhaps your third with the Reasons thereunto will prove it I shall therefore fairly examine them Thirdly say you if it should be granted that Circumcision was a Seal of the New-Covenant belonging to all the Children of Israel yet would not the Baptizing of the Children of Believers answer it nor amount to so great a Priviledge nor be equivalent to it for these Reasons 1. Say you Because all the Families and Tribes of Israel and all Proselyted-strangers with their Children without distinction of good or bad were to be Circumcised but now in the time of the Gospel one of a City and two of a Tribe Believers are but thin sown c. I Answer first more generally That the Baptizing of the Children of Inchurched-Believers would fitly Answer it and would amount to so great a priviledge and be equivalent to it notwithstanding your Reasons More particularly to your first Reason were not all those Families and Tribes of Israel and all those proselyted-strangers with their Children of the Church of Israel Can you deny that If they were as indeed they were there was good Reason why they should be Circumcised And so we say Gen. 17. of Inchurched-Believers-Children now under the Gospel in reference to Baptism as long as their Parent continues in a right estate in the Church And this doth most fitly and rationally Answer to the other and is in the main substantials equivalent to it What you say of the Children of wicked Men if they be manifestly wicked they should not be admitted into the Church and if they afterwards appear to be wicked as Simon Magus did to continue impenitent they are to be cast out of the Church and so to be looked on as Heathens and Publicans Matth. 18.17 2. Say you You would be very short in another respect at an utter uncertainty when you had a right Subject for the Parent might be a Hypocrite or no Elect-person which is out of your reach to understand you cannot know whether the Child be fit for Baptism for the Seed of a wicked Man you must not meddle with by any means whereas there was not the least doubt or scruple in Israel as to the subject for the Father being Circumcised it was an infallible work they were right For Answer 1. I greatly suspect that for all you have written so much against Paedo-Baptists you are yet to seek of the right hinge of the Controversy I would rather suspect it is so than that you do it maliciously hoping that when you see the true state of it you will not be unwilling to let in the Truth and to see how strongly your grounds of arguing here against us will make against the way you plead for and practice I here assert that though the Inchurched-Parent should be a Hypocrite not discovered and no Elect-person to Eternal Salvation yet our Principle is His Child ought to be Baptized and we know his Child to be fit for Baptism We are not at an uncertainty much less at an utter uncertainty when we have a right subject but we are as certain as they could be in the Church of the Jews They knew the reputed Father of such a Child was a Member of the Church of the Jews and was Circumcised and we do as infallibly know that such a Parent now is a Member of a Gospel-Church and that he was Baptized They had those that knew the one and we have those that know the other as infallibly as they could know Obj. If it be replied that they could better prove their Parents were Jews than we that ours are Believers I Answer 1. They could not prove it while they were Infants any more than our's can that their Parents are Believers and yet the Infants were Circumcised at eight days old 2. There 's no necessity that a Child should prove himself to be the Child of a Jew before he was Circumcised It was the Churches Duty and the Ministers of it to look to that and not the Child's The like I say now of Children to be Baptized 3. Infants now when grown up can as well prove to the satisfaction of their Consciences if there be any scruple about it that their Parents were Inchurched-professing Believers as the others that their Parents were Jews They had the Testimony of the Church and Children now have as much Christ commends the Church of Philadelphia for their care in distinguishing between the true Members of the Church and those of the Synagogue of Satan Rev. 3.9 4. But suppose the Mother did secretly play the Harlot with a Gentile could the Child when grown prove his Father to be a Jew He could no better prove it than we that ours were Believers Unless you will say that wives now-a-days that have Believers to their Husbands are more to be suspected of secret uncleanness and unfaithfulness than the Wives of the Jews were The Mother can best assure the Child in this Case if the Churches testimony will not suffice him 2. My Second Answer to your second Reason will return the force of your Reason against your self I shall peremptorily assert that this absurdity which you would fasten upon us and our Tenent doth strongly reflect upon your self and yours We know our Subject we hold the Baptism of no Infants but of Inchurched-Parents one at least who are of the Visible-Church But you are at an utter uncertainty
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
yet the same Promise given as a Motive why they should repent and be Baptized I must acknowledge I cannot apprehend how they can consist Let him reconcile them that hath a larger reach than I have Hitherto I have been shewing what that Promise held forth to those prick't-hearted Jews was not rather than what it was I now come to give you by the assistance of Christ what I conceive to be the mind of God in it By Promise in Gal. 3 17. is clearly meant the Covenant of Grace And that it is so to be taken here is evident by this because it hath Baptism the Seal of the Covenant now in Gospel-days annext unto it and also holds forth Remission of Sins Repent and be Baptized for the Remission of Sins for the Promise is to you and to your Children This Promise or Covenant of Grace unto which they had External and visible Right is here urged upon these Jews to move them to Repent and in that I agree with you and not as a Condition if they did Repent It 's urged as a Motive not as a Condition Repent for the Promise is to you See the like Acts 3.25 Ye are the Children of the Covenant God made with our Fathers Repent therefore and be Converted v. 19. For to you first God hath raised up his Son Jesus to bless you in turning you a way from your iniquities v. ult And why first but because they were the Children of the Covenant that God made with their Fathers This sence and scope of the Text is plain and rational and suitable to the scope of the Apostle And whereas you say that by Children there is meant Posterity my Child is my Child say you though he be forty or fifty years old Yet let me tell you that such Adult-Children are by Gods Ordinance if not Baptized already to be Baptized upon their own profession and not upon the account of their Parents as you your self do grant and therefore it must be meant of Children in Minority However I hope you will not exclude little Children from being a part of Posterity and so will grant them their share in it at least By these afar-off is plainly-meant the Gentiles Eph. 2.11 12. And perhaps also the ten Tribes who were long before divorced and as to their present Condition not then actually in External-Covenant with God The Promise to them afar-off doth not presuppose them to be already-called but it is to them at present as by the Lord they might be called afterwards Here was now a way opened by Christ to preach and tender the Gospel to them which before was not though as yet it was not actually-tendred to them unless to some few untill the Jews should actually reject it and God reject them for rejecting it Acts 13.46 47. Rom. 11.12 15 19 20 21 22. Here therefore we may observe a difference between these Jews and their Children and those that were yet afar-off and their Children for though the Promise were then to them all as the Word Is doth intimate yet not them all in every respect alike It was now at present to those Jews and their Children Actually Visibly and Externally before Men. But to them afar off Intentionally and before God and should be Actually to them and to their Children as now it was to the Jews and their Children when God should Actually call them These Jews and their Children were not yet discovenanted and Unchurched though they had deserved it See Acts 2.22 23 23 36. And this was after Christ's Death Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven that these words are spoken to them and that by the Holy Ghost in the mouth of the Apostle They were not afar-off as the Gentiles and probably the ten Tribes were at that time who were then Strangers from Actual-External Interest in the Covenants of Promise until such time as God should Actually-call them But these Jews were nigh as to their External-Covenant-Station the External-Adoption the Covenants and Promises Rom. 9.4 though Really in themselves Children of wrath and bad enough v. 1 2 3. But how can it be said that it is now to them that are afar-off when it had not yet reach ed them Answ It was then so 1. In God's Intention and purpose It was then so in foro Dei before God 2. It was so then because Christ had opened the way broken down the partition wall Eph. 2.14 15. which before stood between Jews and Gentiles The way was shut before but now opened that Christ might be made known unto them And Thirdly It should not be long before Christ would send out his Ambassadors to call them in and then they should Actually-enjoy this priviledge both for themselves and their Children as those Jews then did For what reason is there that their Children should be left out any more than the Children of these Jews when they were brought into the fellowship of the same Covenant for the Substance where there is no difference between Jew and Gentile Scythian Barbarian Bond and Free This Call then hath Reference to the Gentiles who were yet Actually afar-off Strangers from the Covenants of Promise and not to these Jews who were Externally within it and their Children also To prove this yet a little more take notice that in the Scripture God makes over External Covenant-Grace as in the present to them that are not yet in Being Deut. 29.14 15. Neither with you saith the Lord do I make this Covenant but with him that standeth here this day that is the Jew and Proselyte and the little ones see the Text that were present and also with him that is not here with us this day to wit those that are yet unborn as well as those that might be absent With both saith the Lord do I at present make my Covenant In the Parents of such unborn-Children it was done at present Actually before Men Vide Mr. Cobbet but as to those unborn Children themselves Intentially before God The Sum of all is briefly comprized in this Paraphrase The Promise or Covenant of Grace Externally-administred is now Actually to the Jews to your Children on whom you wished the Curse of the Blood of Christ and it is also at present Intentionally before God also preparatively before men Christ having now opened the way it is I say at present to them that are afar off to wit the Gentiles and probably also the ten Tribes even as many who are yet Externally Strangers from the Covenant as the Lord our God shall call When God's time is come to call them the Gospel shall be then sent among them to call them in and to all such as obey that call the Covenant shall at least Externally Actually be unto them and their Children as it is now unto these Jews and their Children And here let me also shew you the Inconsistency of your Conditional sence of this Promise which you mention before thus the Promise is to you
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