himself and his Seed to God to walk according to his Covenant of Grace to which the initiatory Seal of the Covenant is annexed And God hath engaged himself in that Covenant to be his God and the God of his Seed Deut. 17.7 And both the Parent and his Seed also when come to years of discretion should improve this Covenant and the Seal of it not only for forgiveness of sins by Christ's Blood but more immediately that God would be a God unto them to give and continue means of Grace and Conversion and give his Spirit along with those means to convert and bring them to Christ and then by his Blood to wash them from their sins and make them Heirs of Eternal Life And thus when one Baptized in Infancy is afterwards truly Converted he hath then the spiritual good and virtue of his Baptism and may by the help of the Spirit of Grace look back upon his Baptism with comfort and have that Answer or rather demand and Interogation of a good Conscience 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pleading with God for forgiveness of sins and Salvation by the merit of the Sufferings Obedience and Resurrection of Jesus Christ who hath purchased them for him and signified and sealed them by his Baptism whensoever he should truly believe in Christ And this may serve for an Answer to your fourth and fifth End also in part you shall find more when we come to speak of dipping upon which your reasoning is built in your fourth End 4. To the sixth End you mention which is to represent the Vnion betwixt Christ and a Believer c. p. 25. I would first ask you whether all such grown-persons as you Baptize be true Believers in Christ and so have indeed a spiritual and saving-Union with Christ for that 's your scope and to that purpose speaks your testimony out of Dr. Taylor But this is so contrary to Truth and to your own experience that I think you will not dare to maintain it 2. I answer Christ may be considered Personally or mystically again either Spiritually or Ecclesiastically Eph. 1.22 23. 1 Cor. 12.12 So is Christ Now Umon with Christ is suitable to this distinction All true Believers in Christ are Spiritually united to him 1 Cor. 6.17 and shall be certainly saved by him Others that make a profession of true faith in Christ but have not indeed a true faith may be united to Christ as Ecclesiastically-considered that is they may be visible Members of Christ's visible Church See John 15.1.2 3 4 c. Christ is the Vine and Believers both Real and feigned are the Branches in a different respect True Believers are Living-Branches and bring forth fruit in Christ unto Eternal Salvation false and feigned Believers are dead Branches that are for the fire even for everlasting fire If then these dead Branches be in Christ Ecclesiastically to wit Members of him as head of the Church visible why then should the Infants of Inchurched-Parents be excluded from such an External Union with Christ because they do not at present truely Believe but are dead branches at present Though it is more than you or any man can peremptorily say that this or that Infant hath no work of Grace begun in him nor is spiritually-united to Christ 3. Suppose an Infant hath a secret work of Grace begun in him which undoubtedly God doth work in Elect-dying Infants then according to your Doctrine such an Infant should be Baptized because he hath Union with Christ and yet he can make no profession of Faith and so you cannot know it 5. To your seventh End I answer that the End of Baptism I conceive is not that the Baptized Person may orderly thereby have an entrance into the visible Church Nor was Circumcision of old the visible door of Entrance into the Old-Testament-Church For Baptism presupposeth the person to be a Member of the visible Church and so did Circumcision And though some of those that are for Infant-Baptism use such expressions yet I suppose by their discourse in other places they mean that it was only a solemn establishment and sealing of that Covenant in which they were before In Gen. 17. God comes to Inchurch Abraham and his Family whom Abraham had prepared by his instructing them before Gen. 18.19 And so some expound Gen. 14.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 His Catechised servants And this he doth by making his Covenant with him in a Church-way Intimated more generally v. 2. repeated and something expressed peculiarly belonging to Abraham v. 4. Then more clearly and fully in v. 7. 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 unto thee and to thy Seed after thee Then he presseth it again v. 9. and verse 10. brings in Circumcision the Seal of it Rom. 4.11 the token of the Covenant between me and you saith the Lord v. 11. which he also calls the Covenant because it was not only an Adjunct to the Covenant as every Seal is but also being instituted of God to be annexed to the Covenant and required of them it was a part of the Covenant it self which they might not neglect And hence the careless omission and neglect thereof was a breaking of God's Covenant v. 14. By what hath been said appear's that the End of Circumcision was not to give entrance into the old Testament-Church for they were entred by the Covenant and that the End of Baptism which answers to Circumcision is not to give entrance into the New-Testament-Church for they were entred before by their interest in the Covenant of which Baptism is a token and a Seal To put an end to this Chapter we hold with you that none ought to be admitted to the Lord's Supper that have not been before baptized from the Analogy between these and the two Sacraments of old No uncircumcised person shall eat thereof Exod. 12.48 And hence I cannot see how some that are against Infant-Baptism and hold it a Nullity can admit them to the Lord's Supper who in their judgments have never been Baptized And here I cannot but take notice of your partiality you make use of Analogy in this case but will not allow of it in the case of Baptizing of Infants from Infants being Circumcised of old CHAP. IV. I shall here take the occasion to shew distinctly the Ends and Vse of the Baptism of Infants 1. TO the Infants themselves when grown up God's Covenant and Baptism the seal of it will be of use to the Child afterwards to encourage him to seek the Lord for converting Grace I will be thy God and the God of thy Seed hath no small argument in it David knew it when he said Thou Solomon my Son know thou the God of thy Father 1 Chron. 28.9 My God and my Fathers God Exod. 15. Thus were the Jews to make use of their Circumcision Deut. 30.4 with Jer. 4.4 The Lord
or as Externally and Ecclesiastically Dispensed Now if you take both of these together in sensu composito in a compound sence then I grant that the Covenant is no larger than the Vein of Election but they run parallel But if they be taken in sensu diviso in a divided sence for Election only unto Eternal Life and Salvation and Saving-Graces then I deny them to be equal For there is also an Election of some unto External Church-Covenant-Ordinances and Priviledges who are not Elected unto Salvation A Church-Member living and dying in Hypocrisie was within the Covenant Externally and Ecclesiastically dispensed Else how came he to be a Member of the Church which consists by the Covenant which is as the Cement that joyn's them together Yet such a One was never in the Vein of Election unto Eternal-Life which is absolute and not conditional as some Blasphemously hold Hence when it is said the Covenant is no larger than Believing that is It belongs to none but true Believers It is thus to be understood to wit as to the enjoyment of the saving benefits of it it belongs as Immediately to none but true Believers but as to the External proposal and tender of them and Ecclesiastical and Temporary Priviledges of the Covenant so it may and doth belong not only to true Believers but also to such as make a credible profession of true Faith in a visible congregation though they be not true Believers indeed to their Children also To conclude this If the Covenant be no larger than the Vein of Election unto Salvation and no larger than true Believing then some of these absurdities must needs follow 1. Either there must be no Hypocrite in any visible Church for he is not in the Vein of Election to Eternal Salvation and therefore Matth. 13.37 38 39 c. 47 48 49 50. not within the Covenant and this is flatly-contrary to the Scripture and to known experience see also Rom. 9.1 2 3 4. 2. Or if there be any Hypocrites in the visible-Church they must be certinaly-Elected to Salvation For Being in the Visible Church they are within the Covenant as hath been proved and the Covenant being no larger than Election they must of necessity be Elected 3. Hypocrites in the visible-Church must be Damned or Saved Damned they cannot be because they are within the Covenant as I have proved And the Covenant being of the same Latitude with Election they are Elected to Salvation and must not be Damned or if they be God must change his Decree which is Blasphemy even to think Again Saved they cannot be for God never Elected any unto Salvation that lived and died Hypocrites and he will not change his mind And hence according to that Tenet Hypocrites can neither be Damned nor Saved 4. If the Covenant be no larger than Election unto Eternal Life and Salvation and no Infants are in the Covenant then all Infants-dying must be damned For according to this Opinion they being not in the Covenant are not Elected and not being Elected cannot be saved unless the unchangeable God change his Decree that is change himself Hence we see that what we hold is free from that absurdity which you would fasten upon it and the absurdity lies at your own Door But it seem's all my labour is in vain that I have spent in proving this Holiness of Children 1 Cor. 7.14 to be a federal-Holiness because say you Be the Holinese here what it will it is neither here nor else-where assigned to be a ground of Baptizing Children upon c. To which I Answer 1. That if this Holiness be federal which you acknowledge all Children under the Law had yea I shall also add as the Children Inchurched in Abraham's Family had which was long before the Law then if those Children were by God's appointment sealed with the Initiatory Seal Circumcision the same Covenant that God made with Abraham and his Seed being come upon us Gentiles Gal. 3.14 with Acts 2.39 Our Inchurched Children also are to be Sealed with the Initiatory Seal of the Covenant now under the Gospel Especially considering this that God hath never revoked it but hath brought Baptism into the place of Circumcision Col. 2.11 12. And you your self grant so much implicitely in saying that Circumcision and Baptism serve to the same end and that there is an Analogy in some things betwixt the one and the other Pag. 223. But 2. I have already proved out of Christs Commission that Inchurched-Parents Children are Disciples and so federally Holy and by the same Commission to be Baptized And the reason why Women and Females under the Law were not Circumcised nor commanded to be Circumcised was because of an Incapacity in Nature they having no Praeputium or Foreskin as the Males had and what other Reason there might be is hid from us With Reverence I may say It could not suit with the Wisdom and goodness of God dealing with his people in the way of a Covenant of Grace to command a thing impossible I pray what was there in the first Institution of Baptism in John the Baptists time concerning the Baptizing of Women We hear nothing of them expresly till a long while after Acts 8.12 And as for their right to and receiving of the Lord's Supper I suppose we have shewn you as much obscurity in it as you can object to us concerning the Baptism of Inchurched Infants CHAP. IV. Answer to your Arguments of Circumcision examined p. 204. and to the Questions you make and Answers seven in all Quest 1. WHether Circumcision called the Gospel-Seal did belong of old to all in Gospel-Covenant First you deny Circumcision to be the Seal of the Gospel-Covenant to all Believers and so do I there were many Believers before Circumcision was instituted and so they could not be Sealed by it Be it so that Circumcision was tied to the Church in Abraham's Family and afterwards to Jacob and his posterity Might not God do with his own what he would What if God denyed it to others out of the Church in Abraham's Family and afterwards in Jacob's posterity that people might joyn themselves to them as Proselytes which is most probable Are not many Believers without the Seals of the Covenant now because they do not or cannot joyn themselves to a Gospel-Congregation Will you therefore deny Baptism and the Lord's Supper to be the Seals of the Gospel-Covenant to all Believers Are they not instituted of God to be Seals unto them if they come in a right way to enjoy them Again you say there were some to whom the Covenant did not belong who received that called the Seal of Circumcision as Ishmael You indeed Answer this your self in the next words when you say This Covenant was not to be Established with him but with Isaac Gen. 17.20 21 25. It was not to be Established with him to be made to stand and abide with him He doth not say that the Covenant in
Children of the Church of the Jews were some of those that were to be circumcised after the manner of Moses then some of those on whom they laid the yoke of Circumcision after the manner of Moses must be Children of Inchurched-Parents But Children of the Church of the Jews were some of those that were to be Circumcised after the manner of Moses Gen. 17.12 Therefore some of those on whom they laid that Yoke must be Children of Inchurched-Parents to wit Children of eight days old Hence it is plain â primo ad ultimum that Children of Inchurched-Parents one of them at least are Disciples and by our Lord's Commission should be Baptized The true order then is this 1. That Gentile Parents should attend to the preaching of the Gospel and be converted by it 2. That then they should enter into a Gospel-Church-Estate that is be Discipled 3. And upon that should be Baptized themselves 4. And that their Infants also being by the Lord's appointment received in with and by means of their Parents or Parent at least as mediate-Members and by the Lord called Disciples they also as well as their Parents should by his Commission be Baptized they being as truly and compleatly mediate-Members in their kind as their Parents are immediate Members in their kind I shall give one Argument more for the Disciple-ship of the Infants of Inchurched-Parents If to be one of Christ's Externally and Ecclesiastically as Matth. 26.73 Mar. 14.69 70. Luke 22.58 And to be with Christ Externally as Matth. 26.69 71. Mar. 14.67 Luke 22.56.59 be the same thing with being one of Christ's Disciples as appears John 18.17.25 Then Children of Inchurched-Parents being Externally and Ecclesiastically related to Christ and Externally with Christ and of his Kingdom the Church as Matth. 19.13 14 15.13 14 15.16 must of necessity be Disciples Dr. Worth To clear this distinction of Church-Members take what followes Church-Members called by the name Disciples are of two kinds or species 1. Immediate that do actually in their own persons having first approved themselves to the Church receive and lay hold of the Covenant of Grace held forth to them in a Church-way for themselves and their Seed and giving up themselves and their Seed to the Lord and to his Church Gen. 17.7 by the will of God This they do for their Seed as middle-persons by God's appointment and not as publick persons 2. Mediate by means of their Parent or Parents one or both And hence ariseth the Distinction of Immediate and mediate Church-Members distinct from each other in kind which may thus be proved Prop. Such as is the confederation of little Children such is their Church-Membership Assump But their confederation is Mediate Conclus Therefore their Church-Membership is mediate also This is the Argument of that reverend and accomplished servant of God Mr. John Davenport The Proposition is evident because Church-Confederation is the proper and formal-cause and reason of Church-Membership Et cui forma tribuitur vol adimitur eidem formatum The Assumption is also clear for it is plain that all such Childrens confederation is in and by their Parent or Parent 's confederating for them Mediante Parente And this makes their Membership Mediat Were this distinction generally held by them that hold Paedobaptism our dissenting Brethren that are against Infant-Membership and Infant-Baptism would be freed from a great Temptation For they see that if Children be Church-Members of the same kind and species equally with their Parents then when they are grown up they may by virtue of that Member-ship Relata enim non suscipiunt magis minus challenge a right to all other Church-Ordinances because they are Church-Members as their Parents were and stand in a right Estate in the Church having never been cast out I must confess that by such a succession of Members as this is the Church would be sadly corrupted But if this Distinction of Immediate and Mediate Members were held then might our Brethren easily see that the Membership of Children which is mediate would not entitle them to full Communion with the Church in all Ordinances proper to the Adult but they must become Immediate-Members by their own credible profession of Faith and Repentance to the satisfaction of the Church and laying hold of the Covenant solemnly themselves as their Parents have done before them And this would be a way according to God to maintain a succession of Infant-Members to whom there are divers Priviledges belonging tending to their Conversion and yet to keep the Church pure See Mr. Baxter's Book of Confirmation wherein he hath solidly proved the substance of what I here assert And now it will be requisite to recollect what hath been more largely discoursed and to apply it to the scope intended I have shewed that there are as many and as probable objections against both the Example and command that have been produced by H. D. for Womens receiving the Lord's Supper as are against the Baptism of Children of Inchurched-Parents And that there are if not clearer yet as clear Arguments out of Scripture for the latter as for the former and therefore as little reason to object against the latter as against the former My intent is not to quarrel but rather to compose this difference if the Lord see it good CHAP. II. AS to to the Baptism of Believers I know none that are for Infant-Baptism do oppose it provided 1. That they be Believers in a Gospel-Church-Estate 2. That they be such Believers as have not before been Baptized in their minority But the former part of your book tending to prove that only Actual Believers should be Baptized I cannot perceive that your proofs do confirm it either from Scripture or humane Testimonies The generality of them if I apprehend them rightly speak only of Adult persons and therein we agree with you that Adult persons ought to testifie their Faith and Repentance to the judgment of Rational Charity of the Church guided in judging by the Rules of God's Word before they are admitted to be Members and to Baptism And I believe you cannot but judge that the Testimonies you bring from Mr. Perkins Mr. Baxter Dr. Owen and some others were so intended and not at all against Infants I shall leave that to them that are concerned and are yet alive to explain and vindicate their own sence But as for some others who as you render them speak more punctually to your purpose which I have neither time nor Books to examine I look upon the case of Infant-Baptism as little concerned in them the sacred Scripture alone as you confess being the only Rule that can satisfie Conscience Yet were it not too tedious a task I could shew you many mistakes in your apprehensions of divers of them And you may see Answers to sundry of them in Dr. Homes and some others which yet you take no notice of I grant that all Adult Persons to be admitted to the Church
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-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-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
2. I have not all the Authors at hand whose Testimonies you produce to examine them you may possibly misapprehend and mistake them 3. Some of the Authors you produce which you say are faithful impugners of Infants-Baptism as a humane and Antichristian Tradition and Invention whom you say we shall find by plentiful Evidence to be none of the least are expresly-contrary to what you affirm In particular the Waldenses whom you so highly extol for what they have said and practised against Infant-Baptism Which thing gives just cause of suspicion that you may have mist it in others as well as in them Take their own words out of John Paul Perrins History translated out of French by Sampson Leonard Printed Anno 1624. In Book 1. Chap. 4. He brings in objections and false Accusations laid upon that people And pag. 15. The 4th Calumny saith he was touching Baptism which it is said they denyed to little Infants but from this imputation saith he they quit themselves as followeth The Time and Place of those that are to be Baptized is not ordained but the Charity and Edification of the Church and Congregation must serve for a Rule therein c. And therefore they to whom the Children were nearest allied brought their Infants to be Baptized c. And then he renders the occsiaon of that Calumny True it is saith he that being constrained for some certain hundred years he tell 's us not how many to suffer their Children to be Baptized by the Priests of the Church of Rome they deferred the doing thereof as long as they could possibly because they had in detestation those humane inventions which were added to that Holy Sacrament which they held to be but pollutions thereof And for as much as their Pastors which they called Barbes were many times abroad in the service of their Churches they could not have the Sacrament of Baptism administred to their Infants by their own Ministers which the Priests perceiving charged them thereupon with this Imposture which not only their Adversaries have believed but divers others who have well approved of their life and Faith in all other points What can be more plain Again in Chapter 5. pag. 30.31 King Lewis the 12th being informed by the Enemies of the Waldenses dwelling in Provence of many grievious Crimes imposed upon them sent to make Inquisition in those places the Lord Adam Fume Mr. of Requests and a Doctor of Sorbon called Parvi who was his Confessor They visited all their Parishes and Temples and found neither Images nor so much as the least shew of any Ornaments belonging to their Masses and Ceremonies of the Church of Rome much less any such Crimes as were imposed upon them but rather that they kept their Sabbaths duly causing their Children to be Baptized according to the order of the Primitive Church teaching them the Articles of the Christian Faith and the Commandements of God To which the King replied they were better Men than he or his People Again Book 2. Chap. 4. pag. 60 61. We have but two Sacramental Signes the which Christ hath left unto us the one is Baptism the other the Eucharist which we receive to shew what our perseverance in the Faith is as we have promised when we were Baptized being little Infants See more Doctrine of the Waldenses and Albingenses Book 1. Chapter 3. pag. 43. implied line 6. and plainly asserted towards the end of the page Whereas Baptism is administred in a full Congregation of the Faithful it is to the End that he that is received into the Church should be reputed and held of all for a Christian-Brother and that all the Congregation might pray for him that he may be a Christian in heart as he is outwardly esteemed to be a Christian And for this Cause it is that we present our Children in Baptism It is also necessarily-implied Book 3. Chap. 4. pag. 99. Where they deny the Popish additions to Infant-Baptism but not the Baptism it self Hence I cannot but wonder that you should so peremptorily assert that the Waldenses were such faithful impugners of Infant Baptism as an Antichristian Tradition and Invention when these Testimonies are so expresly and Diametrically to the contrary Thus much of the third thing premised 4. The humane Authorities you produce though some of them were Godly Men yet it is manifest that the Authors admitted many other absurd things concerning Baptism and some of them as you confess deferred it a long time after they were converted out of a superstitious apprehension as Constantine himself did and others that you Enumerate p. 69. and their Baptizing Catechumens only at Easter and Pentecost And why might they not defer their Infants Baptism out of the like superstition It seems most probable that they did so and therefore their practice and Testimony is of little worth 5. That their silence in the first Centuries after Christ concerning the Baptizing of Infants is no considerable argument against it A non dici ad non esse non valet consequentia But indeed it seems rather an Argument for it It may rather be interpreted that there was no question concerning it nor opposition made against it in those Centuries therefore no mention made of it But afterwards when it came to be questioned and opposed in Century 4. and 5. then there stood up those that maintained it and much trouble there was about it It is not much that I shall say to particulars though I shall not be altogether silent To Century 1. I except against Baptizing by Lay-Men and Women as not regular Though some judicious persons who look upon it as irregular do not count it a Nullity if it be dispensed in the way of an Ordinance In the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and not ludicrously fieri non debuit factum valet It should not have been so done but now it is done it is valid not a Nullity As for the manner of it by dipping I shall speak to that afterwards To Century 2. I see nothing in it but what is proper to grown persons which we do not deny Your Argument hence must be Here 's no mention of Infants-Baptized therefore none were Baptized which is answered a little before To Century 3. p. 63. The latter of the Testimonies you quote out of Mr. Baxter is plainly against you and not contrary to what is in the former but rather explains it You say Mr. Baxter saith that Tertullian affirms that in the Primitive-times none were Baptized without an express Covenanting which shew's that he speaks of Adult-persons in reference to other Adult-persons and not in reference to Infants As if he had said those Adult-persons were Baptized that did expresly-Covenant other Adult-persons that did not so were not Baptized What doth this make against Infants with whose parents God doth Covenant in reference to them Or if you will God Covenanteth with them and they with him mediately by their
then were not who were Strangers from the Covenants of Promise and Aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel in the 12th verse of the very same Chapter Overthrow this Truth if you can Again another of your Inferences is If God made his Covenant of Grace with the Posterity of Believers then say you would Grace be a Birth-priviledge and Regeneration tied to Generation contrary to John 3.3 and John 1.12 13. This hath been fully Answered to before This External-Covenant-Grace we hold is a Birth-priviledge of the Children of Inchurched-Parents and is an advantage to Parents to cry to God for Converting-Grace for their Children and a strong engagement to them to train them up in the way of the Lord and to Children when grown to cry to God for Converting-Grace for themselves The Lord thy God will circumcise the heart of thy Seed to love the Lord thy God c. Deut. 30.6 Again you infer Then must all the Posterity of Believers be saved unless you will hold falling from Grace To which I reply that what hath been already said will easily Answer this It doth not at all yield such an Inference But this we may safely say and hold that the Posterity of Inchurched-Believers have an advantage tending to Conversion and Salvation that other Children have not it will be their great sin greater Condemnation if they improve it not Nor do we hereby necessitate the Doctrine to be true that Men may fall from Grace that is from inward sanctifying Grace They may indeed fall from that outward Covenant-Grace as Ishmael and Esau did But as we do not hold this to be Inward Sanctifying Grace so we cannot necessitate the Doctrine to be true that Men may fall from it for then they must fall from what they never had Another of your Inferences is Then must we tie up and confine the Grace of God's Covenant to the Children of Believers only and then what hope say you for the Children of Unbelievers Contrary to the Experience of all Ages c. To which I return which also hath been mentioned before 1. Grace is either External Covenant-Grace or Internal Spiritual and Saving Grace We do not tie up by our Tenet the Internal Spiritual and Saving-Grace to the Children of Believers only but leave unto the Soveraign Lord his Prerogative-Royal to bestow his Grace upon whom he will Rom. 9.15 18. 2. But this I must affirm that Infidel-Parents and their Children want that priviledge that Christian Inchurched-Parents and their Children have I pray what Visible help have you that deny this to encourage your Faith to Believe and put you on to pray for the Conversion and Salvation of your Children What no Promise from God concerning them in which you may wrestle with him in their behalf and no Promise left for them to further them in it any more than Children of Heathens This were sad indeed I bless the God of all Grace I have experienced the contrary and do daily I knew a Godly Parent of your perswasion who was sadly perplext about the Eternal Estate of a dying-Infant What visible ground of hope have we for dying Infants if there be nothing left us in Gods-Covenant Your last Inference is Then is the Covenant of Grace overthrown concluding an Interest without Faith Rom. 4.14 derivng a Title by natural Generation To which I reply that hath been Answered already The Covenant of Grace is not thereby overthrown but established For 1. The Faith of one Inchurched-Parent at least hath been visibly professed and the Covenant visiby-accepted which hath given an Interest to the Child And 2. Hence the Natural Legitimate Child of such a Parent hath thereby a visible Title which is that we plead for Then you come pag. 213. to that Scripture Acts 2.38 39. which you grant if rightly-understood to be Parallel with that Gen. 17.7 But I cannot agree with you in your sence of it For first what you say agrees not with the Truth Secondly nor with your self 1. Not with the Truth For the Promise there seems not the Promise of the Spirit in those extraordinary gifts of it wherewith God adorned the Church then mentioned out of Joel 2.28 For first that Promise of Extraordinary gifts of the Spirit doth not belong to all Believers and Inchurched-Parents in all Ages as that other doth Acts 2.38 39. Secondly nor is effectual-Calling the only condition of obtaining those Extraordinary Gifts For many that were and are effectually-called had them not and some might then have them that were not effectually called as is apparent in Matth. 7.22 23. Thirdly Remission of sins is here Promised to all these Jews and is here held forth to them as Externally belonging to them to urge them to Repent and Believe which is not so much as named in Joel 2. Fourthly it is apparent that the Guilt of that cursed wish Matth. 27.25 His Blood be upon us and our Children did stagger them and occasioned the Apostle in express-Terms to mention that promise to them to their Children which the Promise of those Extraordinary Gifts could not cure They were prict in their heart v. 37. For that great Sin especially and needed remission of sins and wounded for that curse they had wished upon their Children and the holding forth of this Promise was to oure them both which thing the other of Extraordinary Gifts could not do Fifthly though Sons and Daughters might fall under the notion of their Children yet Old men mentioned as distinct from them could not so which yet are mentioned in Joel 2. These two Scriptures then speak not to the same thing and so are not the same Promise Yet if any do still suppose them to be the same let them read what Mr. Sydenham hath said upon that Text in his Book for Infant-Baptism Thus I have shewn why I conceive that your interpretation of that place in Joel doth not agree with the Truth in making it the same with Acts 2. 2. I shall now shew that it doth not agree with your self In pag. 213. You say that that Promise Acts 2.39 is the giving of the Spirit Joel 2.28 and doth follow the Receiving of Christ in the Gospel and the obeying his Commands Ephes 1.13 Gal 3.14 Acts 5.32 Therefore say you Acts 2.38 Peter exhorts them to Repentance and Faith in order to the receiving of it And afterwards you say therefore the Promise to wit in Acts 2.39 is not made but upon condition of Calling and Faith and Baptism And in pag. 214. The Promise is given as a Motive why they should Repent and be Baptized I must confess my weak understanding cannot reconcile them Review them more distinctly and judg of them The Promise Acts 2.39 is the giving of the Spirit prophesied Joel 2.28 The same Promise follows the receiving of Christ Peter Exhorts them to Repentance and Faith in order to the receiving of it The same Promise is not made but upon condition of Calling Faith and Baptism and
were Baptized For though the Church of the Jews were then the Church of God of which those Pharisees were Members yet it was sadly corrupted Suppose a Member of a Corrupt-Church should desire to Communicate with another purer Church should they not require his Repentance before they received him I suppose you will easily grant it 3. But what is this to the Infants we are speaking-of to wit Infants of Inchurched-Parents who walk regularly in a gospel-Gospel-Church Here 's a vast difference between them More hath been said to this before I shall conclude this fifth question with this That Circumcision was administred to Inchurched-Parents and their Male-Seed who alone were capable of it yea such Inchurched-Parents as made a Visible-profession of Faith in Christ to come though many of them did not truly Believe Quest 6. Whether Baptism did succeed in the Room Place and Use of Circumcision Your Answer is by no means which I shall examine First you say not in the Room and stead And your Reasons are 1. Because then only Males not Females would be Baptized This Reason I conceive will not hold because it springs Ex falso supposito from a falshood taken for granted to wit That whatever succeeds into the place of another thing must not be larger than it in any Circumstances which you will see to be a great mistake if you consider the Enlargement of Grace now in these Gospel-days in which if the Lord hath by changing his Ordinances given us those that are more large and extensive how should we praise his Grace and not pick quarrels with it 2. Because then say you some not all Believers should be Baptized for all Believers out of Abrahams Family were without Circumcision c. I Answer it follow 's not But rather the Grace of God is the more to be admired now in those Gospel-days for enlarging the extent of these Ordinances that his Goodness hath given in stead of those that were narrower 3. Because say you then the Circumcised needed not to have been Baptized if they had been already Sealed with the New-Covenant-Seal Neither will this Reason hold for 1. If God appoint whether Men need it or no it is their duty to submit to what he appoints Hence saith Christ when John stuck at Baptizing him Suffer it to be so now for thus it becometh us to fulfil all Righteousness Math. 3.15 that Reason satisfied John And it be it be to fulfil Righteousness in obeying any command of God it should satisfie us also But 2. The New-Covenant falling now under a New-Testament dispensation by God's appointment and a New-Seal being added to it it could not but be of great Use to the people of God Circumcised before who were still imperfect and needed to have their Faith strengthened So much to your Reasons why you judge Baptism did not succeed in the Room and Place of Circumcision And now let me give you my Reason why I judg it did succeed it in the Room and Place of it out of Colossians 2. The Colossians were not only Believers in Christ but Believers in Church-Order Chap. 2.5 Hence the Apostle exhorts them as they had received Christ Jesus the Lord so they would walk in him to wit both in Believing more in him and in their Church-Order also v. 6. Rooted and built up in him and established and abounding therein v. 7. Then he gives them a Caveat to take heed of those Persons and things that might hinder them and lead them away from Christ v. 8. and then gives them a Reason v. 2. Because in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodilly which he amplifieth by an Argument in reference to them v. 10. And ye are compleat in him which is the head of all principality and Power Eph. 1.3 1 Cor. 1.30 Compleat in him not only in Respect of all saving-Benefits and spiritual Graces But also in respect of all outward Ordinances But they might object we want Circumcision which the Jews had Why saith the Apostle v. 11. Ye are also Circumcised in him with the Circumcision of Christ which he expounds v. 12. Buried with him by Baptism Baptism there I conceive is called the Circumcision of Christ even as Christ in the Lord's Supper is called our Passeover 1 Cor. 5.7 which plainly shew's that both the Lord's Supper succeeds in the Room and place of the Passeover and Baptism in the Room and place of Circumcision Secondly you come to shew that Baptism did not succeed Circumcision as to the Ends and Uses of it Your Reasons are these 1. Because Circumcision was a sign of Christ to come in the flesh and Baptism that he was already come in the flesh To which I Answer that the End and Use of both of them by your own Confession respected Christ So that they differed not in the main substantials but in some circumstances only They differed not in their End and Use as to the Essence of the thing but in the Adjunct of Time only the one pointing at Christ to come the other to him already come 2. Circumcision say you was to be a partition-Wall betwixt Jew and Gentile but Baptism testified the contrary to wit that Barbarian Scythian Bond and Free Jew and Gentile were all on in Christ c. To which I reply 1. That Circumcision was not that Partition-Wall but the whole Ceremonial Law and Legal-worship as Beza well expounds it Eph. 2.14 Circumcision was long before the Ceremonial Law given to Abraham as we intimated before John 7.22 And was one of the two ordinary and standing-Seals of the Covenant Externally and Ecclesiastically dispensed at first to Abraham and the Church in his Family and distinguished those of the Church then and afterwards from all others whatsoever Even as also Baptism now doth or should do at least Legitimately dispensed It 's true that while Circumcision lasted as God's Ordinance it signified that Christ had not yet broken down that Partition-Wall between Jew and Gentile and so the difference still remained the Commission as yet was not given to go forth into all the World and Preach the Gospel to every Creature but his Words Statutes and Judgments formerly given still remained with Israel and no other Nation yet had them Psal 147.19 20. The Gentiles were yet afar off Strangers from the Covenants of Promise Eph. 2.12 which priviledge belonged alone to the Church of the Jews Rom. 9.4 5. Rom. 3.1 2. So that this doth not reach your purpose nor prove that Circumcision was the Partition-Wall 2. You say Baptism testified the Contrary I Answer First if your opposition had been Logical and Legitimate you should have said Circumcision testified that there was a Partition-Wall betwixt Jew and Gentile but Baptism testified the contrary But there 's no opposition as you frame it Opposita enim eidem attribuuntur secundum idem ad idem c. And if you had made the opposition aright it would not have been against us at all For
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
of the Jews heretofore as against ours now Was the World and the Church confounded in the Church in Abraham's Family and afterwards Their Infants were of the Church then You may easily see a way to solve this doubt if you consider that their Infant-Membership gives them not a Title to the Membership and Priviledges of Adult-Members but they must attain to those by a credible profession of Repentance and Faith and laying hold of the Covenant themselves Nor do we hereby introduce and establish any much less many humane Traditions and Inventions of Antichrist nor take God's name in vain but Sanctifie his name in giving to our Children what his Gracious Majesty hath bequeathed to them Nor is it of it self a bone of contention among them that own it or oppose it but by accident only to wit through their ignorance or perversness Nor is it of it self any just occasion of hatred wrath and persecution c. Nor doth it confirm the whole Antichristian Interest as you say you have made good in your Preface Nor doth it maintain that persons may have Regeneration and Grace if you mean spiritual and sanctifying Grace before calling but only External-Covenant-Grace Nor that Adult persons may be visible-Church-Members regularly before Conversion credibly professed Nor that persons may Repent Believe and be Saved by the Faith of another yet that the Children of Inchurched Believers may be Baptized we do hold Nor that those Types and shadows that are in Christ fulfilled and abolished are at all profitable now to be practised though we hold the Doctrine of them of profitable use still But we cannot comply with you that the legal Birth-priviledge as you call it was a Type or Shadow of the Regenerate seed now in Gospel-days and so must cease which I have spoken to before Nor doth it revive Judaism and out Christianity but maintains that Gracious Covenant made with Abraham and his Church-Seed Gen. 17.7 It is that Ancient Covenant of Grace dispensed in a Church-way to Abraham and his Family that is solemnly laid hold of to enter Christians their Seed into the Visible-Church no new humane Invention instead thereof Is it not by this Covenant laid hold of and professed that your Churches consist See Isa 56.3 4 5 6 7 a prophecy of Gospel-times If not they cannot be said to be the Church-Seed of Abraham Nor doth this tend at all to Exclude Believers Baptism that have not been Baptized before but to establish it And there is good reason as hath been shewed to deny those that were only Mediate Members and Baptized in Infancy the right of the Church-Membership of Immediate Members and the Priviledges peculiar to them until by their own credible profession and laying hold of the Covenant themselves they become Immediate Members see Isa 56.4.6 7. Isa 62.5 Isa 44.3 4 5. As for those that hold the Children of Inchurched-Parents to be Members of the same species and kind with them and hold not the distinction of Mediate and Immediate Members I think your Assertion will reflect upon their Principle and Practice for I could never yet see how they could free themselves rationally from the plea of such Children when grown up owned still by them as Members of the same kind with their Parents and having no gross-Crimes to lay against them and yet deny them the Priviledges of Adult-Members I must leave it to them to make it out for I shall not undertake it See Mr. Davenport's second Essay in Answer to the Synod at Boston I have often thought that this and some other like things have been an occasion of stumbling to some of your perswasion who have not been able to see how such should be rationally satisfied and the Church kept free from pollution and therefore they have opposed the Membership and Baptism of Children As to your first contradiction I must crave pardon if I tell you it wants Charity and Candour You may easily see that Dr. Owen speaks of Adult-persons only though perhaps he hath not exprest it And indeed Sir I find you have been often guilty of that fault in your Book I suppose you would count it a piece of dis-ingenuity and want of Charity if one should construe some speeches of yours in that manner As for Instance speaking of Abraham say you All whose posterity were to be marked therewith that is with Circumcision p. 228. and p. 230. You say There were all the Families and Tribes of Israel and all proselyted strangers with their Children without distinction of good or bad to be Circumcised Now if one should charge this upon you that you meant the Woman and Female-Children should be Circumcised for they were part of the Tribes and Families of Israel or that all the posterity of Abraham by Keturah in their Generations were to be marked with Circumcision which also you have denied I doubt you would not think your self well dealt withal Yet thus you have done with many others and I hope you will see it and Repent of it Baptism is a Symbol of present Regeneration in the judgment of Charity to Adult-Persons but of future Regeneration to Infants The Lord thy God will Circumcise the heart of thy Seed Deut. 30.6 To your Second pag. 257. Baptism truly figures Implantation into Christ and consequently Communion with him in the vertue of his Death Burial and Resurrection but the outward manner and Ceremony doth not particularly represent all those things as I have before proved To your third is Answered in the first To your fourth I Answer that the similitude of Marriage of which Baptism may be a Declaration is not to be extended to every thing that belongs to Marriage Similitudo non currit quatuor but to be applied only to that particular that it is brought to illustrate You know I suppose that similitudes do not run upon all four Christ is compared to a Thief if any should extend that similitude beyond what Christ in tended it he would make Thievish-work of it The scope of that place Eph. 5.25 26 27. is not to shew how the soul was married to Christ and what consent was required but to set forth the great love of Christ to his Church in Justifying Sanctifying and Saving them from whence he draws an Argument to press Husbands to love their Wives as is plain there And he being the head of the Church as Visible as well as Invisible his Love to her is great in affording means to those Spiritual and Saving Ends And so Infants will come under it but not Stones and Bells c. But I pray further consider whether according to your arguing any Infant can be Spiritually and Savingly Married to Christ and so be saved He is not capable of giving consent not to restipulate no more than Stones or Bells or Church-Walls I Believe God saves some Infants but not Bells and Stones To the fifth hath been Answered before To your sixth I Answer That Godly Men do not
judg the Baptism a Nullity dispensed by the Papists notwithstanding it were clogged with divers humane Inventions and therefore they require not a Renouncing their Baptism as Null but Repentance for what hath been amiss therein To your seventh They Baptize the Children of Inchurched-Believers because they are Externally and Ecclesiastically in the Covenant of Grace and not because they have true sanctifying Grace in them from which alone they hold that a man cannot fall from the other he may fall and be rejected and yet their Doctrine of not falling from Grace stand firm This Argument I must again return upon you for you Baptize a professing Believer because you count him Savingly in the Covenant of Grace but afterwards he appears not to be so and you reject him It is you therefore that hold a falling from Grace and not we For we Baptize because they are Externally in the Covenant and that we can know but you Baptize because they are Spiritually and Savingly in the Covenant else you would not Baptize them and afterwards you come to see they are not so Therefore you Baptize upon uncertainties and your Tenet holds falling from Grace Nor doth the Baptizing of Inchurched-Infants make the Traditions of Men of equal Authority with the Law of God In this we are accounted down-right Pharisees Nor doth it overthrow the Covenant deriving a Title by Natural-Generation but on the Contrary it is according to the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17.7 9. Thee and thy Seed after Thee in their Generations that is Abraham and his Church-Seed as well as his Spiritual-Seed now in these Gospel-days The blessing of Abraham being come upon us Gentiles Gal. 3.14 And that Blessing of Abraham must of necessity be a Covenant-Blessing Nor doth it make Religion to lie in the deed done This is for Formalists and Papists who rest in opere operato and doth not of it self follow from Paedo-Baptism Did Circumcision of Infants of old of its own Nature and per se make Religion to lie in the deed done It is the personal sin of formal Parents and Children when grown to abuse their Baptism and take occasion thence to place their Religion in the deed done Suppose some that are Baptized in your way take occasion thence to place their Religion in the deed done as some have Reason to suspect too many do you will not I presume lay the blame upon the Ordinance it self but upon them for abusing it You will say It is accidental to the Ordinance and would no doubt blame them that would destroy the Baptizing of professing-Believers upon that Ground And why then should the Baptizing of Infants be cried down upon the same Ground I suppose you have seen that people seriously-Godly do not through Grace rest in the deed done what-ever Hypocrites may do but do ply the Throne of Grace with Prayers and Tears that God would Baptize their Children with the Holy-Ghost and are careful to train them up in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord. And do not Children themselves to whom God begins to bless instructions seek him for the Grace of the Covenant and of the Seal of it I have known it I bless the Lord. And how then must it needs be a placing Religion in the deed done Again it doth not revive Judaism and Ceremonial Typical-Holiness of the natural Seed which you have so much spoken-of which did end at Christ's coming No but it keeps alive that Ancient-Covenant-Interest of the Inchurched Seed of Abraham promised to him Gen. 17. and such Judaism we shall not be ashamed to own It 's said Gal. 3.9 They that are of Faith are blessed with faithful Abraham And the great Blessing of Abraham was that God would be his God and the God of his Seed to wit not only of his Spiritual Seed Savingly but of his Church-Seed Ecclesiastically Those then that are of Faith are thus blessed with faithful Abraham God is the God of them and of their Seed in both senses respectively as he was to Abraham and his Seed then Again in v. 16. when he saith To Abraham and his Seed were the Promises made by Seed there is meant Christ as considered not personally but Mystically Christ with his Body the Church Beza in Loc. The name Christ being the proper name of that whole collected-Body whose head and Life Christ is and the Members of it are the faithful gathered together partly of the Jews and partly of the Gentiles And Christ being the bond of the Members of that Body it 's no wonder that he calls it Christ himself by which name he denoteth not only the Head but also the Members conjoined with the Head Now Christ being the Head not only of his Church considered as Invisible but also as Visible in which there be some only Externally and that are not true Believers indeed Hence Hypocrites and also the Children of Inchurched-Parents are Abraham's Church-Seed to whom there are Promises made So that here is not one word to prove that the Natural-Seed of Inchurched-Believers which indeed are the Church-Seed of Abraham were excluded at Christ's coming or afterwards or that the Holiness of the Natural-Church-Seed of Abraham was Typical or that Paedo-Baptism revives Judaism If it be said that Christ is there taken for the Church of Jews and Gentiles considered only as Invisible consider then where you will rank your Inchurched-Hypocrite who made a new External performance of the consent and was Married to Christ in his Visible-Church for base Ends. I suppose you held his Marriage good or else you would not have Baptized him Yet he failed both in the Manner for he professed the consent of his Will to Marry Christ but did lie and in the End also for he had no Sanctifying and saving Grace neither before nor in that Ordinance of Baptism And as for Acts 10.28 and Eph. 2.14 15. They indeed shew that the Ceremonial Law was now abolished and way made for the Gospel and Salvation thereby to come among the Gentiles which plainly proves an enlargement of the Grace of God and not a straitning and therefore that the natural Seed of Inchurched-Parents are not excluded by Christs coming Neither doth the Baptism of Infants destroy separation keep us upon the Old bottom or make us symbolize with the Church of Rome Let the experience we have of reformed Congregational Churches that keep close to their Rule speak for us whether Infant-Baptism destroys such a separation as the Gospel requires Children are Mediate Members of a distinct kind and species from their Inchurched-Parents And this Membership though it intitle them to Baptism which is the Seal of their ingrafting into the Visible Body and Church of Christ yet it cannot entitle them to those Church-Ordinances and Priviledges which are peculiar to Adult and Immediat Members If therefore they would enjoy them they must profess their Faith and Repentance to the Church and come and Marry the Church by their Solemn entring personally