I shall acknowledge that Circumcision whiles it lasted as Gods Ordinance did testifie that the partition-Wall still stood between Jew and Gentile and Baptism after the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ testified that it was broken down but not so when it was first instituted and Administred by John Baptist nor by Christs Apostles before his Death For the Partition-Wall stood then Math. 10.5 6. They might not go into the way of the Gentiles c. Secondly But how do you prove that Baptism testified that Barbarian Scythian Jew and Gentile were all one in Christ Baptism indeed after the death of Christ was a Seal of the New-Covenant under the New-Testament-Dispensation wherein the God of Grace extended it not only to the Jews but the Gentiles also giving a free offer of it to the unconverted-Gentiles to bring them in and an assurance of the enjoyment of the blessings of the Covenant to those that were brought in as well as to the Jews But this is accidental to Baptism to signifie or testifie that they were all one in Christ it was Christs Commission enlarged to which Baptism was annexed which properly and immediately testified that the difference between Jew and Gentile was removed And by this Dispensation of the Covenant they were all one in Christ though Baptism had never been annexed to it Thirdly But suppose it were as you assert must not Baptism succeed into the place of Circumcision because it hath more Ends and Uses than Circumcision had Or because it hath some Ends and Uses that Circumcision had not Will you deny the Soveraign Lord God the Liberty to enlarge his Grace in these Gospel-days Both Circumcision and Baptism are Seals of God's Covenant and each of them suitable to that manner of Dispensation of it unto which they are appropriated Your reasoning therefore is ex falso supposito to wit That that cannot succeed into the Room and Place of another thing whose Ends and Uses differ in some circumstances though for the main substance they signifie the same When you have proved it solidly you may expect it may be Embraced and not before This general Answer will reach the rest of your Ends and Uses wherein you say they differ Now to the third This is as if one should say the Ammonites did not succeed the Zanzummims and dwell in their stead because they were not Gyants as they were Contrary to Deur 2.20 21. 3. Circumcision say you Initiated the Carnal Seed into the Carnal Church and gave them right to the Carnal Ordinances but Baptism was to give the Spiritual Seed an orderly entrance into the Spiritual-Church and a right to partake of spiritual-Ordinances To which I Answer 1. They were initiated Externally by the Covenant into the Church before they were Circumcised and thereby they had a right to Circumcision as hath been proved before which was the Sign Seal of their Initiation 2. It seems to be a carnal Expression to call the Church in Abraham's Family a carnal Church The Church of the Jews indeed when they became National had a worldly Sanctuary Heb. 9.1 and carnal Ordinances v 10. but that it was a Carnal Church is an Expression that I find not in the Holy Scripture and I dare not call it so By Worldly Sanctuary he means the Tabernacle and all the External glory of the Levitical Service only as it was the Earthly-Representation of Heavenly things by which Earthly shadows they were by Faith to look at Heavenly things which were the substance And Carnal Ordinances Either because the Levitical Ceremonies were severed from the things they signified as the Carnal Jews took them and rested in them Or because carnal things were used in those Ordinances to represent Spiritual But as they were joyned with their significations so See Mr. Dick. son on Heb. 9. there were Promises of Atonement made and annexed to them which True Believers did enjoy If it were a Carnal Church and no Spirituality in it how then could any be saved in it The faithful then no doubt did look at Christ in those Carnal Ordinances to wit the Bulls and Goats and other things that were offered in Sacrifice and Christs Spirit was among them Hag. 2.5 Isa 63.11 3. Baptism was not to give the Spiritual Seed an orderly entrance into the Spiritual Church as hath been proved before but was to signifie and Seal the Entrance they had by God's Covenant before they were Baptized even as Circumcision was by your own Confession p. 223. 4. You do not here plainly tell us who those Spiritual Seed are but by the Current of your discourse it appear's you mean only True Believers in Christ and then what makes an Hypocrite in any of your Congregations Why was he Baptized 5 Nor do you here tell us what you mean by Spiritual Church and Spiritual Ordinances I conceive you mean a visible Gospel-Church and Gospel-Ordinances which if opposed to Carnal-Ordinances must signifie the plain and simple Ordinances of the Gospel representing Christ as in a Looking-Glass 2. Cor. 3. ult and not under the Veil of Ceremonies where the Blood of Bulls and Goats and other Carnal things were used by God's appointment to signifie and set forth Christ unto them Let us now gather up the sum of your Argument If Circumcision Initiated the Carnal Seed into the Carnal Church and gave them right to the Carnal-Ordinances But Baptism the Spiritual Seed into the Spiritual Church and gave them a right to Spiritual Ordinances then the End and Use of both is not the same and so Baptism doth not succeed into the Room of Circumcision At Ergo Besides the flaws in the Antecedent I deny the consequence of the Proposition For 3. By your own arguing the End and Use of Both is to enter them as you say into the Church and the Church in Abraham's Family where Circumcision began was the Church of God a Spiritual and not a Carnal Church as you term it and their Ordinances then were few and fit to represent Spiritual things unto them suitable to that time And as for Circumcision it was not one of those Legal Ceremonies but a Seal annexed to God's Covenant in Abraham's Family long before the Ceremonial Law consisting of Carnal Ordinances was given Yea afterwards when the Ceremonial Law was brought in whose Ordinances in some sence are called Carnal yet it appears they had a Spiritual signification led to Christ Gal. 3.24 therefore in a right sence Spiritual Ornances as to their signification and tendency Hence the End and Use of both as to the main substance is the same and therefore Baptism may well succeed into the Room of Circumcision by your own Argument And so I come to your fourth Use 4. Circumcision say you was to be a Bond and Obligation to keep the whole Law of Moses but Baptism witnessed that Moses Law was made void and that only Christ's Law was to be kept I Answer Your Assertion is doubtful for want
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
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
small River which at first spreading it self on that plain in breadth is very shallow And where it is thus spread and thereby broad is the Town Aenon scituated where John Baptized and there saith he the River is so shallow that it is not possible to dip or douse over head and ears a little Child therein See his Book called Scripture-evidence for Baptizing-Infants pag. 37. And then pag. 39. He gives you his Reason why John Baptized at Aenon because of those many waters there which may probably be this saith he John having Baptized at Bethabara John 1.28 which was the most frequent passage over Jordan Judg. 7.24 in regard of the great concourse usually there that his Doctrine and Baptism might be promulgated and having Initiated many Disciples and other multitudes still daily flocking to him he chose rather to perform this duty at Aenon than any longer at Bethabara because at Aenon the water spreading in a larger Plain the Multitude of his Disciples might better hear his Sermons and see his administration of Baptism than if performed under the shading-banks of Jordan This Reason seems clear but the other from the depth of the water doth not for it seems the water was deeper at Bethabara where he Baptized before It 's therefore a very uncertain ground to bottom dipping upon from a supposition of the depth of the waters there A third Scripture you mention is Acts 8.36 38 39. Philip and the Eunuch went both down into the water and Philip Baptized him and again they both came up or ascended out of the water therefore dipping was used I Answer 1 Their going down unto or into the water and going up out of or from the water seems to respect the way from the Bank to the River as before and not that the Eunuch was dipped and came up out of the water which covered him before 2. If their going down into the water were an Argument for dipping then Philip must be dipped as well as the Eunuch for both of them went down and both of them came up out of the water 3. What great matter was it for them in those hot Countries and who were sandals and usually washt their feet when they came into a House from their journies to go into the water though it were up to their Ancles or Knees This cannot prove dipping in Baptism Their feet indeed like the Feet of the Priests that bare the Ark might be dipped in the Brim of the water Josh 3.15 but that 's nothing to dipping the whole Body 4. To dip this Eunuch naked had been unsuitable to Christian-modesty and to dip him in his Clothes had been unsuitable to his Travelling-condition who it seems made no stop nor stay but went on his way rejoycing It 's most probable therefore that Philip Baptized him by pouring-water on him What-ever hath been the judgment of Godly-Men about dipping our Rule is the Scripture our of which we are with all Humility to seek the mind of God and to settle our Consciences and Practice A fourth Scripture you mention is Rom. 6.4 Buried with him in Baptism where say you the Apostle elegantly alludes to the Ceremony of Baptizing in our Death and Resurrection with Christ To which I Answer 1. In Mr. Cobbets words we use not to bury Men by throwing them down with their Faces downward as when persons are dived with their Faces under water but by laying them in with their Faces upwards nor do we plunge them into the dust and Earth but pour and sprinkle dust and broken Earth upon them If therefore the similitude of burying be signified in the manner of Baptizing then pouring on water or sprinkling will better express it than dipping 2. If dipping under the water doth signifie our being-buried with Christ and rising out of the water doth Sacramentally and Ceremonially signifie our rising with Christ then there must be proportionably something also in the outward Ceremony that must signifie our dying to sin with Christ for a Man should be dead before he is buried And the Apostle is express in it v. 3. Know ye not that as many as are Baptized into Christ are Baptized into his Death And yet you shew no outward part of the Ceremony that signifies that 3. I shall endeavour to clear the Text by giving my thoughts upon it yet still ready to receive further light from any The Apostle v. 1. Labours to prevent the abuse of that precious Doctrine of abounding Grace treated of Immediately before and with an Holy abhorrency rejects that abuse As if he should say I have told you O Believing Romans That such is the Riches of God's Grace in Christ and the reigning Glory of it that where sin abounded there pardoning Grace more abounded Let none of us hence resolve to commit the more sin that Grace may more abound for we that have Believed in Christ for the pardon of our sins and for Justification by his imputed-Righteousness are dead to sin and therefore should live no longer in it Do ye not know that as many of us as were Baptized into Jesus Christ were Baptized into his Death Therefore We are Buried with him by Baptism into Death that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the Glory of the Father even so we also to wit that are in Christ visibly at least and have been Baptized into him should walk in newness of Life v. 4. This latter he amplifies by a Simile to the former For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his Death we shall be also in the likeness of his Resurrection v. 5. from whence it seems clear That their Baptism was a Sign and Seal more generally of their Implantation into Christ Externally at least and thereupon more particularly and consequently of their Communion with Christ in his death for the mortification of sin in the beginnings of it and in his Burial for the further mortification of sin in the progress of it also in his Resurrection for quickning-power and spiritual Life not only at first but all along that they might lead a new and a Holy Life and abound therein more and more See John 14.19 Gal. 2.20 Phil. 3.9 10. We see then the scope of the Apostle in urging them with their being Buried with Christ by Baptism was not at all to make the Ceremony of Baptism to resemble that of Burial or of Resurrection but to signifie and Seal their implantation into Christ and so their Union with Christ and also consequently their Communion with him in his Death and Resurrection the vertue of both which they were to labour for by Believing all their days Whereas you say p. 249. That it is a very unusal thing so to deal with unclean hands to wit to sprinkle or pour water upon them I think it is very usual What mean those little Cisterns in many Houses with Cocks in them to let the water run upon the hands to wash them I Believe I