of the Old Covenant wherein they had their peculiar Right and Privilege no less can be intended in this I will be a God unto them in their Generations and it is also made more evident by the following Account that is given of this Transaction with respect to Isaac and Ishmael Gen. 17.18 21. When the Lord had promised unto Abraham a Son by Sarah whose Name should be called Isaac he thus prayed O that Ishmael might live before thee which the Chaldee Paraphraseth thus i. e. Might live and worship before thee No doubt his Prayer was that Ishmael might also be an Heir of the Blessing of this Covenant but that was not granted to him for the Lord would have his Covenant Seed called by Isaac only With him God would establish his Covenant having appointed and chosen him alone to be the Heir thereof who was to be the Child of the Promise and Son of the Free woman and yet for Ishmael in special Favour with Abraham whose Seed he was Thus much he obtained i. e. That he should be made Fruitful and multiply exceedingly Twelve Princes or Heads of great Families should spring of him which imports some Analogy to the Twelve Tribes of Israel after the Flesh and God would make him a great Nation and yet all this fell short of the Blessings of Abraham's natural Off-spring by Isaac from which Ishmael was now excluded It is plain therefore that the Privilege of the Ecclesiastical as well as the flourishing of the Civil States of Israel did arise unto them out of the Covenant of Circumcision We conclude therefore saith he That notwithstanding the carnal Seed of Abraham could not as such claim a Right in the spiritual and eternal Blessings of the New Covenant because of their Interest in the Covenant of Circumcision yet their Privileges and Advantages in their Church-State tho' immediately consisting in things outward and typical were of far greater Value and Use than any meer Worldly or Earthly Blessings as to giving them choice means of the Knowledge of God and setting them nearer to him than any Nation in the World besides Thus far this Learned Author Dr. Bates also in his Sermon preach'd at Mr. Baxter's Funeral shews That God may be said to be the God of a People several manner of ways 1. Upon the Account of Creation Thus he is our God and Father O Lord thou art our father we are the clay and thou art our potter and we all are the work of thy hands Isa. 64.8 2. Upon the Account of external Calling and Profession there is an intercurrent Relation of the Father and Son between God and his People Thus the Posterity of Seth are called the Sons of God Gen. 6. and the entire Nation of the Jews are so styled When Israel was young I called my son from Egypt Hos. 11. And all that have received Baptism the Seal of the Holy Covenant and profess Christianity in this general Sense may be called the Children of God Thus he clearly confirms what I have said but observe in this Sense God is not said to be the God of a People by way of special Interest But 't is not saith he the outward Dedication entitles Men to saving Interest in God unless they live according to that Dedication There are Baptised Infidels as well as Unbaptised c. Then say I some Infants Baptised are in his Opinion but in an external Covenant with God and so have no special Inteâ—est Moreover Sure none can deny but by gross Idolatry the Israelites broke this Covenant and yet when they in Ezekiel's time became guilty of vile Abominations the Lord still claimed an Interest in their Children by vertue of this Covenant Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters whom thou hast born unto me and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter That thou hast slain my children Ezek. 16.20 12. The Children they begat in a natural way when by cursed Idolatry they had Apostatized from God by vertue of this Covenant God calls his Children which could not have been if their Covenant Interest had been as our Brethren affirm i. e. suspended on the good abearing or Faith of immediate Parents But as the Apostacy of Parents could not hinder their Children from that external Covenant Interest they had in God and God in them so the Faith and Holiness of Parents could not Interest their Children in the special Blessings of the Covenant of Grace Lastly 'T is remarkable that when God gave the Sinai Covenant Exod. 20.1 2. where he pleads Interest in them as his People he mentions expresly upon what account he so owned them read the Text I am the Lord thy God which brought thee out of the land of Egypt out of the House of Bondage Thou shalt have no other Gods before me I am Jehovah and thy God having chosen you to be a People to my self above all People as 't is said elsewhere not that as they were thus his People and a chosen Nation they had special Interest in God by eternal Election and peculiar Adoption no but a few of them as it appears were in that sence his People But their God by vertue of that legal and external Covenant he made with their Fathers and now again with them and so bestowed temporal Blessings upon them therefore 't is added That brought thee out of the land of Egypt not Land of spiritual Darkness nor house of spiritual Bondage but literal Bondage c. In the Covenant of Works saith Reverend Mr. Cotton the Lord offered himself upon a Condition of Works he bid them obey his Voice and provoke him not for I will not pardon your Transgressions But in the Covenant of Grace he will do this but not in the Covenant of Works all is given upon Condition of Obedience The Lord giving himself c. tho' it be but to work yet he is pleased to receive them into some kind of relative Union expressed Ier. 32.32 Which my Covenant they break as though I was an Husband unto them He was married to them in church-Church-Covenant he was their God and they were his peculiar People and yet the Lord cast them off from this marriage-Marriage-Covenant from this Union Thus Mr. Cotton on the Covenant P. 39.40 So much shall serve to the answering this grand Objection Obj. 6. Sixthly Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith If Circumcision was the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith saith Mr. Flavell it did not appertain to the Covenant of Works For the Righteousness of Faith and Works are opposite but Circumcision was the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 4.11 Ergo pag. 220. 1 Answ. We Answer first That the Text they bring doth not call Circumcision the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith As 't is such or in common to all that were Circumcised pray let us read the Words And he received the sign of circumcision a seal of
the righteousness of the faith which he had them yet being uncircumcised that he might be the father of all men that believe though they be not circumcised that righteousness might be imputed to them also Rom. 4.11 First Observe Circumcision is directly here called a Sign and so it was in it self 1. A Sign or Token of God's making good his Covenant to Abraham's natural Seed that from his Loins Christ should come by Isaac 2. A Sign or Token that the promise of all these Blessings granted to them either Ecclesiastical respecting their National Church State and Civil State and Temporal Blessings with their Possessing of the Land of Canaan 3. Of the Circumcision of the Heart for that it was a Sign of 2. But it is not called any more a Seal to Abraham of the Righteousness of that Faith he had before he was Circumcised then it was of his being the Father of all them that believe Now since it was principally called a Seal to him of that peculiar Privilege and Prerogative of being the Father of all True Believers which none had ever granted to them besides himself Why should they suppose that Circumcision is here called a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to all as well as to Abraham himself I desire this may be considered for Mr. Flavel passes it by in silence and speaks nothing to it 3. But Thirdly To put the Matter out of doubt it could be a Seal to no other Person or Persons but to Abraham only Because it was a Seal of that Righteousness Abraham had being yet Uncircumcised and such a Righteousness none of his Seed ever had actually as he had it neither of his fleshly nor spiritual Seed for first Isaac had no such Faith before he was Circumcised because Circumcised when but Eight Days old and so were generally all his Seed except you will mention such who neglected to Circumcise their Children and so Transgressed the Command of God or mention Adult Proselites But that will not help the Matter they must carry it to be a Seal to all that the Covenant of Circumcision belonged to or else to none but to Abraham only but to all it could not be a Seal as it was to Abraham it being positively said not to be a Seal of the Righteousness of their Faith they should have after Circumcised but of that Faith Abraham particularly had being yet Uncircumcised 4. The Scope and Drift of the Holy Ghost proves it to be thus as we say for else there 's no need for the Apostle to mention it as a Seal of that Righteousness of Faith he had before Circumcision if others might have it in Circumcision viz. The Righteousness of God as 't is contained in the Covenant of Grace for that they must say or they say nothing And it farther appears by what the Apostle speaks viz. That he might be the Father of them that believe that were not Circumcised If it had been in Circumcision or after Circumcision What Argument would there have been in the Case i. e. That Abraham should be the Father of those that believe that are not Circumcised Therefore in direct Opposition to what Dr. Ames speaks as cited by Mr. Flavel I must say The main Drift and Scope of the Apostle's Argument from the Coherence of the Text is to take off the Jews from seeking any spiritual Benefit from Circumcision or the Law but by Faith only seeing Abraham was Justified and received the Righteousness of Christ by Faith before he was Circumcised or without Circumcision and his receiving Circumcision sealed not only the Righteousness of Faith to him which he had being Uncircumcised and so to none else but also his being the Father of all that Believe whether Circumcised or not Circumcised 5. But again it must be granted to belong to Abraham only as a Seal because St. Paul speaking of Circumcision Rom. 3.12 says The chief Advantage or Privilege they had thereby was because that unto them was committed the Oracles of God Certainly he would not have called that the Chief if Circumcision had been given in common as a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith However when he is a treating of the Privileges that come by Circumcision surely he could not have forgotten this viz. that it was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith 6. Let not Men mistake themselves any more for evident it is that Circumcision as 't is called a Seal to Abraham so it did not seal to him something which he then had not but might have but it did seal really and truly the Righteousness of that Faith which he at that time had If therefore you Baptize Children who before they are Baptized do truly believe no body will be dispeased with you or if you can prove your Infants have really and truly such a Faith as Abraham had and that their Baptism doth seal that Faith to them for Righteousness which Circumcision sealed to Abraham you do your business But Sirs pray what Blessings of the Covenant of Grace doth Baptism now seal to your Infants O says one the Covenant is theirs it belongs to them and shall we deny them the Seal what not let them have a bit of Wax But stay a little you must first prove the Covenant of Grace doth indeed belong to Believers Children as such before you talk at such a rate as you do A Seal all Men know makes firm and sure all the Blessings to the Person to whom it is sealed which are contained in the same Covenant to which it is fixed Therefore take heed you do not blind the Minds of People and deceive them by making them think they are in Covenant when indeed it may be no such thing 7. Besides if Circumcision was the Seal of the Covenant of Grace then it would follow that the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham is Abrogated for the breaking off the Seal all Men know cancells the Covenant and makes it of none Effect And that Circumcision which you call the Seal of the Covenant of Grace that was made with Abraham is broke off or torn off by the Death of Jesus Christ is evident And this proves if it was a Seal of the Sinai Covenant which I say not but only a Sign that Covenant is gone because the Seal is broken off 8. Circumcision was so far from being a Seal of the Covenant of Grace to all to whom it did bâ—long that it sealed not all those outward Blessings to the Bond-men or such who were bought with Money and so were admitted to dwell in Abraham's Family for it did not seal to them all the outward and external Privileges of the Commonwealth of Israel for they only belonged to those who were natural Israelites Now from the whole it seems to me to be a strange Thing which is lately asserted viz. That the Infant Seed of Believers during their Infancy have all of them a certain Interest in the Covenant of Grace By vertue of which they are
and primary End of it he proves not for the direct and more immediate End and Design thereof we have proved was something else although we grant it was a dark Sign Type or Figure of that they speak of viz. to discover the Corruption of Nature by sin and the Mortification thereof and so also did most of the Ceremonies of the Law but doth it therefore follow those Ceremonies and so Circumcision did not appertain to that Ministration of the Covenant of Works God gave by Moses to the People of Israel which is abrogated and done away Must the Shadow or Sign be part of the Substance or belong or appertain to the Substance Wherefore as Mr. Cary well saith until they can prove the Sinai Covenant and Ceremonial Law c. not to be in their own Nature a Covenant of Works this which they object here has nothing in it since Sacrifices the Passover c. as well as Circumcision were Types of Christ and other Gospel-Mysteries likewise and indeed Mr. Flavel seems to me to run upon a Mistake all along in his Answer to Mr. Cary as if the latter makes no distinction between Adam's Covenant of Works and those after Administrations of the same Old Covenant for Mr. Cary I am satisfied means no more than what I have said viz. That they agree in Nature and Quality tho' Adam had Life and Justification by his own perfect Obedience unto that Law or Covenant while he stood and it was given to him to that end yet God gave not the Sinai Covenant which required perfect Obedience to the end Man might be thereby justified nor was it possible he could since he had sinned and lost his power to obey but that Law contains a clear Transcript of the first Law and so of the Holiness of God and of that Righteousness Man originally had and lost and of the Impossibility of his being justified without such a compleat and perfect Righteousness but the Law as written in the two Tables was given in Mercy upon the Score or Account I have mentioned to Israel in Subserviency to the Gospel and to it was annexed the Ceremonies to shew that a plenary Satisfaction must be made for the breach of God's Holy Law and that this must be by Blood tho' not by blood of Bulls or Goats but they might have understood that by them the Sacrifice and Blood of Christ was figured could they have seen to the end or purport of them Therefore the true Distinction lies here viz. Both are the first Covenant of Works both shew Man must live and sin not if he would be justified in God's sight the first in Man's Innocency answered the end of a Covenant of Works the second Administration thereof could not give Life nor was it given to that end but it answered the end for which God gave it and so much to this Objection Obj. 13. You cannot deny but Circumcision sealed the Righteousness of Faith to Abraham and how can you prove a Seal of the Covenant of Works can be applied to such a use and service Thus Mr. Flavel p. 234. Answ. 1. I answer first who of us say that Circumcision was a Seal of the Covenant of Works there is a great difference between a Seal of a Covenant and that which was given as a Sign or Token of that legal and external Covenant God made with all Abraham's natural Seed as such aâ—d that Circumcision was such a Sign we have before shewed as also of their having the Covenant or Law of Mount Sinai and Land of Canaan given to them c. 2. But that Circumcision was a Seal of that Faith Abraham himself had not being yet Circumcised and that he should be the Father of all that believe Paul possibly affirms Rom. 4.16 and yet it might well be of use to him also as a Sign or Token of those other Covenant Rights and Blessings granted to his natural Off-spring is evident 3. And from hence we have proved that Circumcision could not be so a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to any other Person or Persons none having the like Faith before they were Circumcised as Abraham had nor were they made common Fathers to all true Believers whether Iews or Gentiles Obj. 14. Where the Covenant of Circumcision is by the Apostle contra-distinguished to the Covenant of Faith Rom. 4.13 the Law in that place is put strictly for the pure Law of Nature and metatypically signified the Works of the Law p. 235. Answ. 1. I suppose no Man besides Mr. Flavel ever asserted such a thing as this is I would know how Circumcision a meer positive Precept came to be a part of the Pure Law of Nature for 't is evident that the Law Paul contra-distinguisheth from the Righteousness of Faith had Circumcision in it or else the same Apostle needed not to have taken such pains to have distinguished between Circumcision and the Righteousness of Faith and had Circumcision appertained to the Righteousness of Faith or been a Gospel Covenant why doth he exclude it with the Law from being so counted read v. 10 11 12 13. 2. The Law therefore of which the Apostle speaks is that Ministration of the Law given to Israel of which Circumcision was part and so of the like Nature and Quality with it and both contra-distinguished to the Covenant of Grace or to the Righteousness of Faith And that the Law here is put strictly for the pure Law of Nature is wholly without Reason Proof or Demonstration what Law doth the Apostle speak of in the preceding Chapters and also in this see chap. 3.1 2. is it not that he calls the Oracles of God or Lively Oracles Act. 7.38 given on Mount Sinai The Law of Nature and the written Law contained in the two Tables are all one and the same Law as to the Substance of them they are materially the same tho' not formally both convinced of Sin both bring Sinners under Guilt and Condemnation and so that all Mouths may be stopped and all the World become guilty before God Rom. 3 19. both are a Rule to walk by both Witnesses for God but neither of them can give Life nor justifie the Sinner in the sight of God v. 20. Therefore neither of them are any part of the Covenant of Grace for if one of them is a part of it both of them are if the Law of Nature be not so the Law written in the Tables of Stone was not so yet the Iews had the Advantage of the Gentiles because their Law was wrote in far more legible Characters than the dimm Law of Nature Rom. 3.2 as well as in many other respects Obj. The denying Baptism to Infants hinders the Progress of the Christian Religion 1. That Principle which hinders the Progress of the Christian Religion can be no Christian Doctrine but the denying Baptism to Infants hinders the Progress of the Christian Religion therefore such a Principle can be no Christian Doctrine this is Mr. Rothwell's
gave him the Covenant of Circumcision This they cannot deny nay and not only to himself but to be the God of all his true spiritual Seed and that also before he entered into the said Covenant of Circumcision with him and his natural Seed see Gen. 12.3 Gen. 15.1 I am thy shield and thy exceeding great Reward see ver 5. and then 't is said he believed in the Lord and it was accounted to him for righteousness ver 6. Therefore 2 dly 'T is for ever to be noted that this special Interest in God he obtained through Faith in the Free Promise which is the Covenant of Grace God made with him And the Apostle plainly shews in Rom. 4.9 10. That this Blessedness he in the Negative received not in the Covenant of Circumcision but in Uncircumcision How was it then reckoned when he was in circumcision or in uncircumcision Not in circumcision but in uncircumcision ver 10. I cannot but wonder at the darkness of those Men who affirm That Abraham received special Interest in God in the Covenant of Circumcision whereas the Holy Ghost positively denies it or affirms the contrary His main Business being there to take them off of Circumcision and so to distinguish between Circumcison and the Covenant of Faith but in direct Opposition to the Apostle's Design these Men go about to magnifie Circumcision by ascribing it to that 3. And let it also be noted That the same Apostle excludes Abraham's natural Seed as such with whom the Covenant of Circumcision was made from this special Blessing of special Interest in God in Rom. 9.5 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect for they are not all Israel which are of Israel neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all Children that is by way of special Interest in God so as to have God to be their God by vertue of the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham But in Isaac shall thy seed be called ver 7. That is they which are the children of the flâ—sh these are not the children of God but the children of the promise are counted for the seed ver 8. None can deny but that those whom the Apostle calls the Children of the Flesh whom he denies to have any Interest in God as such the Covenant of Circumcision did belong unto and was made with as well as it was made with the true spiritual Seed therefore I may from hence with the greatest boldness imaginable affirm That in the Covenant of Circumcision God did not make over himself to be Abraham's God so as to give him or to his Seed special Interest in himself Obj. But 't is positively said That God did promise in the Covenant of Circumcision to be a God to him and to his seed after him in their Generations when he promised them the Land of Canaan Gen. 17.8 9 10. Answ. I do not deny it but not by way of special Interest that is the thing we differ in so he was not the God of his Seed as such according to the Nature of the Covenant of Grace and that for the Reasons before urged therefore it behoveth us to consider in what respect we are to understand the Holy Ghost I do not say neither that ever God made himself over to Men to be their God by way of special Interest upon the Terms of the Sinai Covenant that was impossible for them to Answer nor can I believe notwithstanding what Mr. Flavel has affirmed that my Reverend Brother Mr. Philip Cary will assert any such thing the Inheritance was not by the Law 1. Therefore we are to consider That God may be said to be the God of a People in a Covenant way Two manner of ways 1 st By the Free Promise or Covenant of Grace in a spiritual Gospel Sense which gives special and Soul-saving Interest in him as all Abraham's Spiritual Seed i. e. True Believers have or 2 d. God may be said to be the God of a People by entering into an external legal Covenant with them And thus he gave himself to be the God of Abraham and his natural or fleshly Seed i. e. He took them into a visible external Covenant Church-State and separated them from all other People and Nations in the World to be a peculiar People in that Covenant unto himself and in this sense he was said Foederally or by Covenant to be married to the whole House of Israel as so considered and to be an Husband to them See Ier. 21.31 God there makes a Promise to Israel and Iudah that he would make a New Covenant Not according to the covenant I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt which covenant they break although I was an husband to them saith the Lord ver 32 In this Covenant God gave them their Church State and many external or earthly Blessings Laws and Ordinances and they formerly struck Hands as I may so say with God and promised Obedience Exod. 24.3 7 8. And he took the book of the Covenant and read in the audience of the people and they said all that the Lord hath said will we do and be obedient And thus God became as an Husband to them i. e. He fed them and took special care of them and to lead them with great Bowels in the Wilderness and bestowed the Land of Canaan upon them with other Temporal Blessings according as it was promised to them in the Covenant of Circumcision Like as a Husband cares for and provides for the Wife so did God care and provide for them and preserved them so long as that Law I mean the Law of their Husband did continue But that Law is now dead Rom. 7.4 and God now is no longer such a Husband to them nor hath he Married in that Sense any other external Nation or People of the World but now God in the Gospel Covenant is an Husband indeed to them he was but a Typical Husband and their God in an external Faedoral Relation And thus he was the God of all Abraham's natural Off-spring for in him he first espoused them as a National Church and People and gave them the Covenant of Circumcision as the Sign or Token thereof with many Ecclesiastical and Civil Rites And this is further confirmed by a Reverend and Learned Writer Howbeit from the strict Connexion of this 7th verse with the 6th and the Assurance here given that God will establish his Covenant with Abraham's Seed to be their God It is evident saith he that the Number of Abraham's carnal Seed and the Grandeur of their Civil State is not all that is promised nor yet the Principal Blessing bestowed on them therein but rather the forming them into a Church State with the establishing of the Ordinances of publick Worship among them wherein they should walk in Covenant Relation to God as his peculiar People Understand it still saith he
Water is applyed to the Body If it were so that all that were Baptised were Regenerated then all that were Baptised should be saved or eâ—se the Doctrine of Perseverance falls â—o the Ground And again he says That some indeed say That Regeneration is conferred in Baptiâ—m upon the Elect but how so active a principle as a spiritual Life should lye dâ—aâ— and sleep to loâ—g even many Years which intervene between Baptism and Conversion is not easily conceivable Charnock on Regen p. 75. Sir Do but prove what you here affirm and I will write no more against Infant-Baptism and till that 's done all you say is nothing in my Judgment But to proceed Such a Commission you speak of would not in your sense Authorize those Twelve Elders of Israel to go and Teach and Circumcise the Jews and their Children only but all others in all Nations of the World this would be an easie way of making People Christians But Sir The Gospel whatsoever you think according to our Doctrine is more extensive then was the Law to the Jews for that was restrained to that People He sheweth his word unto Iacob his statutes and judgments to Israel He hath not dealt so with any nation for his judgments they have not known them Psal. 147.19 20. But the Gospel is not restrained or limited to any one particular People or Nation but it is to be preached to all the World and whosoever are made Disciples i. e. Do believe and are baptised shall be saved Mark 16.16 Not that we suppose Men can't be saved without Baptism for that makes no Person a Christian or a Disciple of Christ neither Young nor Old though 't is the Duty of Believers to submit thereto We doubt not but that the same spiritual and eternal Blessings which the Jewish dying Infants had by the Death and Merits of Christ then the dying Infants of Christians have now according to the Election of Grace But as touching the legal and external Privileges of the Jews we have proved in this Tract and elsewhere that they had many more in divers respects under the Law than those we Christians and our Children have under the Gospel As to those great Advantages Blessings and Privileges of the Covenant of Works which you talk of I wonder what they were for the Covenant of Works could not give Life no Justification nor Righteousness that could save by that Covenant no pardon of Sin but contrarywise Death Wrath and the Curse is denounced upon every Soul of Man for the breach of it How vain then are your Arguments in the Gospel is Life is Justification is Pardon of Sin to every Man that believeth To the Iew first and also to the Gentiles Rom. 1.16 Time would fail me to shâ—w how absurd your Notions are to what almost all our Learned Protestant Divines have wrote about the Covenant of Works The Jewish Infants received no Soul Spiritual and Eternal Advantage by Circumcision What the chief Advantage or Profit was which they hâ—d thereby St. Paul tells us Rom. 3.1 2. Tho' it was commanded of God for the Ends and Designs I have already mentionâ—d and if so What Benefit can any Infant receive by Baptism or rather Rantism which is a mere humane Innovation You confess it was instituted by the Church as a needful Thing p. 37. And the Church hath Instituted it because it is needful it was indeed never Instituted or Appointed by our Lord Jesus And as to that Custom among the Jews you speak of p. 7 8 of their Baptising Proselytes I have fully Answer'd it in my Treaty called The Rector Rectified p. 24 25. and in my Answer to the Athenian Society Sir you go upon a Mistake all along taking it for granted That Circumcision and other legal Rites were great spiritual Privileges for 't is no such Thing It was a Yoke of Bondage not to be born and a great Mercy it was to them that they were delivered from it Act. â—5 And therefore the Jews did they believe in Christ and see the Nature of and Tendency of Circumcision would never speak after that manner as you mention in p. 9. Viz Obj. I will rather be a Iew then a Christian because as soon as I own and profess their Faith my Child after such a Declaration is in covenant as well as my self and hath a Right to the Sign c. Answ. Sir The Jewish Childrens Right to Circumcision was not deferred till their Parents made a profession of Faith but as they were the natural Seed of Abraham as such it was the Command of God to Abraham that gave them that Right and nothing else Obj. So that by this account it plainly appears That denying Infants Baptism is an hindrance to the progress of the Holy Gospel Answ. True if Infant-Baptism doth make them Christians you say right it must follow That the denying them Baptism hinders the progress of the Gospel but this is false which you assert Baptism makes them not Christians we say none but Christ by his Spirit can Regenerate the Souls of Men or make them Christians True you may thereby give them the Name of Christians but can't give them the Nature of Christians you may deceive them and make them believe they were so made Christians and thereby undoe them eternally by relying upon a mere Cheat and Delusion This is a way to make false Christians counterfeit Christians What a Christian is he whose vile Nature was never changed You would do well to get a great Number of Ministers if Baptism does make Christians as I said before to go into the Heathen Nations and Baptise them and so make all the World Christians but if you know no other way for the progress of the Gospel then this of making Christians by Baptism God deliver the World from your way of Christianing the Nations You will not see That the Gospel Church is not National but only Congregational the Jewish Church in that differ'd from the Christianâ— For What is more clearer than this Christ's Church is called a Garden inclosed Christ's Flock is a little Flock Those who were added to the Church were separated either from the Jewish People or Heathen Nations were commanded to separate themselves and not to touch the unclean Thing Ye are not saith Christ of the World You would make whole Nations the Church and from the Commission inferr such a false Conclusion I have consider'd what you have said in p. 10 11. Sir When all the Pagan World are instructed and believe in Christ we will say they have a Right to the Sign i. e. Baptism but not till then hath one Soul a Right thereto prove what you say if you can i. e. That the Children of Christians as such are Christians as the Children of Iews were Iews or that Baptism makes any either old or young True Christians or regenerates their Souls 'T is not your bare Assertions or your Saying it that is worth any thing what Authority
have you from God's Word to affirm such things you give no more proof for what you assert than the Papists do for their vain Traditions and Popish Ceremonies Grace must be implanted in the Soul before Baptism or the Person has no Right to it 't is an outward Sign of an inward spiritual Grace as your Church asserts Baptism is not Grace nor conveys Grace if you can prove it does I will say no more but submit and acknowledge my mistake but if you err in saying it does do not go about to deceive your People any more You plead for making false Christian nominal Christians Christianity is another thing than what you seem to imagine The Way is narrow and the Gate is straight Regeneration is a difficult Work it requires the Mighty Power of God to be put forth on the Soul nay the same Power that God wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead Ephes. 1.19 20. As to Infants being capable of the Blessings of the Gospel so are Heathens and Pagans when God calls them and infuses Grace into their Souls I have answered all you say upon that Account in my Answer to Mr. Burkit The Commission in the largest Extent comprehends no more than such that are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disciplized by the Preaching of the Gospel in all Nations the Parents must be discipled and the Children must themselves in their own Persons be discipled as well as their Parents and as their Parents were before baptized and when a whole Nation both Parents and Children are by the Word and Spirit made Christ's true and holy Disciples and as such baptized then all the Nation may be look'd upon to be Christians but we know what sort of Christians you make and your national Church does consist of that are made so by Baptism to our trouble if God does not make your Members better Christians than your Sprinkling or baptizing them as you call it hath done none of them as it appears from Christ's own words Ioh. 3.3 can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven In my former Books you may read Mr. Perkin's and Mr. Baxter's Expositions of the Commission they talk not at such a rate as you do tho' Pedo-Baptists And tho' in your late Letter to me you seem to boast as if some admire your Book and that your Arguments are invincible or unanswerable Yet that is not my Conceptions concerning it and had your Antagonist so judged of it I doubt not but he would attempted your strongest Fort before this time for I know very well his Ability to defend this Cause indeed I wonder at his silence But if you do proceed to provoke a farther Answer you may have it This which I have done was occasioned by my Preaching on this Text not intending a particular Reply to every thing you have said nor is there any need for you are fully answered already in our late Treatises yet I think the Controversie much concerns you of the Church of England and such who are for a National Church As for our Brethren called Congregational I cannot tell what they mean by contending for the Practice of Paedo-Baptism nor do I well know what their Sentiments are about it they agree as I do understand with us and other Christians that Baptism is an initiating Rite or Ordinance now if their Infants are in Covenant with themselves and are made visible Church-Members by Baptism in Infancy and until by actual Sins they violate their Rite and Privilege abide Members thereof 1. Then I would know whether they have their Names in their Church-Book or Register as Members And 2 dly Whether they ever Excommunicate or bring under any Church Censure such of their Children who fall into scandalous Sins or actual Transgressions or not 3 dly If not what kind of polluted Churches must thir's be who have not purged out such corrupt Members The truth is I see not how Infant Baptism is consistent with any Church State unless it be National and no doubt the first Contrivers or Founders of it devised that way for the Progress of that they call the Christian Religion and so opened a Door that Christ shut when he put an end to the National Church of the Iews Therefore I wonder at our strict Independants considering their Notions knowing how their Principles differ from and their Understanding or Knowledge of Gospel-Church Constitution exceeds others for Baptism does not initiate into their Churches it seems by their Practice unless their Children when baptized were thereby made Members with them It is evident that under the Law when Infants were Members of the Jewish Church they were born Members thereof tho' the Males were to be Circumcised on the Eighth day nor was the case difficult to know the Right Infants had to Circumcision it was not from the Faith of immediate Parents but it was their being the true Natural Seed of Abraham according to the Flesh or being Proselytes c. which gave them a Right to Circumcision by Vertue of God's positive Command to Abraham But now if the Infant 's Rite arises only from the True and Real Faith of their Parents the Child when grown up may doubt if its Parents or Father or Mother were not true Believers whether they had a Right to it or not or may see cause to question whether either of them were in truth in the Covenant of Grace or no for who knows who are in a true spiritual Sence in Covenant with God especially if their Parents should fall away or Apostatize and become vicious which may demonstrate they were not true Believers and so not the Elect of God themselves and if so their Children had no more Right to Baptism than the Children of open and prophane unbelievers Children have The truth is what I have said in these Sermons may serve to reprove such who set up a new Wall of Partition like that which Christ Abolished by the Blood of his Cross and so cause Enmity to rise between the Seed of Believing Gentiles and the Seed of unbelieving Gentiles by making the Children of ungodly Ones to say Our Parents were wicked and not in Covenant with God and tho' we were baptized yet had no Right to it we cannot but envy your Privilege you are the Children of believing Parents and are in Covenant c. nay and it may cause too to trust to that Birth-Privilege and so destroy their Souls by looking out for no other Regeneration but that which they had in Baptism in their Infancy Some Reflections on Mr. Exell's new Treatise Entituled A serious Enquiry into and containing plain and express Scripture-Proofs that John Baptist did as certainly Baptize Infants as the Adult REader just as I had closed with all I intended to have added to this short Tract a Gentleman brought me another Book newly Published called Plain Scripture-Proof that John Baptist did certainly Baptize Infants as the Adult This Book is written by one Mr. Exell who calls himself