not only to the Father but to the Children yea to all his Family And the Father of the Family did not only give Himself but all his Children and even his Servants all His to GOD to take his Sign upon them and so it must be now To which We Reply that it is indeed the unspeakable Blessedness of the Believing Gentiles to be Graffed in upon such a Stock not upon the Legal Branch but upon the Root Olive which affordeth all the Nourishment that either the Jews had or the Gentiles have that Root Olive being no other than Christ Himself who was given for a Covenant of the People and a Light to Lighten the Gentiles The Gospel of whose Grace was indeed Preached to Abraham 430 Years at least before the Law was given But what then Doth it therefore follow that the Believing Gentiles are put into that very State of things as under Circumcision Where is that Scripture that affirms it Evident it is that though Circumcision was in use before as well as under the Law and though Jesus Christ Himself is by the Apostle Stiled the Minister of the Circumcision for the Truth of God to confirm the Promises made unto the Fathers yet as it cannot be denied but that it was adopted into the Legal Family And that it was also adopted unto the Nature and Quality of the Legal Dispensation So it is as evident that it is now Abolished And we can meet with no one Text in all the New Testament that tells us that Baptism is appointed to have the same Place and Vse in the Church of God that Circumcision had but rather much to the contrary as hath been already proved And it being manifest that the External Administration of the Covenant is changed to what it was in Abraham's Time it plainly follows that there is an Alteration of the Rule that must direct us in our Practice in that Respect Obj. 2. If this Interpretation hold good there would be a very great Change in the Extent of the Covenant narrower under the Gospel than it was under the Law and yet no notice in all the Book of God given of such a Change We Reply First That the Covenant of Grace hath one and the same Extent before under and since the Law in Respect of the Substance of it or considered singly in its self as hath been already declared In Respect of the Administration of it indeed it is Changedble and hath been often Changed Secondly we say that the Administration under the Gospel is not narrower than that under the Law because it admits not Infants Baptism The Administration under the Law was Circumscribed to a little Land and a small People the Bounds of the other are stretched from Sea to Sea and from the River to the ends of the Earth That was restrained to the Seed and Family of Abraham the other extends to the Seed and Family of Christ That had its Existence but 2000 Years upon an Occasional Temporary Principle the other is suited to Answer a Principle existing from Everlasting to Everlasting That Administration was the Shadow Figure and Example the other the Substance That was the Handmaid the other the Mistress And if the Case be thus between these two Administrations can we Reasonably Charge the Gospel Administration with more narrowness than the Law because of the Discontinuance of the Birth-Priviledge Thirdly Although the Grace of the Gospel be extended far beyond the Grace under the Law yet as to Persons the Children of the Gospel are formed to so strict and refined a Qualification that in that Respect we grant that the Law had a Latitude beyond the Gospel But yet with this Mark that the Indulgence of the Law was one of the great Imperfections which the Gospel came to Reform Mat. 3. 10 11 12. And of this Change the Book of God doth give abundant Notice Gen. 21. 10. Cast out the Bond-woman and her Son c. Shortly after the Institution of the Ordinance of Circumcision for the Priviledge of the Seed according to the Flesh The Lord brings forth a Prophetical Instance in the very Family of Abraham wherein this great Change of Church Priviledge was revealed viz. That it was to be taken from the Carnal Seed and that it should be given to the Seed according to Grace under the Gospel Administration And to put that matter out of Question we have the unvailing of this Prophetical Instance to the very same purpose in Gal. 4. 30. So also Isa 14. 1. Sing O Barren thou that bearest not What she was the Apostle tells us Gal. 4. 26 27. ver 5. Thy Maker is thy Husband the Lord of Hosts is his Name and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel At ver 13. We have the Refined Qualification of her Children and People And all thy Children shall be Taught of the Lord Where we have a Prophetical Description of the Gospel Church State which the People of a Fleshly Extraction only from the most sanctified Saints cannot possible compare unto It must therefore necessarily be understood of another Seed even of a Seed begotten of God by the Word of Truth Jam. 1. 18. the Gospel People And this was a fair Notice given of the Change in Question to wit narrower as to the Qualifications of the Persons but more extended in Grace Another fair warning for the Fleshly Seed is Isa 65. 15. For the Lord God shall slay thee and call his People by another Name In all which we find plain notice given of the Change of the Old Administration which gloried in the Seed of Abraham after the Flesh and as plainly foretelling the Cessation of that Propagation to give place to the New Administration and the true Seed of Abraham the Seed according to the Spirit And indeed the Change of the Administration necessarily removes the fleshly Seed because it hath a standing by no other Right than what it had under that Covenant As for the New Testament it every where abounds with Evidence to the Proof hereof as appears from the several Scriptures that have in part been already opened and discussed in the former part of this Discourse Wherein it hath been proved that though Infants were comprehended with their Parents in the Jewish Church yet none but such as are capable of making an Actual Profession of Faith and Repentance with some competent Measure of Fruitfulness answerable thereunto are to be admitted to the Priviledge of Church-Membership under the Gospel To this purpose we are told Mat. 3. 7. That when many of the Pharisees and Sadduces came to be Baptized of John Though their being of the Natural Seed of Abraham was a sufficient ground why they should be Circumcised yet it was no sufficient ground why they should be Baptized And therefore their Birth-Priviledge notwithstanding John rejects them as a Generation of Vipers and bids them bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance 'T is true those that John had now to deal with were Men at
Consequence of the former it will also naturally follow that it is only by the Actual Faith of both Parents and Children as an Instrumental means by which either of them shall be blessed with that their desired Restauration And this may serve also for a Confutation of that Groundless and Unscriptural conceit of Mr. Allen when he affirms that the Infants of Believers are Abraham's Spiritual Seed and that upon this Account it was that they were admitted to the Priviledge of Church-Membership under the Law For thus he tells us If such Infants are as much of the Church and as much Abraham's Spiritual Seed as ever Infants in the Old Testament-Church were then they can be no more uncapable than they were of a solemn Admission into the Church by the Ordinance of Initiation for the time being as Baptism is now and as Circumcision was then But this which Mr. Allen takes here for granted and is indeed the Foundation of his Argument we utterly deny as not having been at all proved nor indeed can be proved by him or any other to wit That the Infants of Believers have any where in Scripture the Denomination of Abraham's Spiritual Seed This is a most certain Truth that as Abraham himself had a double Capacity one of a Natural Father the other the Father of the Faithful So he had a two-fold Seed For First he had a Seed that proceeded from him according to the Course of Natural Generation only And Secondly some were his Natural and Spiritual Seed also such as was Isaac and all the Faithful who proceeded from Abrahams Loyns To which we must add a Third sort and that is all true Believers or the Elect of God in all Nations who by Vertue of their Interest in Christ have also in Scripture the Denomination of Abraham's Seed who yet can lay no claim to Abraham as their Father according to the common Course of Nature And to imagine that Abraham hath any Seed in any other Religious or Spiritual Consideration whatsoever under the Gospel is to be wise above what is written For whatever the Jewish Children were to say that the Children of Christians are Relatively Holy that they are Church-Members and as much Christians externally as the Children of the Jews were Jews externally as some have suggested All these are but unproved Figments and Unscriptural Dictates And therefore from hence to infer their Relation to Abraham as his Spiritual Seed and thence that they are the proper Subjects of Baptism is no other than to build a lofty Structure upon a Sandy Foundation If then we shall affirm that the Infants of Believers now are Abraham's Seed they must of Necessity come under one or another of these Heads To say that they are so in either of the two former Respects cannot be at all pretended unto if in the latter neither can this with any shadow of Truth be affirmed For thus it was not with all the Natural Seed of Abraham himself as the Apostle expresly affirms Rom. 9. 7 8. Neither saith he because they are the Seed of Abraham are they all Children but in Isaac shall thy Seed be called that is they that are the Children of the Flesh these are not the Children of God but the Children of the Promise are counted for the Seed So likewise Gal. 3. 29. If ye be Christs then are ye Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to the Promise Therefore to affirm that all the Infants of Believers are the Spiritual Seed of Abraham as there is no Scripture that proves it so it is directly contrary to the Scripture and indeed contrary to our own most common and obvious Experience whilst we consider with all that as for many of Abraham's own Natural Posterity they are so far from being his Spiritual Seed that as hath been already observed together with their Children they are Unchurched broken off and rejected by God because of their Vnbelief to this very day Which yet had not been had they been the Spiritual as well as the Natural Seed of Abraham For sure it is altogether Inconsistent with the terms of the Covenant of Grace the Gifts and Callings whereof are without Repentance that Abraham's Spiritual Seed or that such as are Members of the Invisible as well as the Visible Church should be at all cast off rejected and forsaken as the Jews now are Upon the whole therefore of our Answer to the forementioned Objection That if this Interpretation hold good there would be a great change in the extent of the Covenant narrower under the Gospel than it was under the Law and yet no notice in all the Book of God given of such a Change We say that there is abundant notice given unto us in the Book of God and that both in the Old and New Testament also concerning the change in question viz. the disfranchisement of Infants from their so long enjoyed Priviledge of Church-Membership We grant that under the Law they were admitted thereunto with their Parents But the Scriptures already alledged do abundantly prove their Exclusion under the Gospel Administration Unto which we shall only at present add Heb. 7. 12. For the Priesthood heing changed there is made of Necessity a change also of the Law which Change of the Law there spoken of must needs include Circumcision with all the Priviledges and Appurtenances belonging to it And therefore as Infants Church-Membership came in with the Law of Circumcision so it went out and was Repealed with it Objection 3. If this Interpretation be true the Believing Jews should have loss upon their Repentance and Belief of the Gospel if their Children formerly Church Members should now be Excluded upon the Faith and Repentance of their Parents To this we Answer First It is true that insome Sence a Jew converted to the Gospel should have loss and particularly in that point of Signing his Fleshly Seed by an Ordinance together with the Fall of all the Glory of their Sanctuary and pompous Priest-hood so much and so long the joy and boasting of that Nation Which the Spirit of GOD fore-saw and fore-told Isa 8. 14. And hence it came to pass that Christ became so great an Offence and the Gospel so sore a Stone of Stumbling and Rock of Offence to them all yea even to many of them after they had submitted to the Gospel yea the Gentile Churches were scarce if at all preserved from Stumbling hereat with the Jews But all this Loss well considered would amount to no more than what befals a Man who from the Priviledges of a Servant is Invested into the Priviledges of a Son And this was the very Case Gal. 4. 4. God sent forth His Son c. Verse 5. To redeem them that were under the Law that we might receive the Adoption of Sons Verse 7. Wherefore thou art no more a Servant but a Son And the Reason of this Change the Apostle plainly sheweth us Verse 23. He that was after the Bond-Woman was Born after the
onely give himself but all his Children and even his Servants all his to God to take his Sign upon them and so it must be now Answered p. 28 29. But for the further support of Infants Baptism it is Objected First That since Infants stood visible Members of the Church for 2000 years under the Legal Administration It is unlikely they should be now Excluded Answered from p. 27 to 30. Obj 2. If Infants are now Excluded there would be a very great change in the Extent of the Covenant Narrower under the Gospel than it was under the Law And yet no notice in all the Book of God given of such a change Answered from p. 30 to 36. Obj. 3. The Believing Jews should have loss upon their Repentance and belief of the Gospel if their Children formerly Church-Members should now be Excluded upon the Faith and Repentance of their Parents Answered p. 37. Obj. 4. What hope can we have of our Infants if they must not be admitted to Christian Baptism nor reputed as Members of the common Body and Church of the faithful Answered p. 38. Obj. 5. If Children may not now be Baptized this makes the Priviledge of Believers under the Gospel to be less than was theirs under the Law for their Children were all admitted as Members of the Visible Church by the Ordinance of Circumcision and we cannot but Conclude that Priviledges for our selves and for our Children are at least as Honourable Large and Comfortable as theirs Answered p. 38 39. Obj. 6. Circumcision was a Seal of the New Covenant to Believers and their Seed under the Law and therefore so is Baptism to the Seed of Christian Parents under the Gospel The denial therefore of Baptism to Infants in the denial of a great Priviledge which of Right belongs unto them Answered p. 39 40. Obj. 7. Circumcision was Administred to Believers as Believers and to their Seed after them as such to which Baptism was to correspond Answered p. 40 41. Obj. 8. Since by the Express Command of God the Jewish Infants were Circumcised Are not now Infants as Capable of Answering the Ends of Christian Baptism as theirs of Circumcision Answered p. 41 42. Obj. 9. If the Infants of Believing Gentiles are not to be Baptized How doth the Blessing of Abraham come on the Gentiles Gal. 3. 14. Which Blessing of Abraham was I will be a God unto thee and to thy Seed Gen. 17. 7. Answered p. 42. 43. Obj. 10. Then also how can Believers be Heirs according to the Promise Gal. 24. If their Children should be excluded from the Promise For the Childrens right to the Promise is part of the Fathers Inheritance For the Promise unto Abraham was I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed after thee Answered p. 44 45. Obj. 11. Those to whom the Gospel Covenant belonged to them the Seal thereof appertained But to Believers and their Seed the Gospel Covenant belonged Gen. 17. 7. I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed therefore to them the Seal thereof did appertain For the Faederati were to be Signati that is those that were in Covenant were to have the Seal thereof Gen. 17. 10. By way of consequence therefore it naturally follows that if Circumcision the Seal of the Gospel Covenant belonged to the Seed of Believers under the Law then doth the Gospel Seal Baptism much more appertain to the Seed of Believers now Answered from p. 45. to 61. Obj. 12. Though 't is true when God made a Promise to Abraham to be a God to him and to his Seed Gen. 17 7. The Seed there mentioned is by the Apostle applied to Christ Gal. 3. 16. He saith not unto Seeds as many but as of one and to thy Seed which is Christ yet this is not to be understood of Christ Personal but of Christ Mystical as in 1 Cor. 12. 12. And so 't is to be understood of the Visible Church of which Infants Born of Believing Parents are a part Answered p. 61 62. Obj. 13. In the Commission Mat. 28. The Apostles are commanded to teach or disciple all Nations Baptizing them But Infants are Disciples and therefore to be Baptized Answered from p. 62 to 65. Obj. 14. The Infants of Believers even while they are Infants are capable of being made Partakers of the Inward Grace of Baptism as well as grown Men. And therefore they ought to receive the outward Sign of Baptism Answered p. 65. Obj. 15. Our Saviour tells us that unto such belongeth the Kingdom of Heaven If Children therefore are capable of the greater then they are capable of the lesser If capable of a Membership in the Kingdom then of the Sign and Cognisance thereof But the first is true Ergo the latter Answered p. 65 66. Obj. 16. The Gospel took place just as the Old Administration did by bringing in whole Families together When Abraham was taken in his whole Family was taken in So in this New Administration usually if the Master of the House turned Christian the whole Family came in and were Baptiz'd with him The whole Houshold of Cornelius the first Converted Gentile Act. 11. 14. The Houshold of Stephanus The Houshold of Lydia The Houshold of the Jaylor Answered from p. 66. to 69. Obj. 17. As there is no Express Command or Example in the Scripture concerning the Baptism of Infants So neither is there any concerning the Baptism of Persons at Age whose Parents were Christians when they were Born and who have been educated from their Childhood in the Christian Religion The Scripture giving no Account of the Baptism of any in the Apostle's days but such as were Converted from Judaism or Paganism to Christianity And therefore the Baptizing of Infants is as Lawful as the Baptism of such there being no Express Warrant or Example in the Scripture for the one more than for the other And if a just Consequence may be admitted for the proof of the one why not for the other also You are wont to reject all Scripture Consequences in Respect of Infants Baptism and yet here you must of Necessity admit of the same So that this Argument therefore returns upon your selves Answered from p 69 to 71 Obj 18. Infants were by God's Express Command to be Circumcised under the former Administration and all God's Commands about his Institutions then according to the Rule of Analogy or Proportion are equally binding unto us as well as to the Jews then As in the Case of the Christian Sabbath unto us which the Fourth Commandment binds us as it did the Jews to the former And thus it is in Reference to Infants Baptism In Respect of which though there is no Express Command to that Purpose recorded in the New Testament yet we cannot but conclude that God's Command unto the Jews to Circumcise their Infants under the Law carries with it the force at least of a virtual Command unto us to Baptize ours Answered p. 71 72 73. Obj. 19. If the
concerning Infants Baptism from the Covenant of Evangelical Blessings which you say was there made with Abraham and his Seed after him And from the Interest which as you say the Children of Believers have together with themselves in that Covenant you thence Argue they are to be Baptized Because all that are in the Covenant ought to have the Seal thereof When the invalidity of this Plea is made manifest you then fly to a Covenant of outward Priviledges which you say the Children of Believers are concerned in with themselves But then we would willingly know what Scripture is it that makes mention of this Covenant of outward Priviledges Gen. 17. 7. makes not mention of it For that you have often told us is to be understood of the Covenant of Grace containing purely Spiritual and Everlasting Blessings and therefore cannot be understood of outward Priviledges or concerning the bare Administration or Susception of an outward Ordinance which is the thing driven at Where then shall we find this Covenant of outward Priviledges mentioned or Recorded Besides both Circumcision and Baptism also according to your former Reckoning are but Seals of the Covenant and not the Covenant it self All that are in Covenant say you must have the Seal thereof that is ought to be Baptized Whereas after this Rate the Seals and the Covenant it self are strangely confounded together The Children of Believers say you are in Covenant equally with themselves not in the Inward but in the Outward part of it in respect of External Priviledges that is Baptism But then what becomes of the Seal so much contended about Unless we must take it for granted that the Seals of the Covenant and the Covenant it self are the same thing and no Distinction at all to be made between them So that upon the whole it clearly appears that your Arguments from the Covenant however set forth or managed by you are no other than a darkning of Counsel by Words without Knowledge And therefore while you do Labour to fasten such Dismal Consequences on our Doctrine who deny the Children of Believers to be taken into Covenant with themselves in the sense expounded We say they are unduly charged on us forasmuch as we do not exclude the Infants of Believers from the ordinary way of Salvation For though we say not that they are in Covenant by their Parents Faith And though we deny that they have any Right to Church Priviledges till they are capable of making an Actual Profession of Faith and Repentance according to the Gospel Rule yet we say they may be by Gods Election saved and may be sanctified by the Spirit of God and Parents may have ground of Comfort in their Death as much or more than according to your Doctrine which tells them that their Children are in the Covenant only in respect of outward Priviledges the Enjoyment of which nevertheless can give us no undoubted Assurance of their Salvation Ninthly And Lastly as to this whereas you tell us that Christian Baptism is come in the Room Place and Use of Jewish Circumcision So as that the Institution of that should be our Rule about Baptism To answer this doubt let us consider the great difference between Circumcision and Baptism Circumcision was a Legal Ordinance appointed to the Jewish Males Reprobate as well as Elect by a positive Command to distinguish them from the rest of the World as a Token of the Covenant God made with Abraham and signified that the Messiah should come of his Loins according to the Flesh But Baptism is an Evangelical Ordinance whereby Jew or Gentile Male or Female upon a Profession of Faith and Repentance is Baptized in Water in token of Regeneration and to signifie the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ the Messiah already come and so added to the Visible Church and admitted to all the Priviledges thereof The Consideration of the great difference in their Institution illustrates this also For when Christ instituted Baptism he says Go Teach and Baptize and in the Administration they confessed and were Baptized not a Word of Infants And in the Precept of Circumcision not a Word of Teaching or Faith but of Infants the command expresly notes the Time Age and Sex And therefore since things become Ordinances to us by Vertue of a Word of Institution and no such Word is to be found to make out that Baptism succeeds Circumcision in its Room Place and Use We think it safe to be sober and advance no further than the Scripture guides And indeed to make Circumcision Institutive of Baptism is no other than to send us to School to the Law and that First Old Vanishing Covenant as it is stiled Heb. 8. 13. as if the Lawgiver in the New Testament had not by a positive Institution establish'd his Ordinances nor left us any warrant for our Gospel Duties without that Retrogression to Moses and assimulating them to the Paedagoggy and similitude of Types Besides when you tell us that Christian Baptism is come in the Room Place and Vse of Jewish Circumcision so as that the Institution of that should be our Rule about Baptism This is not right For First then Infant Females should not be Baptized as hath been already noted And to say that Females were Virtually and Reputatively Circumcised in the Circumcision of the Males is frivolous For if so by Analogy the Females should be only Virtually and Reputatively and not Actually Baptized And if Infants out of Abraham's Family were not Circumcised though the Parent believed in God as a Proselyte of the Gate e. g. Cornelius Then neither should an Infant of a Believer in Christ not in a National or other Constituted Church be Baptized And if Circumcision were of the Use of Baptism the Circumcised Infant needed not to be Baptized Secondly it appears from Col. 2. 17. That a Principal Use of Circumcision was to signifie Christ to come of Abraham which Baptism not doing hath not a Principal Use of Circumcision Thirdly though Baptism distinguish between Believer and Unbeliever yet it doth not make a Partition Wall between Nation and Nation as Circumcision did which was not to be imparted to all Believing Males of the Gentiles as is manifest in the Case of Cornelius who though fearing God was not Circumcised nor to be Circumcised unless joyned as a Member of the Jewish People Fourthly Circumcision bound Men to keep the whole Law of Moses or else was Unprofitable Rom. 2. 25. Gal. 5. 3. But Baptism Witnesseth that the whole Ceremonial Law of Moses is now made void and only Christ's Law is to be kept Fifthly Circumcision was Administred to Abraham's Natural Seed without any Profession of Faith Repentance or Regeneration whereas Baptism is only to be Administred to the Spiritual Seed of Abraham upon an Actual Profession of Faith Repentance and Regeneration Mark 16. 16. Acts 8. 36 37. It is granted that in some things there is an Analogy betwixt them both signifying Heart Circumcision and
the sprinkling of a little Water upon the Face Thirdly It appears to be so from the Practice and Usage we find hereof in Scripture and the Opinion of the Learned upon it First in the Story of Christ's Baptism we read Mat. 3. 5. That Jesus came from Galilee to Jordan unto John to be Baptized of him And ver 16. When he was Baptized he went up straitway out of the Water The Learned Cajetan upon the place saith Christ ascended out of the Water therefore Christ was Baptized by John not by sprinkling or by pouring Water upon him but by Immersion that is by dipping or plunging in the Water A Second Scripture considerable is that of John 3. 23. And John was Baptizing in Aenon near Salim And the Reason why he pitch'd upon this place is given because there was much Water there Piscator upon the place tells us This saith he is mentioned to signifie the Ceremony of Baptism which John used in Dipping or Plunging the whole Body of a Man standing in the River Whence he saith Christ being Baptized by John in Jordan is said to ascend out of the Water A Third Scripture worthy our notice is Acts 8. 36. 38. As they went on their way they came unto a certain Water and the Enuch said See here is Water and they went down both into the Water both Philip and the Enuch and he Baptized him And when they were come up out of the Water c. Upon which place Calvin saith We see what Fashion the Ancients had to Administer Baptism for they Plunged the whole Body into the Water The use is now saith he that the Minister casts a little Water only upon the Body or upon the Head A Fourth Scripture we shall mention is Rom. 6. 4. Buried with Him in Baptism Where the Apostle elegantly alludes to the Ceremony of Baptizing into Death and Resurrection with Christ Cajean upon the place saith Thus we are Buried with Him by Baptism into Death by our Burying he declares our Death from the Ceremony of Baptism because he who is Baptized is put under the Water and by this carries a Similitude of him that is buried who is put under the Earth Now because none are buried but dead Men from this very thing that we are buried in Baptism we are Assimulated to Christ buried or when he was buried Keckerman Syst Theol. l. 3. c. 8. Says that Immersion not Aspersion was the first Institution of Baptism as it doth plainly appear from Rom. 6. 3. The Assemblies Annotations upon the place do say That in this Phrase the Apostle seemeth to allude to the Ancient manner of Baptizing which was to dip the Party Baptized and as it were to bury them under Water for a while and then to raise them up again out of it to represent the Burial of the Old Man and our Resurrection to newness of Life The like saith Piscator and Diodate upon the place Dr. Cave also a great Searcher into Antiquity in his late Book called Primitive Christianity saith p. 320. That the Party Baptized was wholly Immerged or put under Water which was the almost constant and universal Custom of those times whereby they did most notably and significantly express the great end and effect of Baptism c. And most remarkable is the Testimony that Mr. Baxter himself gives to this Truth As to the manner saith he It is commonly confessed by us to the Anabaptists as our Commentators declare That in the Apostles times the Baptized were dipped over Head in Water though we have thought it lawful to dis-use the manner of dipping and to use less Water In his Third Argument against Mr. Blake All which Arguments from the Genuine Sense of the Word Nature of the Ordinance usage of the Ancients were excellently Inculcated by the Learned Dr. Tillotson in a Sermon Preached at the Lecture in Michael's Cornhill London April 15 1673. From Rom. 6. 4. Therefore we are Buried with Him by Baptism into Death c. Proving from thence that Dipping or Plunging was the proper Ceremony and Rite in the Ordinance And how naturally Arguments did arise from that Sign in Baptism to inforce Holiness and Mortification the Thing Signified thereby Therefore to alter this Rite from Dipping to Sprinkling spoils quite the Symbole and makes it another thing And you may as well take a Wafer Cake or a whole Loaf to represent Christ's broken Body as sprinkling a little Water to represent or figure out his and our Death Burial and Resurrection by And how cometh it to pass that many are so exactly curious about that other Ordinance of the Supper so as to make the gesture of Kneeling a ground of Separation and yet to be so Negligent and Inconsiderate in this And if it be Evil in Papists not to break Bread nor to Eat but to lift up shew and Swallow down whole the Host when Christ did break Bread and bade eat it then it necessarily follows that it is as Evil when He bids Baptize not to do it but to Rantize and instead of Baptizing into the Name of Christ Dead and Risen to Water him that hath no Understanding thereof So that when the Minister saith I Baptize thee to an Infant and doth no more he speaketh that which is not true and deceives those that take it at his Word for Christian Baptism So that thus then we have distinctly and plainly proved you to be defective both in respect of the Internal and External Constituent parts of this great Ordinance that is both in Matter and Form both which are Essentially requisite to the true Constitution or Being of it by which it is manifest that Infants Baptism is a meer Nullity and that which Christ will not own And if it be said that the right Words of Baptism were used it being done in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit We Answer that so there was also in Baptizing of Bells and Churches which yet in your own Judgment is so far from making it a right Ordinance the true Subject being wanting that it is no less than a great Prophanation thereof and a miserable taking the Name of God in vain And therefore certainly Jesus Christ one Day will discover that he takes it not kindly at the Hands of his Professed Friends that of their own Heads and without his Warrant upon a Presumptuous Supposition of unwritten Indulgence having taken it upon them to alter the Subject as well as the manner of the Administration of an Ordinance so Sacred and Venerable as Baptism is As for the Cavils of unseemliness and hazarding of Health to the weak in the way of our present Practice as they are the Fruits of Carnal Wisdom and Vnbelief so it is no other than to reproach the Wisdom of Christ that so Ordained it telling us however the World may call it undecent yet that thus it becometh us as it did himself to fulfill all Righteousness And as they that have or shall see the
contrary is manifest as hath been already with abundant Evidence Demonstrated in the foregoing Parts of this Discourse since the Axe of the Gospel is now laid unto the Root of the Trees and every Tree that bringeth not forth good Fruit is hewn down in respect of any further Church Priviledge which before was Indulged unto them which clearly cuts off the pretence of Children unto any such Priviledge under the Gospel as well as all other Vnfruitful Branches Thirdly Whereas he tells us of their Parents Dedicating and Devoting them to God and his Service And that the Children of the Roathites of a Month Old were numbred with their Fathers as keeping the charge of the Sanctuary And that for the same Reason little Children were said to enter into Covenant with God when their Parents did so Deut. 29. 11 12. To this we Answer That it is indeed a very Pious and Commendable thing for Parents to Dedicate and Devote their Children to God and his Service and to this Purpose to train them up as soon as they are capable in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord. But it doth not therefore follow that they can justly be Reputed Church-Members now till Converted and wrought upon by the Preaching of the Gospel unto them whatever they were under the Law as hath been before demonstrated § 3. And though the Kohathites of a Month Old were numbred with their Fathers as keeping the charge of the Sanctuary Evident it is that this was the proper Work of the Kohathites by God's special Direction in their several Generations and as they became to grow up to the Competency of Years an Actual discharge of that Duty was required of them This being an External Service which by God's special Direction was peculiarly Incumbent on all that were of that Lineage But what signifies this to prove the Church-Membership of Infants under the Gospel § 4. And as little signifies that which follows when he tells us That for the same Reason little Children were said to enter into Covenant with God when their Parents did so Deut. 29. 11 12. For though 't is true thus it was under the Law yet this proves not the Point in dispute For as we have already said That Covenant which God made with his People when he took them by the Hand to lead them out of the Land of Egypt because of the Faultiness of it is now Abolished That Covenant saith God they brake they continued not it and I regarded them not So that though Infants were Visible Members of the Legal Church yet that was by a Positive Law and that which is now Abolished Shew us the like now or you say nothing SECT IX MR. Baxter indeed tells us in his Book called Plain Scripture Proof of Infants Church-Membership and Baptism p. 57 58. That the Covenant mentioned in the fore-cited Text Deut. 29. 10 11 12. Where Children are Represented as Fellow-Covenanters with their Parents was a Covenant of Grace or a Gospel-Covenant and that therefore neither it nor the Church-Membership of Infants which saith he was built thereon or inseparably Conjunct is repealed For thus runs his Argument My 12th Argument saith he is from the forementioned Text in Deut. 29. 10 11 12. where all the Jews with all their little ones were entred into Covenant with God From whence I argue thus if the Covenant which those Infants who were then Church-Members were entred into with God was a Covenant of Grace or a Gospel-Covenant then it is not Repealed and consequently their Churchs Membership is not Repealed as being built on the Covenant or inseparably Conjunct But the said Covenant which the Infants who were then Church-Members did pass into was a Covenant of Grace as distinct from the Law which is Repealed Where by the way it may be observed that though Mr. Baxter affirms the Covenant mentioned Deut. 29. to be a Covenant of Grace or a Gospel-Covenant yet he doth here seem plainly to grant that the Law or Sinai Covenant was no other than a Covenant of Works and accordingly now Repealed Wherein Mr. Baxter is undoubtedly in the right though he therein directly câ—â—tâ—adicteth Mr. Roberts his Notion who affirms the Law or Sinai Covenant it self to be a Covenant of Faith in Christ Jesus The unsoundness whereof we shall have Occasion to discover in the following parts of this Discourse Therefore neither it nor their Church-Membership is Repealed So that if we can substantially prove that the Covenant mentioned Deut. 29. 10 11 12. was not a Covenant of Grace nor a Gospel 〈◊〉 but a legal Covenant and that which is now Repealed from hence it will unavoidably follow and that according to Mr. Baxter's own Concession that the Church-Membership of Infants which as himself affirms was built thereon or inseparably Conjunct is also Repealed with it § 3. Now that the Covenant there mentioned though there was Grace in it as there was in all the Covenants that God ever made with Men is not a Covenant of Grace properly so called whereof Christ is the Mediatour nor a Gospel but a Legal Covenant is Evident forasmuch as it is no other than a Repetition or Renewal of the Covenant made with that People in Horeb or at Mount Sinai when God took them by the Hand to lead them out of Egypt which was first mentioned Exod. 19. and that in the very Words and Terms as it is there Expressed That Covenant being now again solemnly Repeated and afresh Transacted between God and them in Deut. 29. as is manifest by comparing Exod. 19. 4 5. with Deut. 29. from the 1st to the 13th Verse As also the 24th and 25th verses of that Chapter And accordingly whereas in the first verse of this 29th of Deut. We are there told These are the Words of the Covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the Children of Israel in the Land of Moab beside the Covenant which he made with them in Horeb. Mr. Pool in his Annotations upon this Text paraphraseth the words thus These are the Terms or Conditions upon which God hath made that is renewed Covenant with you The Covenant saith he was but one in Substance but various in the time and manner of its Administration And indeed as it is Evident that it is the same Covenant for Substance that was first made with them in Horeb So it is as Evident from the words themselves in this forecited text Deut 29. 1. That it was not a Covenant of Grace properly so caled but a Covenant of Works or a Legal Covenant which God renewed with the Israelites in the Land of Moab since Moses was the Mediator of it In which respect we are there expresly told that these are the words of the Covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the Children of Israel beside the Covenant he made with them in Horeb. Whereas the Covenant of Grace properly so called hath no other Mediator than Christ himself 1 Tim. 2 5. Who is
shall be a peculiar Treasure unto me above all People for all the Earth is mine ve 6. And ye shall be unto me a Kingdom of Priests and an Holy Nation And if this was a Covenant of Works as the Apostle doth plainly Affirm it is Rom. 10. 5. from Lev. 18. 5. Why not that made with Abraham also since the terms are the same as well as the Promises are the same The like account the Scripture gives us of the Covenant mentioned Deut. 29. You have seen saith Moses there ver 2 3. all that the Lord did before your Eyes in the Land of Egypt unto Pharaoh and all his Servants the great Temptations which thine Eyes have seen and those great Miracles ver 4. Yet the Lord hath not given you an Heart to perceive and Eyes to see and Ears to hear unto this day ver 5. 6. And I have led you forty years in the Wilderness your clothes are not waxen old upon you That ye might know that I am the Lord your God ver 9. Keep therefore the words of this Covenant and do them that ye may prosper in all that ye do The same Language with that Exod 19. 5. and Lev. 18. 5. compared with Rom. 10. 5. So that we cannot but plainly see that all those fore-mentioned Covenants are of one and the same Nature what the one is the others are the same And therefore if the Covenant made with our First Parent before the Fall and that made with Israel at Mount Sinai were neither of them a Covenant of Grace nor a Gospel Covenant whereof Christ is the alone and only Mediator For the same Reason neither was that mentioned Deut. 29. nor that Gen. 17. 7 8 9. as being all of the same tenor and the Promises in them all of a like Nature § 6. The whole entire Nature saith Dr. Owen of the Covenant of Works consisted in this That upon our Personal Obedience according unto the Law and Rule of it we should be Accepted with God and Rewarded with him Herein the Essence of it did consist And what ever Covenant proceedeth on these terms or hath the Nature of them in it however it may be varied with Additions or Alterations is the same Covenant stiil and not another As in the Renovation of the Promise wherein the Essence of the Covenant of Grace was contained God did oft times make other Additions unto it as unto Abraham and David yet was it still the same Covenant for the Substance of it and not another So whatever Variations may be made in or Additions unto the Dispensation of the First Covenant so long as this Rule is retained Do this and Live it is still the same Covenant for the Substance and Essence of it Dr. Owen in his late Discourse Entituled The Doctrine of Justification by Imputed Righteousness p. 397. SECT II. BUt forasmuch as Mr. Roberts Mr. Sedgwick and many other Divines who have Written upon the Covenants do affirm that the Covenant at Mount Sinai was a Covenant of Faith or which is all one a Covenant of Grace At least that it was Subserviently the Covenant of Grace Or a Covenant of Grace for the Substance of it though propounded in a more dark way and in a manner fitting for the State of that People and that present time and Condition of the Church And for as much as it will unavoidably follow that if that was a Covenant of Grace So also was that made with Abraham Gen. 17. 7 8 9. We shall therefore the more Intently apply our selves toward the Discovery of their great Mistakes in this Respect it being of so vast an Importance to the Church of God to be set at rights herein on which as all will grant So much of the Superstructure of the Christian Faith and Practice depends For this purpose therefore Additional unto what hath been already said we shall only premise two Arguments proving that the Covenant at Mount Sinai mentioned Exod. 19. and Exod 20. was no other than a Covenant of Works And then proceed to Answer those Scripture Objections which are usually urged by way of Opposition hereunto § 2. In the first place then that the Covenant at Mount Sinai before mentioned was no other then a Covenant of Works We thus prove First that Covenant that is not of Faith cannot be a Covenant of Faith but of Works But the Apostle doth Expresly affirm that the Law is not of Faith Gal. 3. 11 12. Which is most plainly to be understood of Mount Sinai Covenant therefore that Covenant cannot be a Covenant of Faith but of Works Secondly that Covenant which is now Repealed could not be a Covenant of Grace but of Works But the Apostle doth plainly Affirm that the Covenant which God made with his People at Mount Sinai when he took them by the Hand to lead them out of the Land of Egypt for the faultiness thereof is now Repealed Heb. 7. 18. Chap. 8. 7. 13. 2. Cor. 3. 7. 11. Col. 2. 14. Therefore it could not be a Covenant of Grace but of Works The Covenant of Grace being every way Immutable and perfect and therefore unrepealable and Eternal 2. Sam. 23. 5. Isa 55. 3. Heb. 7. 21 22 24 25. Heb. 13. 20. And the Gifts and Callings thereof without Repentance Rom. 11. 27. 29. And if Mount Sinai Covenant was no other than a Covenant of Works and accordingly now Repealed It cannt be denied but that the Covenant Gen. 17. 7 8 9. Was of the same Nature and therefore also now Repealed Act. 15. 10. 24. Col. 2. 14. § 3. If any shall Object that it is unlikely that the Covenant of Works should be Renewed after Mans fall and after the Covenant of Grace had actually taken place as it did in the first promise Concerning the Womans Seed that was to bruise the Serpents Head We answer that how absur'd so ever it may seem to us it is plain matter of fact that so it was and we ought not to Impeach Infinite Wisdome that so appointed it And if we will know the reason why the Covenant of Works should be thus Renewed after the Fall the Scripture Expresly tells us That the Law was added because of Transgressions till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made Gal. 3. 19. The Apostle had before told us ver 17. That the Covenant that was Confirmed before of God in Christ the Law which was 430. Years after could not Disannul that it should make the Promise of none Effect wherefore then saith he ver 19. Serveth the Law To which himself gives this Resolution That it was added because of Transgressions till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made And elsevvhere the same Apostle Informs us That the Law entered that the Offence might abound Rom. 5. 20. Or as he Expresseth it Chap. 7. 13. That Sin by the Commandment might become exceeding Sinful It being Evident that the Lavv vvas appointed as a School-master to Christ Gal. 3.
the words of this Law to do them The promises I now make you are full and Glorious enough But these are the Terms on which you must Expect if ever you come to the Fruition of them This is the Substance of the Preface and after Explication that God himself makes unto and concerning the Covenant which he now made with Moses and with Israel even with the whole Body of that People which was by the Finger of God himself Written and Ingraven in Stones And is accordingly mentioned at large Exod. 20. In the several ten Branches Commandments or main Heads thereof § 4. In the next place if we Enquire into the Nature of this Covenant What sort of Covenant it was Whether a Covenant of Grace or a Covenant of Works As it is Evident that it could be no other than a Covenant of Works since we see it required perfect Obedience as the condition of obtaning the mercies therein promis'd wherein the very Essence of that Covenant Consisted So in order to a further discovery of the true nature of the Covenant in question We must compare some passages in Exod. 34. with 2 Cor. 3. and Col. 2. 14. In Exod. 34. 1. The Lord said unto Moses hew the two Tables of Stone like unto the first And I will Write upon these Tables the words that were in the first Tables ver 4. And he hewed two Tables of Stone like unto the first And Moses went up unto the Mount Sinai as the Lord Commanded him and took in his hand the two Tables of Stone ver 28. And he was there with the Lord 40 days and 40 nights and he Wrote upon the Tables the words of the Covenant the ten Commandments And it came to pass when Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two Tables of Testimony in Moses's hand when he came down from the Mount that Moses Wist not that the Skin of his Face shone while he talked with him And when Aaron and all the Children of Israel saw Moses behold the Skin of his Face shone and they were afraid to come nigh him If we will know therefore the true Nature of the Covenant we shall find that the Spirit of God by the Apostle doth give us a clear determination thereof in the fore-mentioned 2. Cor. 3. 5 6. Our Sufficiency saith he is of God who hath also made us able Ministers of the New Testament not of the Letter but of the Spirit that is not of the Law but of the Gospel For the Letter Killeth but the Spirit giveth Life But saith he ver 7. If the Ministration of Death Written and Engraven in Stones was Glorious so that the Children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the Face of Moses for the Glory of his Countenance which Glory was to be done away how shall not the Ministration of the Spirit be rather Glorious So again ver 9. If the Ministration of Condemnation be Glory much more doth the Ministration of Righteousness exceed in Glory Wherein we cannot but observe that the Apostle doth evidently Reflect upon the fore mentioned Passage in Exod. 34 28 29 c. Where we are told that Moses Received from God the two Tables of Stone wherein the words of the Covenant even the Ten Commandments were Written and Engraven by the Finger of God himself and this Expresly under the Denomination of the Covenant which God then made with Israel Deut. 4. 13. Which made Moses his Face to shine so that Aaron and all the Children of Israel were afraid to come nigh him 'T is clear then that this is the Covenant that Paul hear speaks of And what Character or Description doth he give thereof Why saith he The Law Written and Engraven in Stones how Glorious soever it was in it self was of a Killing Nature it was the Ministration of Death and Condemnation and that which was to be done away To which same purpose the same Apostle also tells us Col. 2. 14. That Christ hath Blotted out the Hand-writing of Ordinances that was against us which was contrary to us and hath took it out of the way nailing it to his Cross Where the Apostle speaks plainly of the same thing and to the same purpose as he doth to the Corinthians for there he speaks of the Law Written in Stones which saith he was a Ministration of Death and Condemnation And hereof the Hand-writing of Ordinances that was against us and contrary to us as the Law must needs be if it was indeed no other than a Ministration of Death and Condemnation as the Apostle describes it But is the Covenant of Faith of this Nature Or was the Covenant of Grace a Ministration of Death and Condemnation as the Apostle Affirms the Law written in Stones to be Was the Covenant of Grace against us Contrary to us and therefore now Blotted out done away taken out of the way and Nailed to the Cross of Christ as the Apostle speaks of the Hand-writing of Ordinances or the Law written in Stones These are Solâ—cisms too strong for Digestion It can never be imagined And yet all this must needs follow if the Law was a Covenant of Grace as is Affirmed 'T is true there was a Covenant of Grace that ran Current therewith as hath been before declared whereby Moses and all the Elect among that People were delivered from the Curse of that Fiery Burning Law that was thus given them But shall we therefore call the Ministration of Death a Ministration of Grace Or the ministration of Condemnation a Ministration of Life and Righteousness which the Apostle doth so plainly set in Opposition thereunto Or shall we say that that which was against us and contrary to us was a Covenant of Grace or for the Substance of it such The Apostle as we have already seen tells us the quite contrary And so he doth Rom. 7. 9 10. When the Commandment came saith he Sin Revived and I Died And the Commandment which was Ordained to Life I found to be unto Death And how then can it be justly Affirmed that the Law was a Covenant of Gospel-Grace or that it was such for the Substance thereof when the Apostle found it by Experience to be a Ministration of Death § 5. Indeed the World Groans under the Burthen of such Subtile Sophistical Distinctions whereby the Truths of the Gospel have been so long Obscured as they have been and are in respect of the present Point a Point of such vast Consequence and Concernment to the Church of God For what can be of greater Moment than the Two Covenants the Truths concerning which are as the two Master Veins that branch themselves forth and lye dispersed up and down throughout the whole Body of the Scriptures If therefore it shall be found that we have been all this while Mistaken in our Notion about the Covenants what they are and which they be or that we have given the Appellation of the Covenant of Grace to a Covenant of Works and hereon
it is strange that all Flesh should so soon have corrupted its way that God saw Cause to bring the Flood upon the World of the Vngodly And surely if there had been any such Covenant Holiness as is imagined before the Flood there would have been some Godly Society some greater Number of Believers to have been preserved beside Noah and his Family Who were not all Godly neither there was a Cham even among them which would not have been if there had been such a Lineal Conveyance of Grace and Covenant Holiness from the Father to the Son as is affirmed § 5. Fourthly Though Infant Church-membership did indeed take place as an Ordinance of God before the Ceremonial Law was instituted It doth not therefore follow that it was a Moral Institution and therefore not to be Repealed For so did Sacrifices also and the building of Altars for the Worship of God as is evident in what is related concerning Abel and Noah and yet there is none but take it for granted that they are now abolished Nay even Circumcision it self was in use in the Church of God 400 years before the Proclaiming of the Law to that People in the Wilderness and yet there is none that reckons it therefore to be a Moral Institution or that questions the Repeal thereof together with the rest of those Ceremonies which were imposed on them till the time of Reformation § And whereas we are told that if Infant Church-membership be Repealed it must be either in Justice or in Mercy It may be neither in Judiciary Justice nor in Favourable Mercy but from a pure Act of God's Soveraignty who as he is highest Lord of all may do with his own what he listeth having an Unlimitted and Boundless Right to Bestow or Revoke what he pleaseth according to the Counsel of his own Will For though the Gifts and Callings of God are without Repentance in respect of Inward and Spiritual Blessings yet not so in respect of outward Priviledges But that the Repeal in question is not to the Loss but rather to the Spiritual Advantage of Parents and Children and consequently in Mercy to both hath been already sufficiently manifested in the foregoing parts of this Discourse § 7. So that it clearly appears that the Novel Opinion which hath been lately started concerning the Morality of Infants Church-membership hath no Scripture Foundation for the support thereof it being evident that as it came in with the Law of Circumcision so it went out and was Repealed with it For the Priesthood being changed there is made of necessity a change also of the Law Heb. 7. 12. Which must needs include Circumcision with all the Appurtenances and Priviledges thereunto belonging as hath been before abundantly proved SECT XVII § 1. FOR a Conclusion therefore unto the whole of what hath been offered on this Subject in this and the foregoing parts of this Discourse It is now at last with all Humility presented unto God's People to consider whether it be not their high Concernment Speedily and Effectually to endeavour a thorow Reformation of so great an Abuse in the Divine Service as the Practice of Infant-Sprinkling hath been now proved to be It being no other than the Change of a Divine Institution and that not only in respect of the Subject Infants being substituted in the Room of Professed Repenting Believers But also in respect of the due Form or Manner of its Administration Sprinkling being used instead of Dipping And so in both Respects making void the Commandment of Christ It was the Commendation that Paul gave the Corinthians 1 Corinth 11. 1 2. That they had kept the Ordinances as they were delivered unto them Certainly Jesus Christ is very Punctual in things of this Nature and he will one day call men to an account for their Deviations in matters of such importance If men are careful to see that their Laws be strictly obeyed without which they reckon their Authority slighted What may we think of the Laws of the Great King And whether or no will he not reckon his Authority slighted in our present case when he cometh to make Inquisition concerning such as have not demeaned themselves according to the Divine Prescript We know with what severity God proceeded against Nadab and Abihu for their presuming to Change his Ordinance of Old by Offering up Strange Fire which he had not Commanded Lev. 10. 1 2. We know also what befel David and the People of Israel who had made a New Cart for the Carriage of the Ark which was to have been born on the Priests shoulders only They might have pleaded as well as you that this was not expresly forbidden But yet nevertheless For this Cause the Lord made a Breach upon them for that they did not seek him after the due Order 1 Chron. 15. 13. In reference whereunto let that Scripture also be duly considered Isa 24. 5 6. Because they have transgressed the Laws changed the Ordinance broken the Everlasting Covenant therefore hath the Curse devoured the Earth and they that dwell therein are desolate therefore the Inhabitants of the Earth are burned and few men left § 2. That Infants Baptism hath no Footing nor Foundation at all in the Word of God hath been already at large demonstrated And that it is made use of to the Justling out and making void the Commandment of Christ in reference to the Baptism of Believers hath been also evinced and all the most Material Arguments which are usually urged for the support thereof have been with Scripture Evidence Refuted The Lord grant a hearing Ear and an understanding Heart and an obedient Mind that the present Testimony rise not up at last as a Witness against you For the Lord the God of gods even the Lord the God of gods he knoweth and Israel at length also shall know if it be in Rebellion or if it be in Transgression against the Lord that the present Witness is born and if it hath not rather been done with his Approbation and at his Commandment in order to the stirring up all that truly love and fear God's Name to a sincere endeavour after the Primitive Purity and that both in respect of Doctrine and Worship § 3. Certain it is that these things will be found at length to have been of Highest concernment unto us and must therefore be our most Serious Practise and Faithful Endeavour as BOOKS Printed for John Harris at the Harrow against the Church in the Poultrey 1. A Discourse of Divine Providence 1. In General That there is a Providence Exercised by GOD in the World 2. In Particular How all Gods Providences in the World are in order to the good of his People By the late Learned Divine Stephen Charnock B. D. sometimes Fellow of New Colledge in Oxon. Price bound Three Shillings 2. THe Balm of the Covenant Applied to the Bleeding Wounds of Afflicted Saints First Composed for the Relief of a Pious Worthy Family Mourning over the Deaths