and is of use to Children when come to Understanding to mind them of their Duty We are Children of the Covenant that God made with our Fathers Acts 3.25 And Sealed it unto us in our Infancy and shall we turn our backs upon God far be it from us 4. Circumcision of old and Baptism of Infants now is for the use of the Parents as well as the Children and they are supposed to have the use of Reason You grant that Abrahams Circumcision was to assure him of the Promises made to him and his Seed p. 217. It seems then that Godly Parents have need of something to help their Faith concerning their Seed their poor Children and the Initiatory Seal of the Covenant to their Child is such a help to them Besides the Church have an use of it as hath been shewn before and they are supposed to understand 5. The present ability to make use of Baptism is not the Ground upon which it is to be dispensed to an Infant but the Gracious Covenant of God under which the Infant of an Inchurched-Parent Externally and Visibly is together wiih his command in the like case of old which as to the substance was never yet reversed You say Baptism is not as Circumcision which was a Sign not improper for Infants and you add the reason to wit because it left a Signal impression in their flesh to be remembred all their days but so cannot Baptism say you be to any Infants And why I pray is not Baptism also a Sign not improper yea very proper for Infants It seems it is because it leaves no signal impression in their flesh to be remembred all their days I shall examine your reason and then you will see the weakness of it 1. How could circumcised-Infants tell when they came to Age whether they were not born without a praeputium or foreskin Experience shew's that there are often very strange defects and obliquities in Generation Some are born Eunuchs Math. 19.12 2. Or if it were cut off when they were Infants how could they tell by what means Some Children as Paracelsus that famous Chymist and Physician have had their privities or some part of them bitten off by a Swine or some other Creature And what could assure them that they were not so 3. Suppose it were cut off by Men yet how could they tell that it was done in way of an Ordinance of God They could have no assurance of all or of any of these things but from humane Testimony only unless you will say They had it from Divine Revelation for which you have no ground Hence then an Infant Baptized in Infancy hath as good ground of assurance from a humane Testimony and may as well remember all his days that he was Baptized though he hath no signal-impression in his flesh as an Infant-Circumcised might have that had that signal-Impression in his flesh that he was Circumcised in his Infancy The one hath a humane Testimony or Tradition to assure him and the other in conclusion hath no more which is sufficient in this which is only a matter of fact 4. Even an Adult-person when he is dipped hath no more than a humane Testimony that he was Baptized for he cannot hear the words of the Baptizer when he is under the water Yet he takes it for granted that he was Baptized into the name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and remembers it all his days By these I hope you will see the weakness of your Reason And so I come to your fift Question and Answer Quest 5. Whether Circumcision was administred to Believers as Believers and to their Seed only p. 205. which you alter p. 218. and say to their Seed after them and add as such to which Baptism was to correspond Your Answer is By no means And your Reason is because Circumcision was an Ordinance which by the Institution belonged to all the natural Lineage of Abraham good or bad c. I Reply 1. Circumcision was by God's appointment administred to those Males that were of the Church in Abraham's Family and afterwards that were of the Church of the Jews and so continued and to their Male Children also Gen. 17. And Baptism now in these Gospel-days is by the appointment of the same Gracious God to be administred to such persons as are of a Gospel-Church and so continue and to their Infants also Go ye and Disciple all Nations Baptizing them c. Matth. 28.19 As Children of Inchurched-Parents were Discipled into the Church of the Jews and were Circumcised so now Children among all Nations that are Discipled by means of their Discipled-Parents should be Baptized by Christ's Commission as hath been proved And were not those Inchurched-Parents to Believe in Christ to come as now Inchurched Parents are to Believe in Christ already come Was not their attendance upon the Sacrifices and Ceremonial-Worship a profession of their Faith in Christ to come at least in the judgment of Charity What if many of them did not savingly Believe Is it not so now also Are all that are Baptized in your way true Believers do all of them Believe with all their heart I Believe you dare not say so You grant Abraham was a Believing-Parent and a Father to them all but you say He was a publick Common-Father which reacheth not the Case in hand To which I Reply Abraham may be considered in a twofold capacity 1. As an Inchurched-Believer and the natural Father of Children 2. As the Father of the Faithful then and also in all after-Ages and as Heir of the World In this latter sence no Believer ever was or shall be such a Father as Abraham was But in the former sence Every Inchurched Believer that hath an Infant or Infants is to be such a Father as Abraham was Abraham as an Inchurched-Believer was such a Father to his natural Children as by God's appointment did Externally interess his natural Children in God's Covenant and the Visible Initiatory-Seal thereof I will be thy God first and then the God of thy Seed therefore Circumcise them And this Priviledge the Children of Inchurched-Parents have now under the Gospel But you say if that were granted that Priviledge would not stand the natural Children of Abraham in any stead to admit them to Baptism Matth. 3.7 9. John rejects them calling them a Generation of Vipers who said they had Abraham for their Father For Answer 1. These were not Infants to whom John spake but gross notorious Hypocrites who carried their Hypocrisie in their foreheads so as that John could perceive it and continued obstinate and Impenitent 2. The Baptism of John was an Ordinance now newly-instituted and belonged to the New-Testament-Dispensation Mark 1.1 2. c. And those Pharisees being Adult-persons and notoriously corrupt standing in opposition to Christ and to the purity of the Gospel and power of Godliness there was good Reason why John should require them to repent before they
thy God will Circumcise the heart of thy Seed Circumcise your selves to the Lord and take away the foreskins of your heart They should seek to the Lord to do it for them And you hold the End and Use of Baptism and Circumcision the same in some of the main things they signifie 2. To the Parents Baptism now as Circumcision of old is a comfort and encouragement to the Parents to stir them up and encourage their Faith to pray and wrestle with God for the Conversion of their Children and to train them up in the way that they should go I bless God I have experienced this to be a Truth and still do and would not leave this Priviledge in the behalf of my Children for all the World 3. To the Church also They have a present Use of the Baptism of Inchurched-Children for thereby they may reflect upon the rich Grace and Goodness of God to them and their Seed and be put in mind of their Duty to their Children to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Hereby also they are minded of their duty of watchfulness over the Parents of such Children to see that they train them up in the ways of the Lord A duty too much neglected And also to mind them of their engagement to such Children in case their Parents should die or be impoverished they having been solemnly consecrated to God in the presence of the Church and owned by them Lastly That it is the duty of the Church as well as of the Ministers of it to pray for converting Grace for such Children whom they have seen solemnly consecrated to God See the judgment and practice of the Waldenses afterwards and under the Seal of the promise of Regeneration CHAP. V. In your fifth Chapter p. 35. you would prove Believers-Baptism to be the only Baptism from the New-Testament-Dispensation so differing from that of the Old Testament-Church which you say was national consisting of the natural and fleshly Seed of Abraham TO which I Reply If by Old-Testament-Church in this place you mean the Church as it was first constituted in Abraham's Family Gen. 17. I must deny it to be National for it became not National till the Lord brought them out of Egypt and set up a National-worship amongst them at Mount-Sinai And this is expresly called the Old-Covenant in reference to the New-Covenant under the Gospel see Heb. 8.8 9. I will make a New-Covenant not according to the Covenant that I made with their Fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the Land of Egypt And to this that of the Prophet Ezekiel hath relation Chapter 16.8 I entred into a Covenant with thee and thou becamest mine Therefore the Covenant made with Abraham when God put him and his Family into a Church-Estate is not that National-Covenant which the Apostle calls the Old-Covenant Heb. 8.8 9. and now gives way to the New but is that blessing of Abraham which for the substance of it still remains and is come upon the Gentiles Gal. 3.14 But by the Old Covenant which is now out of doors is meant as the Lord himself explains it Heb. 8.9 That National-Covenant that he made with their Fathers when he led them out of Egypt unto Sinai the Moral Law being then given with Terrour and the Ceremonial Law annext unto it as their Schoolmaster to lead them to Christ then to come who by his death fulfilled it and put an end to it nailing it to his Cross Col. 2.14 And this is called the Old Covenant in reference to the New one made now in the Gospel-days which is the Covenant made with Abraham revived and freed from those loads of Ceremonies wherewith it was once burdened Now it is not new in respect of the main substance and essence of the Covenant for they are both the Covenant of Grace see Haggai 2.5 Gods Spirit was among them then see also Isa 6.3.11 but in respect of the new manner of Dispensation of it the Articles of Grace being now more express promises instead of precepts and the Seals of it more clear easy significant and suitable to a Covenant of Grace As the Commandment of Love is called an Old Commandment and a New-Commandment in a different respect only 1 John 2.7 8. so may one and the same Covenant of Grace be called old and new in a different respect Hence follows 1. That the Nationality of the Church of Israel did not consist in this that they were the natural and fleshly Seed of Abraham but by virtue of the Covenant dispensed in a national way after they came out of Egypt For God's promise to Abraham to wit I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy Seed after thee in their Generations for an everlasting Covenant to be a God to thee and thy Seed after thee was long before that Church became National 2. That worldly Sanctuary Carnal Ordinances a Temporary Levitical Priest-hood and multitude of Ceremonies did not belong unto the Church in Abrahams Family but were peculiar to the Church as National which began near about 400 years after Gal. 3.17 viz. when God brought them out of Egypt If by spiritual Seed of Abraham p. 36. you mean those that did truly and savingly Believe as you seem to take it for you do not at all distinguish between Spiritual and Ecclesiastical then it is apparently untrue For in the New-Testament-Church there was an Ananias and Sapphyra and a Simon Magus who yet were regularly admitted to the Church though they were not true Believers And here I must again return you to your own experience and practice Therefore upon that change John Baptist did not discharge that Priviledge of the Church-Seed of Abraham as you say he did I mean of the Infants of Inchurched-Parents from any such right in the New-Testament as you affirm But he speaks to the grown-persons that rested in that Priviledge and boasted of their being the natural Children of Abraham though they continued impenitent unregenerate slighting and rejecting Christ on whom John directed them to believe compare Math. 3.7 8 9 11. with Acts 4.19 not at all persorming their covenant-Covenant-duty In like manner we may now safely say to Children of inchurched-Inchurched-Parents that are grown up and please themselves that they were the Children of such Parents and harden themselves in impenitency and unbelief as John did then Think not to say we are the Children of Godly-Inchurched-Parents This will neither free you from unquenchable fire nor bring you to Heaven nor admit you as Adult-Members into a Gospel-Church and into full Communion with the Saints therein in all Church-Ordinances but you must bring forth fruits meet for Repentance at least to the judgment of Rational-Charity or else you cannot be admitted thereunto This therefore doth not exclude the Infant-seed of a Parent admitted into a Gospel-Church and continuing in a right Estate therein If the Church-Priviledges of the
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
could wash my hands as clean that way as you could wash yours by dipping them into the water and I should not count her a Slut that would so wash her hands when they were foul Our experience therefore you see tells us that there is as effectual a way to wash our dirty-hands by pouring water upon them as by dipping them Besides unless you rinse or rub as well as dip you will not easily make clean work of it and if this your similitude hold you must not only dip the person you Baptize but you must rinse or rub him too to signifie his cleansing You take away the cavils of unseemliness from dipping by saying It is the fruit of â—â—â—rnal Wisdom Unbelief and shunning the the Cross and so no other than to reproach the Wisdom of Christ c. I Answer Were it apparent from Scripture that Christ had ordained Dipping and himself so practised it as you affirm I hope through the Grace of Christ many of his people would not count it undecent as now they do And there must be clearer light to convince them that are considerate of it than any you have yet held forth And I much wonder that you who will not admit of Consequences concerning Infants-Baptism which are far more rational and certain should content your self with such uncertain ones as you have brought for dipping I would only recite out of Mr. Cobbet p. 212. what he saith out of Nicephorus lib. 13. cap. 19. of the flying of the Women naked being beset with armed-Men as they were to be Baptized and that sad story of a Priest defiling of a Woman when to be Baptized Then as to the hazard of health you say known experience doth amply refute that vain Imagination You will not be offended I hope if the experience of some others be set against yours It is more than probable that some have presently upon it fallen into a Fever which cost them their lives And I could tell you of some Eye-witnesses credible-persons who saw both the Baptizer and the Baptized in danger of drowning and had very probably been both drowned if one had not leapt in from the bank in his Clothes and relieved them both I would not have mentioned these things had not your words required an answer for it is Truth and Peace that I aim at and not Contention and bitterness To your Chapter V. pag. 253. I Answer Having as I trust given satisfactory Answers to what you have said and in some measure evidenced and confirmed the contrary-truth those several mischiefs absurdities and contradictions cannot justly be charged upon our practice I shall mention them very briefly having spoken to most of them amply before Only I must tell you that the Errours you charge our Doctrine and Practice with do not naturally and perse follow from them but they are accidental to them as far as they are Errours They are the Errours of Persons only not of our Doctrine nor of our Practice according to our Doctrine And therefore you injuriously charge them upon our Doctrine Practice It is fallacia accidentis As for what is Truth in any of them we own and have proved it before but the most of them you falsly charge upon us Let those that own what is Erroneous in their Expressions make them good if they can or rather repent of them Our Assertion of Infant-Interest and Baptism will stand without them 1. Baptizing of the Infants of Inchurched-Parents is not an altering of the Order of Christs Commission as hath been proved but it is acting according to his Commission Disciples we have proved them to be and so by Christ's Commission to be Baptized Repentance and Faith visibly-professed at least should precede in grown-persons not so in Infants but their Baptism and being Externally in the Covenant of Grace is to engage and stir them up to seek to God for Repentance and Faith And this Answer will undermine all the rest of your absurdities mischiefs and contradictions It 's no changing of the subjects that Christ hath appointed Nor a frustrating of the holy and Spiritual Ends of Baptism but a means to attain them if it be rightly-improved Nor doth it invert the Order by sprinkling or pouring water upon the face Nor doth it naturally and of it self introduce any Errour or false Doctrine We do not hold that it is to take away Original Sin Nor that it doth of it self work Grace and Regeneration yet we dare not limit the Lord that he should not work it then or at any other time when he pleaseth And that it was an Apostolical Tradition we own it no otherwise than from their writings and practice recorded in the Scripture If any make it an unwritten Tradition let them please themselves with their own fancy Nor doth it maintain that Children have Faith though it is beyond your reach to say this or that Child hath no Faith secret things belong to God But that they are Disciples of Christ and in Christ's School we have proved though they have not yet learnt one Letter That all the Infants of Inchurched-Believers are Externally in the Covenant of Grace and federally-Holy I have proved and you cannot prove it to be an Errour or false Doctrine Nor doth it defile and pollute the Church either by bringing false matter therein who are no Saints by calling neither capable to perform Duties nor enjoy priviledges Those words Saints by calling if you mean such as have Actually answered the call of Christ in his word at least in the judgment of Charity respect only-Adult-persons who are immediate-Members and not Children who are Mediate Members by means of their inchurched-Inchurched-Parents as middle persons appointed of God to convey them into that Estate and Relation This distinction will free the Church from pollution of which more hath been said before We do not hold that a Church is gathered or made up only of Infants but of grown persons who alone are able to perform Duties But Infants are capable of enjoying Priviledges Is it not a Priviledge for God to be their God Externally in Covenant To be under a promise of God's Circumcising the heart and to provide them outward means for that End Some of your perswasion have held that they have great priviledges They are then true matter of the Church as visible in their kind and do not pollute and defile it By your Argument the Children of the Jews must be false matter for they were no Saints by calling nor could they perform duties yet they were mediate members of the Church and a part of that holy-people as hath been shewed Nor doth it lay a Foundation of Ignorance and prophaneness but the Contrary as I have abundantly proved Nor is it a confounding World and Church together nor bringing the World into the Church and turning the Church into the World You will see the contrary if you impartially-weigh what I have said before This reasoning of yours is as much against Children
ye Abraham's Seed c. Men may be said to be Christ's and also to be Abraham's seed 1. Spiritually and Invisibly 2. Ecclesiastically and visibly only 1. Spiritually and Invisibly as to Men In foro Dei before God alone who is the only knower and searcher of the heart and Tryer of the Reins And so none are Abraham's seed but such as do truly and savingly-believe as Abraham did This is the Faith of God's Elect and peculiar to such as shall be saved 2. Ecclesiastically and visibly In foro Ecclesiae before Men only to the visible-Church And in this sence all such as make a rational and credible profession of Faith in Christ to the judgment of Rational-Charity in a Church-way they are Christ's and Abraham's Seed And then it amounts to this to wit If ye be Christ's spiritually then are ye Abraham's Seed spiritually and shall be Eternally-blessed with faithful Abraham And if ye be Christs Ecclesiastically-only and in the judgment of Men of the Church-only then are ye also Abraham's Seed Ecclesiastically only and in the judgment of Men only and may expect only an External and Temporal blessing and so we have the Exposition also of Gal. 3.9 And that this is the Apostles sence is plain in this chapter and in other places of this Epistle Ye are all saith he the Children of God by Faith in Christ Jesus Gal. 3.26 Were they indeed all of them True Believers and so all of them Children of God spiritually and savingly Doth not the Apostle tell them He was afraid of them some of them at least that would be under the Law lest he had bestowed upon them labour in vain And that he travelled with them in Birth again till Christ was formed in them Gal. 4.11.19 They made a better shew once Chap. 3.1.3 4. and Chap. 4.15 but now he was in doubt of them yet these he calls the Children of God by Faith in Christ Jesus They were yet so Externally being yet a Church of God though at present troubled and seduced by false Teachers from whose errors he hoped and laboured to recover them Take another Text like unto this Gal. 3.2.7 As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ And v. 28. Ye are all one in Christ Jesus Undoubtedly if they had put on Christ Spiritually and savingly they would never have put him off again And had they been once in Jesus Christ Spiritually and savingly they would never have gone out of him again It 's manifest therefore that some of them put him on and were in him Externally only and in outward profession only before Men. For such branches there are found in Christ the true Vine considered as head of the visible Church John 15.2.6 And our Brethren must experimentally acknowledge that it is so in their Congregations too often What you say pag. 37. That nothing short of the Spirits-Birth can orderly-admit to Water-Birth i. e. Baptism I suppose you mean and Spiritual Ordinances is fully answered to before as to the substance of it Persons making a credible profession of the Spirits birth to the judgment of Rational-Charity guided in judging by the Rules of of the Word may orderly be admitted to Water-Birth as you phrase it and spiritual-Ordinances as appears by Simon Magus and others who yet had but a shew of the Spirits-Birth not the truth and reality of it Acts 8.8 with v. 22.23 The reason is because Men who cannot see directly immediately and infallibly into the heart are to judge of them The same answer will serve to that of Christ to Nicodemus and to that which is cited out of Dr. Owen And as to that of Dr. Taylor it is suitable to his boldness and design gratis dictum and there may rest till he give us some Scripture-proof CHAP. VI. YOur assertion and proofs in your sixth Chapter have respect only to immediate and grown-Members who alone we acknowledge are capable of the Directions and priviledges you mention Children of such are but Mediate-Members as hath been shewn and are such as to whom those things do not belong The Apostle therefore mentions the duties priviledges of Immediate Adult-Members only I do not hold that a Gospel-Church is constituted of Infants but of grown-Persons professing visible Saints and to such the Apostle speaks yet the Infants of such are also Members though of another kind The Church may be a Church though there be at present never an Infant in it but I question whether it be so if there be no men grown-persons in it I would ask whether Women were capable of all those directions given by the Apostle to those Churches you may as well say they were not Members of the Church because they were not subjects capacitated for those directions Women were not capable of Church-judging and some other Church-Acts therefore are not members of the Church I suppose you will not like such arguing If Infants are not Members because they are not capable of the Apostles directions to the Churches then Women must not be Members because they also are uncapable of them If it were granted to be true that those first inventers of Infant-Baptism as you stile them did so miserably miss it in the Subjects applying the Spiritual Ordinance to ignorant Babes yet Childishly ridiculous is too slight an expression for so miserable a mistake But you have not yet proved that there were such Inventers of Infant-Baptism The Scripture gives us ground to conclude that it was on foot long before those Inventers you intimate and that God in Christ was the Inventer of it The ground of which we have shewed in Christ's Commission already As for some that hold Paedo-Baptism let them maintain their own Principles and Practices if they can I think some can never justify them by Gospel-Rules and I believe it hath been an occasion to many Beza in 1 Cor. 7.14 to turn against Paedo-Baptism for my own part I am of Beza's mind that they are to be confuted that admit all Infants to Baptism a thing saith he unheard of in all the Ancient Church Yea I shall add nor any but such one of whose Parents at least is of a Gospel-Church and so the Child a Mediate-Member thereof who afterwards must not be admitted as an Immediate-Member and partake of all Church-Ordinances without his own credible profession of Faith and Repentance and entring into Covenant in his own Person This would remove many scruples and objections which they cannot well free themselves from that practise otherwise CHAP. VII To your seventh Chapter Testimonies of Councils and learned Men. YOu say you produce not humane Authorities for any proof but by way of Illustration c. To make manifest that not only Scripture-Authority but even Antiquity it self is altogether for Believers and not for Infant's-Baptism In Answer to which I shall at present return these things that follow 1. That we build not Infants-Baptism on humane Authority
of the Apostles as an undoubted-Truth If you would see more how Ancient Authors brought by some against Infant-Baptism do indeed either not speak against it or else do speak for it read Mr. Cobbet's vindication of the Covenant and Church-Estate of Children c. From pag. 213. to the end of the Book by which you will discern how Men have at least misapprehended and mistaken them and brought them to witness what was never in their thoughts nor the import of their words See the like in Doctor Homes to whose answers you should have replied and not have brought in the same things as if nothing had ever been said against them CHAP. III. In Answer to your Chapter third AS for the Arguments drawn from humane Tradition for Baptizing Infants I leave them to those that are willing to build their Faith upon humane Tradition But as for consequential Arguments deduced from Scriptures to justifie the Baptizing of Infants those I must stick unto as knowing that nothing can naturally and per se of it self flow out of the Scriptures of Truth but Truth And every grain of Truth is to be prized above the World And you have no more but Consequences to prove that Women should partake of the Lord's Supper and those also much entangled and obscured with difficulties I must profess if consequences be not valid that naturally flow from Scriptures rightly understood I know not what to make of much of the Holy Scripture neither will you As to that Math. 19.13 14. Calvin will tell you how Baptism comes to be concerned in it Institut lib. 4. Chap. 16. Artic. 7. This is not lightly saith he to be passed by that Christ commandeth Infants to be brought unto him adding a reason to wit because of such is the Kingdom of Heaven and afterwards he declareth his will by his deed when having embraced them he commends them to his Father by his praying for them and blessing of them If it be meet that Infants should be brought to Christ why not also that they should be received to Baptism which is the badge of our Communion fellowship with Christ If theirs be the Kingdom of Heaven why should the sign be denyed them c. See more there As to that of John 3.5 Let them plead for the Baptism of Infants from that Text that see more than I do in it I shall not side with them nor conclude as they do that there is no other way to Regenerate and save Infants though I dare not exclude Baptism if God please then to work Nor shall I deduce the Baptism of Infants from Mark 16.16 upon this ground that they are Believers or upon any other inspired habit of Grace within them which is wholly hidden from man having a clearer surer more solid and visible ground to build upon not only from Christ's Commission as hath been proved but also from the Covenant made with Abraham and his Seed externally in a Church-way Gen. 17.7 and repeated Acts 2.39 together with the Analogie of Baptism with Circumcision than the initiatory Seal of Gods Covenant and dispensed to Infants and also from that federal holiness mentioned 1 Cor. 7.14 which you deny and make it to be only a Legitimacy of such Children What if others saw it not in ages past that Holiness there is taken for federal Holiness Neither did you your self see formerly many Truths that now you do and yet they were in the Scriptures then as well as now We have cause therefore to bless God that hath given to any of his Servants to discern the Truths that lay hid from the former Ages and in particular this among others of the federal Holiness of Children of Inchurched-Parents I confess my self not so much an Antiquary as to say who was the first founder of this Interpretation nor have I ancient Commentators at hand to examine but if Zuinglius were the first as you affirm we have cause to honour him and to bless God that revealed it to him And now I come to answer to your reasons given against it 1. It doth not contradict the Gospel-Dispensation but well suits with it the Lord not having straitned but enlarged his Grace now in Gospel-times and the visible tokens of it 2. This federal Holiness of Infants of Inchurched-Parents is not an entayling Grace to Nature nor Regeneration to Generation but is an entayling of God's Covenant in it's External and Ecclesiastical dispensation to the natural-Seed of Inchurched-Parents which they should improve also for their Regeneration It is therefore your mistake to take Grace absolutely and only for Regenerating Grace as if we held this Holiness to consist in Regeneration and Inherent Sanctification For we acknowledge that we and our Children are all by Nature Children of wrath as well as others Eph. 2.3 But we and our Seed being at least Externally in God's-Covenant have an advantage left us by our Gracious God to press him for regenerating Grace for our Children which he hath indefinitely and conditionally promised And our Children when they come to discretion for themselves This priviledge and advantage they want who are strangers from the Covenants of promise as being without Christ without hope and without God in the World Eph. 2.12 but being under the Covenant they have a visible ground for their hope which they should improve for converting-Grace leaving secret things to God If then you ask what Holiness this federal Holiness is It is a Relative Holiness by way of separation and Consecration God hath Externally-Consecrated Inchurched-Parents and their Seed to be his people comprehending them within the External and Ecclesiastical-dispensation of his Covenant and thereby hath entitled them to the Initiatory Seal thereof the susception of which even infants are capable of And here again I must mind you that your Assertion doth necessarily imply that whosoever is Baptized must be truly-regenerated and sanctified which hath been often confuted before 3. Hence this federal Holiness of Infants doth not at all contradict the experience of former and latter times as you say it doth Had not Abraham an Ishmael and Isaac an Esau And yet both of them when Children were federally Holy What I pray did Esau sell when he sold his Birth-right for which he is called a profane person Heb. 12.14 And what if Parent 's now Inchurched neglect their Duty and have Children that when grown up do slight their Priviledge and walk wickedly neglecting their Duty required of God as indispensably-necessary to the establishment of Covenant-Relation and transgressing those Commands they were obliged to observe Is it not an aggravation of their Sin that they were once Children that were devoted and consecrated to God You will easily grant that it was a great Sin to turn any consecrated thing to a common and profane Use And is it not so here for Children that were externally consecrated and related to God in his Covenant to turn from him in stead of seeking him and to give up