Blessed be God I have heard a Child upon his dying-Bed plead this Covenant with God for his Grace to the great satisfaction of my Soul To come now to the Second part of your Answer that as Circumcision was not a Seal to Children under the Law so much less a Seal to them of the New-Covenant say you pag. 216. In stead of which in pag. 218. you say New-Testament Answ I like not the changing of your Phrases as you have done in this Question and your Answer to it You cannot but know that there lies a fallacy in this Phrase as you have applied it here and changed it Pardon my boldness I have before distinguished of the New-Covenant It may either be taken for the Covenant of Grace in opposition to the Covenant of Works or for the Covenant of Grace under the New-Testament-Dispensation as opposed to that same Covenant under a more legal-Dispensation So it is called New Heb. 8.7 8 13. It being the Covenant made with Abraham revived Gen. 17. freed from all those legal Ceremonies wherewith it was burdened before which have had their accomplishment in Christ and having only a few plain and simple Ordinances annexed to it 2 Cor. 11.3 suiting with a pure Gospel administration even as that Covenant made with Abraham had suitable to that Dispensation before the Law was given This being premised I Answer That Circumcision Gen. 17. was a Seal of the New-Covenant to wit the Covenant of Grace as it was opposed to the Covenant of Works made with Adam before his fall and also as it was opposed to the same Covenant for the substance of it under that Legal Administration at Sinai and afterwards And though there be a difference between the Administration of it in Abraham's Family and the Administration of it now under the New-Testament in some few circumstances of New Ordinances yet the Ordinances then were but few and suitable to that Administration of the Covenant of Grace then made with Abraham and his Family Circumcision then being one of the ordinary Seals of that Covenant in a Church-way dispensed and the Passeover the other For it 's useful for us to observe that Circumcision began not with the Ceremonial Law at Sinai but was long before a Sign and Seal to Abraham and the Church in his Family which was more correspondent to a New-Testament Church in Gospel-times than the national Church of the Jews was And hence saith Christ Moses gave unto you Circumcision not because it is of Moses but of the Fathers John 7.22 that is of Abraham Isaac and Jacob that were long before Moses To conclude this Circumcision we see was both a Seal to Children under the Law and a Seal of the Covenant of Grace Externally and Ecclesiastically dispensed beginning in the Church in Abraham's Family and continued all along in the Church of the Jews until Christ put an End unto it by his death I had almost slipt-over that Expression of yours pag. 218. That nothing is a Seal of the New-Testament but the Holy Spirit Eph. 1.13 and 4.30 I confess it 's a strange Paradox to me Is Believers Baptism no Seal with you Nor the Lord's Supper no Seal Alas poor Believers How have you been deluded Have you so often come to have the pardon of your sins sealed and God's love in Christ fealed unto you in the Lord's Supper and now you are told it is no Seal Ther 's none else if you will believe it but the Holy Spirit I thought it had been an External-Seal appointed by our Lord himself Surely such Assertions as these are do tend to destroy all outward Ordinances of Christ though I hope you never intended it This is like to that of some others there is no word of God but Christ and so do destroy the Authority of the Holy Scripture And like that 1 Cor. 1.12 I am of Christ and care not for Paul nor Apollos nor any Ministers whatsoever Again you say neither is Baptism more than Circumcision called a Seal it is called a Figure say you 1 Pet. 3.21 and a Sign proper only to Men of understanding c. And not as Circumcision which was a Sign not improper for Infants because it left a signal impression in their flesh to be remembred all their days but so cannot Baptism be to any Infants say you p. 218 For Answer That Circumcision was a Seal and that also to Infants hath been proved and your self have acknowledged it to be a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to Abraham though you deny it to be so to all others And though Baptism be no more a Seal than Circumcision was yet I hope you will allow it to be as much a Seal as that was The Gracious Lord hath made a Covenant of Grace and is willing his people should be confirmed of the Truth of it And hath he put no Seals to it to confirm it Certainly this is a new and strange Doctrine which the Faithful knew not in former Ages You say Baptism is called a Figure and a Sign c. 1 Pet. 3.21 I Answer The Apostle there speaking of the Souls saved by water in Noah's Ark tells us that Baptism was a Figure or Type 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 like to that Type Cui nunc respondens exemplar vel Typus Baptismi saith Beza The Ark born up by the Water wherein Noah and his Family were was first a Physical and Instrumental-cause and means of their Temporal preservation of the saving of their lives Secondly God appointed it to be a Type and Sacrament to them to signify and Seal Eternal Salvation to them through Believing in Christ without whom no Salvation is to be had Now saith the Apostle Baptism is a Type Answering that Type signifying and sealing Externally Salvation to all those and only those that are or shall be in Christ by Faith But say you it is a Sign and Figure proper only to Men of Understanding representing Spiritual things and not as Circumcision c. I Answer first The want of the Use of Reason and Understanding in an Infant is no Essential Defect or Impediment as to the External Susception of Baptism no more than it was heretofore of Circumcision which was a Seal of God's Covenant as hath been proved and signified the same things as to the main and substance of them that Baptism now doth By your Argument therefore no Infant should ever have been Circumcised 2. The God of Grace in the External administration of the Covenant of Grace to the Infants of Inchurched-Parents is before hand with them I will be the God of thy Seed Gen. 17.7 and will Circumcise the heart of thy Seed Deut. 30.6 put 's his Seal to it for their assurance and encouragement to seek God for Converting-Grace And they are to be instructed in it when they come to understanding 3. Hence the Infants of Inchurched-Parents are engaged to the Lord and Circumcision of old and Baptism now doth Seal that engagement
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
the same Argument we may as well conclude that it cometh in the Room and stead of the Ark Manna Rock c. It is a grand mistake for Circumcision was one of the two Ordinary Sacraments and Seals of God's Covenant given to Abraham and the Church in his Family about four hundred years before the Ark Manna or that Rock you speak of Gal. 3.17 There were many extraordinary Sacraments that God appointed to that Nonage-people or Heirs under Age to use the Apostles phrase Gal. 4.1 2 3. which God in mercy gave to help their Faith upon special occasions and emergencies besides some that you mention to wit the Brazen-Serpent for one which was but occasional Jo. 3.14 15. But Circumcision was one of the standing Sacraments and Seals annexed to the Covenant under a Church-dispensation all along into the place of which Baptism by the Lord's-appointment is come which holds proportion with it in all the main things it signified and Sealed And hence 5. You will easily have an Answer to those Popish absurdities and abominations you would fasten upon our Tenent We do not affirm meerly from the Analogy that Baptism is come in the room of Circumcision for if we had not something out of Scripture to warrant it we durst not pin it upon a meer Analogy If therefore Papists or other superstitious wits by arguments drawn from Analogies bring-in Jewish Rites as High-Priesthood National Churches Orders of Priesthood and other innumerable Rites and Ceremonies without any Institution of Christ or New-Testament Authority we have as good ground left us in Scripture to convince them as you have and I hope should be as ready to do it as occasion shall be offerred And thus I have done with your sixth Question propounded long before and your Answers to it now come to the seventh Quest 7. Whether the not-Baptizing Infants makes the Priviledges under the Gospel less than the Circumcising them under the Law p. 205. which you somewhat alter p. 228. saying less than under the Law who had then Circumcision Your Answer is not at all and give your reasons why Not-Baptizing of Infants makes not Gospel-priviledges less than legal First they were not say you Circumcised because Children of Believers or sealed with a New-Covenant-Seal as being in the New-Covenant but upon the account of a Birth-Priviledge as of the natural lineage and Seed of Abraham as a Typical Shadowy thing c. I Reply 1. Were not their Parents professing-Believers at least under such a profession as suited that Dispensation Did they not attend upon the Sacrifices which pointed their Faith at Christ to come And were not they as they grew up to come before the Lord and say A Syrian ready to perish was my Father c. See Deut. 26.5 to v. 12. and there they were to worship before the Lord And afterwards v. 27. to avouch the Lord to be their God as he also avouched them to be his People v. 26. Was there no profession of Faith in all this 2. Were they not Sealed with the Seal of the Covenant of Grace under an external and Ecclesiastical Dispensation I suppose you will not say it was the Covenant of Works though when it became National it was given in somewhat a legal manner 3. What was that Birth-priviledge Did it not depend upon the Covenant Ecclesiastically dispensed and submitted to I will be thy God and the God of thy Seed Gen. 17.7 And did it not run in the natural Lineage and Seed of Abraham as they were his Church-Seed as hath been shewn I pray consider what were the Proselytes and their Children who were also Circumcised they were not at all the Natural Seed of Abraham but they were his Visible-Church Seed 4. You say Circumcision was to distinguish them from the Nations and to keep that line clear from whence Christ according to the flesh should come Suppose this last to be true of Abraham's natural Seed what was this to the Proselytes and their Seed from whom Christ was not to come yet they were to be Circumcised 5. You say there is no such thing in the Gospel the Body and Substance being come the shadow was to vanish and pass away no Birth-priviledge but the new Birth c. I Answer 1. There is no such thing as Bodily Circumcision in the Gospel that is indeed abolished But 2. That there is no Birth-priviledge of the Children of Inchurched-Parents under the Gospel but the new-Birth that I must deny and have already proved that there is And that that Birth-priviledge is a means and help tending to the New-Birth if it be rightly improved Christ is the common Father of Inchurched-Parents and their Seed now in these Gospel-days and they are Externally and Ecclesiastically Christ's and Abraham's Seed and in the same sence Heirs of Promise as hath been already proved And this Priviledge is not a Bondage and a returning to the Type and Shadow as you term it but a blessed Fruit of the Covenant made with Abraham who hath a Church-Seed now as well as heretofore What else is the Hypocrite that you admit if he be not one of Abraham's Church-Seed He is not one of Abraham's Seed Spiritually and Savingly nor hath the New-Birth indeed yet you judge him to have it Ecclesiastically and hence you Baptize him So much to your first Secondly neither ought such a thing say you to be any more esteemed the loss of a priviledge than our not enjoying literally a Holy-Land City Temple Succession of a High-Priest c. I Answer 1. The loss of Baptizing the Infants of Inchurched-Parents under the Gospel would be the loss of a great priviledge both to Parents and Children which under the Law they did enjoy For it would be a loss of that which signified and Sealed God to be their God and the God of their Seed and to Circumcise their hearts to love the Lord and to signifie their initiating into the Church by your own concession and this would be the loss of no small Priviledge and therefore we cannot easily bear this loss 2. It is the loss of a Priviledge also in reference to Temporal Blessings and External Ordinances and means of Conversion As Canaan was an External Blessing signified and Sealed to them by Circumcision so Temporal Blessings are to us and our Infants by Baptism Psal 111. For it is a Sign and Seal of God's Covenant wherein Temporal Blessings are also implied and in the Explanation of it by other Scriptures expresly promised So also for External means of Grace 3. It is the loss of a Priviledge also in reference to Heaven and Eternal Happiness there of which Canaan was a Type unto them that if they did truly Believe in the Messiah then to come and walk in the ways of God Eternal Salvation was Sealed unto them thereby All those we must lose and yet esteem the loss of them the loss of no Priviledge 4. There is not the like Reason of the loss of Baptism
natural Seed of Inchurched-Parents be now ceased in these Gospel-days what then mean's that Scripture Rom. 11.28 spoken of the Israelites to be called in these latter days That they are beloved for the Fathers sakes It would be sad and lamentable if believing-Parents now under the Gospel should have no such Priviledge left them in reference to the eternal Estates of their poor Children Heretofore Church-Members had a promise that God would be the God of their Seed and Circumcise the hearts of their Seed to love the Lord with all the Heart and all the Soul Gen. 17.7 Deut. 30.6 but now by the coming of Christ it is ceased This is sad indeed What visible grounds of hope of any saving Grace or Mercy have Inchurched-Christians now in reference to their Children more than Turks and Pagans have Durus Sermo yet some have been so bold as in plain terms to say so But are they ceased indeed when and where hath God repealed them Not by John the Baptist as we have made appear Nor could I yet ever see that he hath done it by any other hand Hence therefore they must be in force still Hath God given his people promises of food and raiment and other temporal things for their encouragement and comfort 1 Tim. 4.8 and left them no promise at all now in Gospel times to help their faith concerning their poor Childrens eternal Estate whose souls they prize more than their own lives The Apostle saw something in it when he said we that are Jews by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles Gal. 2.15 And why not also in a safe sence Christians by nature and not sinners of the Turks or Pagans who are yet strangers from the Covenants of promise Eph. 2.12 as the Gentiles generally then were You will say we are all by nature Children of wrath Eph. 2.3 And was not Paul and those Jews so too and yet the Apostle makes that distinction between them And whence was it but from God's Covenants in which they externally were even before their Coversion And why there should not be the like Priviledge of Children of Inchurched-Parents I never yet could see And hence such a child may go to God and plead Lord thou art my Fathers God Exod. 15.2 and hast promised to be my God And a Parent may go and plead Lord thou hast promised to be my God and the God of my Seed and to circumcise their hearts to Love thee Deut. 30.6 with Gen. 17.7 O! let it be so according to thy promise Thou hast said I will pour my Spirit upon thy Seed and my blessing upon thine offspring Isa 44.3 and then one should say I am the Lord 's c. see v. 5. they should engage themselves to the Lord and to his Church by the strongest bonds And this is a Gospel-promise and belonging to Gospel-times and a great part of that blessing of Abraham that is come upon the Gentiles Gal. 3.14 Why then should any contradict it Is not the second Commandment still in force to parents in Church-Covenant with God in reference to their Children whom they have given over to God in his Covenant Hath he not there said He will have mercy on thousands of them that love him and keep his Commandements That is on such Parents as give up themselves to God in the Commands of his Instituted Worship in reference to their Children Psal 112.1 2. even to a thousand Generations Deut. 7.9 But repayeth them that hate him to wit in a sinful neglecting or rejecting his instituted Worship to their face v. 10. And this is one way whereby God doth testifie it even by rejecting their Children so as not to vouchsafe them the External Priviledge of his Covenant and means of Grace See an eminent instance of it in Esau and his posterity who sold his birth-right Heb. 12.6 which was then a Church-Priviledge and is therefore called a profane person and so lost the blessing from himself and his see the like in Ishmael and his Generations I conclude then that John Baptist did not upon that change discharge the Church-Seed of Abraham which I shall yet a little further explain by opening the Children of the Flesh and the Children of the Promise which are accounted for the seed Rom. 9.6 7 8. 1. Negatively 1. By Children of the flesh cannot be meant the natural Children of believers as their natural Children Nor 2. Their Children that have only sin and corruption in them for then Isaac must have been a Child of the flesh For he was the natural Son of Abraham and by nature sinful 3. By Children of the promise cannot be meant only such as are really-converted For many that were of Isaac's Posterity and so Children of the Promise were not so and some in Gospel-Churches are not so now 2. Affirmatively First by Children of the Flesh are meant 1. Of old Ishmael and his Posterity begotten by strength of nature which was the Type 2. Now in Gospel-times all such as look for righteousness and life by their own personal performances or abilities whether in whole or in part and that not only invisibly but visibly and Ecclesiastically also as the Apostle said of Jerusalem in his time Gal. 4.25 Jerusalem that now is the Antitype of the other in bondage with her Children Secondly by Children of the Promise are meant 1. Of old Isaac and his Posterity in the line of Jacob which was the Type 2. Now in Gospel-times all such as look for righteousness and life alone by faith in Christ his righteousness only according to the Covenant of Grace And these again are either 1. All such as are true believers indeed who look by a true and lively-Faith to Christ and his Righteousness only 2. Or such as profess only and pretend to do so but indeed do not These latter seem and appear to be Believers to Men to the visible-Church but are not really-such before God Yet even these are Children of the Promise in the genuine sence of the Scripture and not Children of the Flesh in the Apostles sence Gal. 4.21 22 23 c. God doth and will indeed distinguish between the spiritual seed and those that are meerly the Church-seed of Abraham but Men cannot unless by some miscarriages they discover themselves and appear to be what they are as Simon Magus did Acts. 8.23 And thus under one we have an exposition of that Eâdem fideliâ duos parietes Gal. 3.7 They which are of Faith the same are the Children of Abraham they which are of Faith to wit true Believers indeed as Abraham was are Spiritually and savingly the Children of Abraham And they which are of Faith to wit Believers in appearance only before the Church only they are only Ecclesiastically the Children of Abraham And this is sufficient to entitle them to Church-Ordinances and their Children to Baptism the initiatory Seal of the Covenant And this also helps us to expound Gal. 3.29 If ye be Christ's then are
Jews if you Repent and Believe and to your Children if they Repent and Believe and to those that are afar off even as many as the Lord our God shall call to wit if they Repent and Believe For those words As many as the Lord our God shall call being according to this Interpretation the exegesis exposition and limitation of all that went before and in your sence taken for effectual Calling only it must necessarily be added And then this must needs follow that one may be effectually called and yet not Repent and Believe whereas Repentance and Faith are infallible fruits of effectual Calling Besides here is another absurdity will also follow that the Promise and Covenant of Grace as we have shewed it is doth not belong unto them until they were also Baptized for that also is mentioned together with Repent And then it will follow that one must be Baptized before he hath any Way Right and Interest in the Covenant of Grace which indeed is according to the Proverb to put the Cart before the Horse Having thus opened and cleared that Scripture Acts 2.38 39. I shall now argue from it Prop. That part of Mankind which was once by God's appointment Externally in the Covenant of Abraham and sealed with the ordinary Initiatory Seal of that Covenant and were not cast out by Christ at his coming but on the contrary confirmed therein have still by God's appointment an External-Interest both in the Covenant of Abraham and in the ordinary Initiatory-Seal thereof now in these Gospel-days Assump But Children of Inchurched-Parents are a part of Mankind which was once by God's appointment Externally in the Covenant of Abraham and sealed with the ordinary Initiatory Seal of that Covenant and were not east out by Christ at his coming but on the contrary confirmed therein Conclusion Therefore Children of Inchurched-Parents have still by God's appointment an External Interest both in the Covenant of Abraham and in the ordinary Initiatory Seal thereof now in these Gospel-days The Assumption is apparent as hath been already shewed And if you deny it we require of you in the name of the Lord to shew us out of the Holy Scripture when or where Christ by his coming cast them out either by himself in person or by any otherimployed by him I have already shewed that he did it not by John Baptist nor by his Apostles For by them in Acts 2.39 he hath confirmed it And that he did it not in his own person appears by his courteous Reception of Infants brought unto him and rebuking his Disciples for hindering them to be brought That they were once Externally in Abraham's Covenant by God's appointment is plain I will be thy God and the God of thy Seed Gen. 17.7 That they were Sealed you your self instance in Esau pag. 206. who you say was not in the Covenant and yet Sealed viz. with Circumcision See your Margin there with that in the line We shall add more in replying to the fourth Question The Proposition is plain and clear If they were once interessed Externally by God's appointment in Abraham's Covenant the Seal of it not cast out by Christ but by him Confirmed therein they must still have an Interest in them Thus much to your third Question and your Answers to it Now to your fourth Question and your sence of it Quest 4. Whether Circumcision was a Seal of the New Covenant to the Children under the Law so pag. 205. But in pag. 216 you use other terms viz. To the Believers and their Seed You roundly deny it to be a Seal to the Children and much less a Seal to them of the New-Covenant It was only say you a sign put into the flesh of the Infant but a Sign and Seal only to Abraham c. And in p. 218. Your humane Testimony which you approve of saith It was a sign to the rest of the Jews that they were Abraham's Seed That is only that they were Abraham's Seed must be your meaning or else you speak fallaciously To which I Reply 1. Of what was it a sign to Abraham's Seed was it indeed only that they were Abraham's natural Seed was it not a sign unto them of the Circumcision of their heart to love their Covenant-God with all the heart and all the Soul which God promised Deut. 30.6 and called for from them Jer. 4.4 that they might improve it by seeking to God to do it for them And were not their Parents to make the same use of it in reference to their Children How can you evade this Nay do not you your self afterwards grant p. 223. that Circumcision signified Heart-Circumcision 2. And why not a Seal unto them also Not that they did already Actually-Believe as Abraham did before he was Circumcised But 1. That God was their God Externally in that Covenant Gen. 17.7 and would continue to be so if they did not afterwards reject him 2 Chron. 15.2 2. And that in particular God would be found of them if they sought him 2 Chron. 15.2 and would not only Communicate the outward and Temporary Blessings of the Covenant to them but also means of Grace and not only so but Converting-Grace by those means 1 Chron. 28.9 Thou Solomon my Son know thou the God of thy Father and serve him with a perfect heart and a willing mind If thou seek him he will be found of thee but if thou forsake him he will cast thee off for ever You grant pag. 217. that Circumcision was a Seal or Confirmation of that Faith which Abraham had before and to assure him of those special Promises made to him and his Seed both Carnal and Spiritual It seem's then you made not a full enumeration of all the particulars of which Circumcision was a Seal to Abraham in pag. 216. I would here ask you Were not those Spiritual Seed Carnal before they were Spiritual If so as you cannot deny was not Converting-Grace for them promised and Sealed to Abraham in his Circumcision according to this your Assertion And seeing Abraham could not know the particular persons that should be so made his Spiritual-Seed nor any Man else in after-Ages did not God therefore make the Promise of their Conversion Externally in general and Indefinitely Deut. 30.6 and Sealed it to Abraham and his Seed that so those that were in Gods Eternal purpose to be converted and saved might through Grace lay hold of it and others that wickedly slighted it might be left without Excuse If this were Sealed to Abraham and the same Promise came along to his Seed and they also had the same Seal that Abraham had how then comes it to pass that it should not be a Seal to them also who were so deeply-concerned in it to assure them that God would Circumcise their hearts if they sought him in his own way for he saith He will yet be inquired of by the House of Israel to do it for them Ezek. 36.37 with v. 26 27.
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-duty In like manner we may now safely say to Children of 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
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-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
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-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
which I hold their Parents ought to do 4. But that Trees also were capable of Circumcision I suppose you will not be able to prove If you diligently examine the Text and consult judicious Commentators upon it you will find no such sence as you and some others put upon it Levit. 19.23 Hear what the Learned Buxtorfius that great Hebraician and Antiquary in the Jewish writings saith upon the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 First it signifies to hold or account one uncircumcised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Praeputiatum vel obthuratū habuit vel censuit Levit. 19.23 Et ob thurabitis obthurationem ejus juxta Rab. Solomonem i. e. arborem impuram fructus ejus pollutos abominabiles cenfesebitis sicut praeputium seu cutis obthurans membrum virile Interdum significat praeputium absculit quasi Depraeputiare dicas Depraeputiabitis i. e. auferetis praeputium ejus i. e. fructus ceu impuros decutietis ut Chaldaice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. removendo removebitis fructus ejus i. e. abjicietis tanquam immundos Buxtorf or closed up Hence Rabbi Solomon upon Levit. 19.23 Ye shall close up the closing thereof that is ye shall account the tree unclean and the fruits of it polluted and abominable even as the foreskin or skin that closes or stops up the member of a Man Secondly It signifies to take away the foreskin or Uncircumcision of any thing and then it is as much as if he said Ye shall shake down the fruits of it as unclean Or as the Chaldee by removing ye shall remove the fruits thereof that is ye shall cast them away as unclean For the first three years they might not eat any of the Fruits not put them to any profitable Use nor sell them to Infidels and if any did eat but so much as an Olive he was to be beaten by the Law saith Ainsw out of Maimony upon that Scripture It 's plain hence that the Uncircumcision and Circumcision here was in reference to the impurity of the Fruits of the Trees and not to the cutting or gashing of the Tree the Fruits were to be unclean and as uncircumcised unto them It will be time now to gather up your Argument that we may see the Validity of it If Strangers Servants c. all ignorant Children of eight days old yea and Trees also were capable of Circumcision then Circumcision was administred to all Abraham's natural Seed without any profession of Faith Repentance and Regeneration At Ergo. Let reasonable Men judge of the inconsequence of this Proposition having before read what I have Answered to the particulars in it I now come to your sixth proof 6. Circumcision was to be a Sign of Temporal Blessings and Benefits to be enjoyed in the Land of Canaan whereas Baptism was to be a Sign of many Spiritual Benefits viz. Remission of sins Justification Sanctification and Eternal Salvation To which I reply 1. And why was it not a Seal rather than a Sign or at least as well as a Sign to assure them of the Promise of that Land unto them was it not a Seal of God's Covenant to them as hath been shewed before And is not Baptism now the like Doth it not Seal outward Temporal Blessings and Benefits promised though implicitly in the Covenant as well as Circumcision did 2. And was Circumcision a Sign and a Seal only of Canaan unto them You by and by after grant that there are in some things an Analogy betwixt Circumcision and Baptism to wit both of them signifying Heart-Circumcision and an Initiating into the Church p. 223. And why did you not express them also when you said Circumcision was to be a Sign of Temporal Blessings and Benefits to be enjoyed in the Land of Canaan As if it had signified only those Temporal Benefits to them This Seem's not fair dealing but rather an imposing upon your inadvertent Reader And had you fairly granted this sooner it would have spared you a great deal of needless Labour Circumcision then by your own grant signifies Heart-Circumcision and Initiating into the Visible Church even as Baptism also doth which is that we plead for And if it did signifie so then both the Parents and Children-Circumcised had an advantage hereby to seek unto God to Circumcise their hearts who had signified and Sealed it to them in that Holy Ordinance 3. If Circumcision signified Heart-Circumcision to those that were Circumcised then it must also signifie Remission of sins and Justification by the Blood of Christ and Sanctification also and consequently Eternal Salvation following those Benefits which they were in that Order to look after of which Canaan was a Type unto them And then what substantial difference is there between Baptism and Circumcision This were to Seek a knot in a Bulrush as the Proverb is 4. To wave the force of your own grant you tell us though it were a Sign of Initiating into the Church yet it was a different-Church different Subjects and Church-Members upon different Grounds and to different Ends c. To which I return what if it were a different Church in some Circumstances Was it not a Church of God a Church of God's instituting and constituting Did it not consist of the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham and afterwards continued unto his Posterity into which the Christian Gentiles were ingrafted and into which the Jews and Israelites shall be again ingrafted in these latter days of the Gospel see Rom. 11.17 23 24 26 27 31. Were not their Children then Externally and Ecclesiastically in Covenant and Members of the Church as the Children of Inchurched Parents and did then partake of the Initiatory Sign and Seal of the Covenant and shall their Children then be left out when God shall again ingraft their Parents in Weigh the Promises made to these Gospel-times when God shall bring them in Their Children shall be as afore-time and their Congregation shall be established before me Jer. 30.20 with Deut. 29.10 11. to v. 16. They are the Seed of the blessed of the Lord and their off-spring with them Isa 65.23 The Children of thy Servants shall continue and their Seed shall be established before thee Psal 102. last See more Ezek. 37.25 26. The Promise is to you and to your Children Acts 2.39 The Grounds and Ends also that are of God's appointing are for the substance the same as hath been proved though in some Circumstances they may differ God having enlarged his Grace towards poor wretches now in these Gospel-days And that Analogy and proportion which you your self do grant in the main substantial things signified by Circumcision and Baptism together with what I have evidenced out of Coloss 2. do give us sufficient ground to conclude that Baptism is come into the room stead Use of Circumcision notwithstanding all that you have brought to the contrary which I hope doth appear by what hath been replyed to you before And whereas you say by