would give the same Answer to the like persons Who are they he speaks to Were they not a company of corrupt men A generation of Vipers that boasted of being Abraham's children and yet did the Works of their Father the Devil The Pharisee was a Self Iusticiary And the Sadduce deny'd the Resurrection of the Dead Should such plead their Parental Right we would bid them Repent But what is this to the outing children of their Right These were adult and had by their wickedness forfeited their right Did not the Prophets while their Church state stood use the same Methods with them Antipaed But you have not yet answered my Objection about the Obligation Circumcision laid upon men to the keeping the whole Law you only prov'd that that Law was not a Covenant of Works Paed. You do well to put me in mind of it The Apostle there speaks of the erroneous opinion of the Jews who sought for a Righteousness by the Works of the Law making the Law to themselves a Covenant of Works Circumcision being an Initiating Seal was to them according to their abuse of the Law an obligation to keep the whole But in it self Circumcision did oblige only to such Obedience as God requires and accepts in his Covenant of Grace according to that dispensation of it that was then on foot and therefore when a more large and manly state of the Church was to succeed he took away that of Circumcision and in its room commanded Baptism Col. 2. v. 10. And ye are compleat in him which is the head of all Principality and Power v. 11. In whom also ye are circumcised with the Circumcision made without hands in putting off the Body of the sins of the flesh by the Circumcision of Christ v. 12. Buried with him in Baptism c. Whereby we are compleat in Christ without Circumcision for it contains all that was signify'd by Circumcision the Circumcision of the heart and the putting off the Body of Sin As their Signification was the same so one succeeded but not typifyed the other Antipaed Circumcision was only in Abraham's family and other Believers in the time of the old Testament had it not Enjoyn'd to them which must for that Reason seal somewhat peculiar to Abraham's Family viz. The Promise of the Land of Canaan and the descent of the Messiah from that Family Paed. If it designed either of the things you mention Then all that received it must partake of the Promise but so could not Abraham's Servants who were neither of Abraham's Lineage nor had a promise of the Canaanitish Inheritance Otherwise as Proselytes Converts or Believers they were capable of the spiritual Significancy All therefore that entred into Abraham's family which then was most properly and eminently the Church of God for other good men that were scattered here and there and were not gathered into one body tho they belonged to the Covenant yet we are left in the dark as to what God requir'd of them and therefore are the less able to judge concerning them and all that were admitted into that House were to be Circumcised nor was Circumcision given them as a Mark of Distinction as you distinguish Beasts by sliting and cutting That is a gross conceit but they were to be acquainted with the meaning of that sign and the contents of the Covenant What a Religious person was Eliezer Abraham's Servant What a noble Testimony does God give to Abraham as to his care in instructing his family after God that is To relinquish Idolatry and false-Worship and make a Profession of the true God Antipaed But Circumcision took in only the Males Baptism both Males and Females Paed. You think you have a mighty Plea in this but it is just nothing 1. Do you not consider that in the various Editions of the Covenant of Grace God hath made gradual Alterations without any change of the Substance Tho Infants were still included in the Covenant from Adam to Abraham as parts of their Parents yet when God brought in the Male Children under the Seal of the Covenant this was an additional Mercy but no change of the Covenant Now were the Female children hereby excluded from the Covenant it self Pray give me the true meaning of Exod. 12.48 For no Vncircumcised Person shall eat thereof By this Rule no Woman shall eat of the Passover Antipaed Surely Women were not debarred Paed. But they were some way or other Circumcised then For the Rule is Positive and Universal What other Answer can you give than this That the Females were partakers of the Circumcision of the Males 2. Do you not consider that God seeing it fit to alter his Covenant for the better when he saw fit to alter the Seal of Circumcision which was a painful Ordinance and not applicable to Females and to Substitute another for the same general end It is but suitable to his usual Method to bring in Females expresly which were Implicitly under the Seal before especially when Baptism is so easily applicable both to Males and to Females Antipaed But it is a doubt to me whether God intended Baptism to be a Seal of the Covenant of Grace Paed. Your Doubting implyes you would willingly deny it if you durst Will you doubt also Whether the Lords-Supper be a Seal of the Covenant of Grace succeeding the Passover pray tell me first Was not Circumcision expresly call'd a sign or a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith And was it not so because it was a Token of the Covenant both on Man's part and God's The contempt of which God reckoned a Contempt and rejection of his Covenant Gen. 17.14 And the Vncircumcised Manchild whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised that Soul shall be cut off from his people he hath broken my Covenant Antipaed Be it so What then Paed. If Baptism be appointed to the same Ends and uses in the New Testament 't is as much the Seal of the Covenant as Circumcision was before But it is evident Baptism has the same Office in the Institution For as Prosolytes and Abraham's seed Entred into the Covenant of the Old Testament by Circumcision so hath Christ appointed that Consenters should be initiated into the new by Baptism as soon as teaching made them capable of giving Consent Mat. 28.19 Go ye therefore and teach all Nations Baptizing them c. and men are said to accept of or reject the New Testament proffer according to their Submission to or Refusal of Baptism Antipaed This indeed seems to be so Else Baptism would not have been so Expresly commanded and so generally propounded to all Paed. The Apostle expresly saith so 1 Cor. 12.13 For by one Spirit are we all Baptized into one body whether we be Jews or Gentiles c. But for your further Satisfaction Tell me 2dly Doth not the very make and frame of Baptism show it to be a sign and Seal as well as Circumcision Why else is Water used but as a Token What is
the Application of it but as a Sealing on God's part and ours And what less doth the Apostle say Rom. 6.3 4. Know ye not that so many of us as were Baptized into Jesus Christ were Baptized into his Death Therefore we are buried with him by Baptism into Death that like as Christ was raysed up from the death by the Glory of the Father even so we also should walk in Newness of Life And pray to what other end do you use it Is it not a sign of your solemn covenanting with God 3. Tell me Why are the Sacraments of the Old Testament and the New so often compared together in the New Testament but to let us know they are for the same Uses and that we lose Nothing by the change of these Ordinances they being so much the same in design and End that the Apostle mutually gives the name of the one to the other Thus Effectual Spiritual Baptism is call'd spiritual Circumcision Col. 2. v. 11. In whom also ye are circumcised with the Circumcision made without hands c. v. 12. Buried with him in Baptism c. And the very Outward signs have interchangeably one anothers names 1 Cor. 5.7 For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us So Chap. 2. And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the Sea Antipaed But if the end of Circumcision and Baptism were the same It would seem strange that God should not keep the Old Seal of the Covenant still Paed. Suppose no other Reason could be given but God's Pleasure What is this to us What if there were no other Reason but this that Circumcision was Bloody and Painful This might sufficiently Answer your Objection But other Reasons might be suppus'd When the Circumcised Jews Rejected Christ Circumcision could not be a Distinguishing Badge betwixt Christians Jews and Heathens What if God had a mind to remove the Fond and Excessive Opinion of the Jews and the Confidence they had in Circumcision by this Change Those of them that embraced Christianity were for introducing Circumcision against whom the Apostle Paul Disputes What if God did it to notify his Mind about the Admission of Females by Baptism Now when the Partition-Wall 'twixt Jews and Gentiles was to be taken down it could not have been by Circumâ—ision but by an Ordinance proper to both Sexes Antipaed Still it sticks with me That Infants having no Faith cannot be in the Câ—venant of Grace or under the Seal of it And if we might suppose them to have Faith or to be Regenerated by Baptism then it follows That Infants are either in Covenant without Faith or those that had true Faith and were Regenerated may wholly fall from Grace For daily Experience tells us that many Baptized in Infancy become Ungodly Paedo You have started a difficult case and such as all Men do not Answer alike It is a great Question what is the State of Infants as to Grace Some say roundly that Baptisme confers Regeneration Others will not say so much but that only Baptism confers Relative Grace as Pardon Adoption c. and that the Parents Real Faith is enough to Entitle the Children to this and that Infants have a sufficiency of Grace suitable to their Infant-state as That they are under the Covenant of Grace Have Original Sin pardoned And in case they dye in Infancy the Spirit of God can and will furnish them with such a measure of the Sanctification of Nature as will fit them for Heaven Not that they assert That this Sanctification is an Effect of Baptism to all the Infants of Believers but only to such as dye in Infancy And that Relative Grace which is the proper Effect of Baptism Infants may lose it when they out-grow their Infantile State And yet all this without falling from Faith or Converting Grace But let the Difficulty of Infant 's Grace be what it will this is no Objection or Plea against Infant Baptism Antipaed That is strange But how will you make that appear Paed. Vey clearly Do you Answer this Question Was it not a Covenant of Grace that was made to Abraham and were not his Infant-Seed under the Seal of it Ant. The Proof of that cannot well be denyd Paed. Was not Faith and Grace as necessary to Justification and Salvation then as now Antipaed That cannot be deny'd Paed. Then must you grant that want of Faith might be as well objected against the Circumcision of Infants as against their Baptizing If Infants could not be supposed to have such a measure of Grace then as might be sufficient for their Salvation you must deny their Salvation and say Their Circumsion was not a Sign much less a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith If they had such a sufficiency It cannot be deny'd but our Children are as capable of the same sufficiency of Grace and Salvation Antipaed What Advantage have Children by Baptism Paed. Their Advantage is great every way You have a Breviate of them given by the Apostle Rom. 9.4 5. Who are Israelites to whom pertaineth the Adoption and the Glory and the Covenants and the Giving of the Law and the Service of God and the Promises Whose are the Fathers and of whom as concerning the Flesh Christ came c. He here speaking of the Jewish Branches that were broken off and in whose Room the Gentiles were to be Engraffed Indeed some Priviledges there mentioned are Judaical-peculiarities as that of them according to the Flesh Christ came This Priviledge was so theirs that it cannot be communicated to others Of them were the Fathers If by that no more be meant than than there was a constant Succession of Good Men it is a Benefit common to us with them For the Church is the Seminary of Grace They had by this Covenant-Relation the Offer of the Gospel and its Grace before others and were not cast out of their Priviledges till they wilfully cast themselves out Ishmael was not turned out of Abraham's Family till he was a Scorner and Persecutor Nor Esau refused the Blessing till he Sold the Birthright and was Profane And as to them belong the Promises so the Promises may be pleaded by them and by their Parents in their behalf And this has been of mighty use to Godly Persons in all Ages not onely that they were Baptized but that they were Baptized in Infancy And this is no Inconsiderable Argument to me that the Ordinance of Infant-Baptism is from God For tho as one Judiciously Remarks it may in some cases be granted Ford 's Practical Vse of Inf. Baptism Ep. Ded. p. 5. that an Ordinance Administred with some considerable Circumstantial Irregularities may Sanctify Yet that these Irregularities themselves should be the Channels of Sanctifying Grace is not easily imaginable Now this is the case of Infant-Baptism Many Holy Men of many Ages have found their hearts warm'd and quicken'd in the Exercise of Faith Repentance Love Thankfulness Restrain'd from Sin Excited to Duty by
and so Infer a positive Command is determin'd by a Masculine Article I am not for Excluding Women more than you but I urge this to show you the Absurdity there is in denying Consequences and how Untenable that Doctrine is as well as many more without them Aporet If you will not Antipaedobaptista exclude your Wife from the Communion Table you must so far as I am able to judge admit of good Consequences and if so it is like you may hear of good Reason to Include your Children in the Covenant and that doubtless would be a Comfortable Doctrine Antipae It would so but I despair to see it proved I am assur'd to the contary You have neither Precept nor President in the New Testament for Baptising Infants and the Consequences you make from Christs blessing little Children and the Apostles baptising whole Families are at best but probabilities and conjectures too weak to support your cause We read of none baptized but Believers and Penitents and we think such an Institution as Baptism should have been delivered in plain Words Paed. You express'd an high Confidence in your arguing but I am not surprized at it I have known those that could not say so much for your cause as I suppose you can even poor silly Women boasting of their ability to confute any adversary with this single Weapon Where is Precept or President But have a little Patience and you shall see I will so prove the thing in Question that I will turn the Argument of Precept and President against you You have in a few Words express'd your whole Strength excepting some small matters you have to say about the Practice of the Primitive times which I shall take notice of afterwards At present I will speak to your Precept and President But whereas you insist upon it again that there should be plain Scripture proof for an Institution I must put you in mind here that there are two things in this Question 1st The Institution of the Ordinance of Baptism 2dly A Declaration of God's mind concerning the Subjects of Baptism That God hath in plain Words instituted the Ordinance of Water-Baptism you will not deny tho' some others do We are thus far agreed then as to the Institution Whether the Subjects of Baptism be not as clearly and plainly declared and that Infants be such due Subjects of that Ordinance is now to be spoken too and I shall urge nothing which you shall have Reason to reject as ungenuine or dark Consequence Antipaed I will patiently attend your Reasonings Paed. First then I will propound this plain Question to you Do you think that God who hath been so merciful to Mankind as to provide a Saviour for them hath only provided for the Salvation of the Adult and made no provision for the Salvation of Infants that shall dye in Infancy Antipaed I dare not think but that God hath made provision for dying Infants It seems to me to be a blasphemous Reflection upon the God of Mercy to suppose him to damn all dying Infants were to suppose him unmerciful and cruel But I think we need not judge so hardly of God or Them Doubtless God hath provided for them in his Decree of Election and all the Elect shall be brought to Salvation Paed. 'T is true the Elect shall obtain and be saved But now let me aske you a second Question Doth God ever save any of the Elect but in the way and Method of the Covenant of Grace Antipaed I think it must be so for all men are either under the Covenant of Works or the Covenant of Grace they are either sav'd by Grace or left under the Curse of the Law Paed. 'T is very true For they that are out of Gods Covenant are Aliens to the Common-wealth of Israel and Strangers from the Covenants of Promise afar off without Christ and Hope But this occasions another Question How are Infants brought into Covenant whether with their Parents upon their Parents Faith or upon some Qualification of their own Antipaed I percieve what you aim at in this Question If I say Infants are brought into Covenant by some Qualifications of their own then you will say it must be a saving Qualification Faith or Repentance and this Children that have not the exercise of their Reason cannot have Or if they had such Qualifications before to give them a Covenant Interest they may have the same Qualifications now If I say it is upon their Parents Faith you will reply there is now the same way of coming into the Covenant for them still I will therefore suspend my Answer till I hear what you assert in this matter Paed. I shall do it plainly God's way of Covenanting with men has always been to take the Children into Covenant with their Parents upon their Parents Faith But to be more particular as soon as ever God added Seals to his Covenant he gave Command that Children should come under the Initiatiating Seal of it which was Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith And God's own promise gives the Reason of it I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed after thee which Abraham understood to be his Infant Seed and Circumcised them accordingly Antipaed This will not advantage you For we are not under the same Covenant For that Covenant was a Covenant of Works or at least a mix'd Covenant Paed. I am sorry you should take things upon Trust especially when the Tendency of them may be so dangerous as surely this must be for if this be true it will bereave us of the comfortable Promises of the Old Testament and shake the foundation of the New I told you the Apostle prov'd Justification Articulus stantis cadentis Ecclesiae from Consequences out of the Old Testament but take whether of these you will That this Covenant is either a Covenant of Works or a mix'd Covenant and I shall show you the Inconvenience that attends both If this were wholy a Covenant of Works then damnation must be the portion of all that were under it For none can perform the condition of it in a faln state Pardon for the breach of it was not promised and therefore could not be expected Does not this Sound very harsh If a mix'd Covenant because Temporal Blessings were comprehended in it if that I say be your Reason pray clear me Mat. 6.33 from that Imputation viz. But seek ye first the Kingdom of God and his Righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you Besides this will follow As you put them under a mix'd Covenant so you must condemn them to a midling condition and they all their days must hang betwixt Hope and Fear and never come to any sort of assurance which would not Immediatly be dash'd with the bitter Mixture of the Law And living thus and dying they must have an apartment of their own This Doctrin will lay the floor of a Limbus Patrum For I cannot Imagine
the Promise is also to those that are afar off viz. the Gentiles even as many as the Lord our God shall call Antipaed It is true it is joyn'd to the Latter Sentence Paed. And there is a manifest Reason that Limits it to the latter Sentence Because that tho' the Blessing of Abraham be come upon the Gentiles Gal. 3.14 That the Blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ Yet no Gentile Nation had such a Promise but as converted and call'd to Christianity and so becoming Abraham's Spiritual Seed they are heirs of the same Promises with the Jews So that the meaning of that Scripture is plainly this Repent and be Baptized O ye Jews for the Promise is to you and your seed as God spake to Abraham And it 's the same Covenant that Baptism Seals to And your children have the same Priviledge of Entering into Covenant with your selves as you know And the same Promise of Pardon and Priviledge is also to as many Gentile Nations as shall be converted to the Faith so yet they and their Children may be Baptized into Covenant as well as they Antipaed You have said enough of this Scripture pray name another Paed. The next Scripture I shall offer you to prove Infant Baptism That is that it was Sufficiently known in the New Testament that Infants came into the Covenant with their Parents shall be 1 Cor. 7.14 For the unbelieveing Husband is Sanctify'd by the Wife and the unbelieving Wife is sanctify'd by the Husband else were your Children Vnclean but now are they Holy Antipaed I Expected this but I wonder you should urge it when you have been so often told that the Holiness there is a Marriage Holiness and the Holiness of their children is but this that they are not Bastards Paed. And I wonder more you Shelter your self under so pitiful an Evasion But to answer you Will not you grant in the General That whatever be the Holiness here to be understood it is a priviledge which Children receive from their Parents Antipaed That cannot be deny'd Paed. Then if I prove that this Holiness is not Legitimacy but a priviledge of another Nature and such as entitles them unto the Covenant you 'll confess I prove what I produced this Scripture for Antipaed Let me see the Performance Paed. To remove your Allegation that the Childrens uncleanness is in this case Bastardy and so intended by the Apostle I aske you Was not the Law of Marriage observ'd among the Heathens And was it not a known thing that among them fornication was distinguish'd from the Issue of such Marriages some children being reckoned Bastards and others Legitimate If you say there was no such thing you contradict the Apostle who here saith they were Husband and Wife before Conversation and elsewhere mentioneth fornication as a sin which the Heathens themselves owned as such and that Incust was such a degree of fornication as was rarely found amongst them If you grant this Distinction of Bastard and Legitimate Children was found among the Heathen then be sure the Apostle did not design to overthrow this difference and call all the Children of Heathens Bastards But I aske you further If Marriages of the Heathens were not Lawful Marriages and so esteemed by the Apostle Why did he not direct them to be Married anew This he would have done If Infidels in the Matrimonial state lived in fornication I might ask yet further where the word Holy is ever us'd to signify Legitimacy of Children And if you seriously consider the Occasion of the Apostles discourse you 'll find it was this When the Gospel was preached to the Heathens it frequently happened that sometimes an Heathen Wife was converted and not the Husband and sometimes on the contrary Now in this case the Question was not whether the Marriage was Lawfull But whether it were to be continu'd in Because if it were the converted Party was to live in Society with an Idolater This might seem a difficult case and its rise from what we Read in Ezra Where the Reforming Israelites put away their strange Wives but there was this difference in these two Cases In that of the Jews they being of another Religion when there was no need and expresly against God's Command took Idolatrous Wives Here both Parties when they Marry'd were Idolaters alike and therefore the Apostle determines their Marriages being Lawful before they might still continue in that state though but one Party were Converted if both were willing In this case the Apostle takes it for granted that the Marriage was Lawful and if it had not been so there had been no room for so difficult a Question and all might have been Answer'd with this That it was no Marriage and therefore they were at Liberty Once again let me Ask you Suppose among Christians both Husband and Wife be Unbelievers are their Children Bastards and do they live in Fornication till one at least be Converted And doth Faith make that Marriage-Society which was Fornication before to become Lawful And doth it Legitimate the Children Antipae But if I grant all this yet the Holiness of the Children seems not to be real Sanctification because the Believers Wife or Husband are said to be Sanctifyed Paed. Nor do we say it is But the Text evidently shews all we seek for viz That the Children in this case are not reckoned as the Children of Infidels that are Strangers to the Covenant but are Numbred amongst the Peculiar People of God Let it be observ'd the Apostle gives this as a Reason of the advice for the Continuance of their Conjugal Estate The Unbelieving Party doth not make their Marriage-State Unholy but the Relation is so Sanctifyed to a Believer as other things are for Holy and Lawful Uses that Children have the known Priviledge which Children of the Jews and Gentile Believers have not to be cast out of the Covenant as unclean but to be accepted into the Covenant with the Believing Parent If you yet doubt Whether this be the Sense of the Apostles Reasoning I pray you consider to what purpose the Apostle should have mentioned their Children certainly he intends to signify that the Children have some priviledge by their Parents and if this priviledge be not Legitimacy as I have prov'd and I think for shame you will Urge it no more then there is no Church priviledge can be thought of but that known priviledge of Childrens Entring into Covenant with their Parents and this the Apostle doth not speak of as a New proposed Doctrin but as generally known and truly appliable in this case as well as others Antipaed Have you any more Scriptures to offer for proof That Children entring into Covenant with their Parents was a known and unquestionable Truth in the New Testament Paed. All these Scriptures that speak of the families priviledge upon the Master or Mistress's believing Luke 19.9 And Jesus said unto him This day is Salvation come to this