Faithful under the Law so Baptism belongs to the Children of the Faithful under the Gospel or else the Priviledges under the Gospel would be less than those were under the Law. Answ There hath been enough said over and over by Mr. Tombs Mr. Danvers and many others to detect and utterly vanquish the weakness of this Argument As first it hath been proved that the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham and his Seed doth not intend his Carnal Seed according to the Flesh but his Spiritual Seed or such who had the Faith of Abraham And one would think the Apostle might be believed in his expounding that Text viz. To Abraham and to his Seed were the Promises made Gal. 3. 16. He saith not And to Seeds as of many but as of one And to they Seed which is Christ Compare this with v. 29. If ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to the Promise And again in Rom. 9. 7 8. he saith Neither because they are the Seed of Abraham are they all Children but in Isaac shall thy Seed be called That is they which are the Children of the Flesh these are not the Children of God but the Children of the Promise are counted for the Seed Could the Apostle in plainer words have detected the Error of these Men if he had met with them in his day 'T is true he did meet with some viz. the Jews or Abraham's natural Seed who were so blind as thus to argue from the Covenant made with Abraham and concluded they were the true Seed and Children of God because they were the Off-spring of Abraham according to the Flesh But as John Baptist first endeavoured to undeceive them when he saw the Scribes and Pharisees coming to his Baptism by saying Think not to say with in your selves ye have Abraham to your Father c. So in the next place our Blessed Saviour himself in John. 8. likewise shewed them their great Error and Mistake herein and that they might be the Children of the Devil notwithstanding they were the Seed of Abraham according to the Flesh and thought themselves safe as being in that Covenant made with him The Covenant of Grace there made with Abraham and his Seed extends to none but the Holy and Elect Seed to none but the Spiritual Seed to such who are Christ's or true Believers in Christ only Now if the Covenant of Grace comprehends none of Abraham's carnal or fleshly Seed but the spiritual Seed only to what purpose is there so many Sheers of Paper printed by Mr. Baxter Mr. Sidenham c. to prove the carnal Seed of Believers to have right to the Seal of the Covenant Their Business is to prove all Believers Children to be in the Covenant in the first place or all they say is nothing But Secondly if they could prove all the Children of Believers to be in that Covenant made with Abraham yet it doth not from thence follow neither that therefore their Children may be baptized unless they can shew the Lord Jesus hath injoined them so to be because Baptism wholly depends upon the Authority of Christ's Institution or positive Prescription 'T is not enough for any to say if Children are in Covenant they may be baptized Who tells them so Hath Christ any where required it doth he say they ought or that it belongs to them Had it been Abraham's Duty to circumcise his Children because they were in Covenant with him before God gave him a positive Law so to do certainly had he done it without any Command of God and have called it God's Ordinance he had ceas'd being called any more Faithful Abraham Come Sirs your Consequences and Conclusions you have so long made a noise of will make no Gospel-Precept nor hold equal weight with the Ballance of the Sanctuary For thirdly pray consider Were there not divers in the Covenant of Grace i. e. in that Spiritual or Gospel-Covenant God made with Abraham in that very day and time that the Law of Circumcision was given forth and yet they were not from that Ground to be circumcised nor were they at all circumcised because God did not command them so to be Was not Lot a Godly Man and in the same Covenant of Grace together with Melchisedec and others I might mention These were in Covenant and yet without the Seal as you call it we do not read they were circumcised And do you not think that many of the Females of Abraham's off-spring were in that Covenant of Grace yet they had no right to Circumcision the Seal as you called it of the Covenant because none but Males were required or commanded to be circumcised Suppose Abraham should have gone without a Command or Word from God and have Circumcised his Females and have reasoned after the rate you do viz. My Female children are in Covenant and since the Covenant belongs to them the Seal of the Covenant belongs to them which is Circumcision therefore I will circumcise them also would God have allowed him to do any such Act think you You will reply I am sure that God would never have born with Abraham in doing any such thing because he must have done it without a Command And pray how can you think he will bear with you in Baptizing Children of Believers sith you have no more Command from God so to do than Abraham had to Circumcise his Female Children You reply They are in Covenant and therefore to them belongs the Seal of the Covenant even so say we his Females might be in the same Covenant and yet you would have condemned such an Act in him though grounded upon the very same foot of an Account which you stand upon your own Justification in and acknowledg no Fault but contrarywise blame nay reproach us for holding an Error because we cannot do and practice as you do in this case without any Authority from God's Word 4ly To prove further that the Right of Circumcision wholly depended upon the absolute Will Pleasure and Soveraignty of God as Baptism now doth and that his Will and not ours nor any Consequence that may be drawn from being in the Covenant can give a Person a right thereto without his Command or allowance 't is to be considered that there were those commanded to be Circumcised who were not as there is probable ground to believe in that holy and blessed Covenant of Grace God said his Covenant should not be established with Ishmael but with Isaac yet he was Circumcised Gen. 17. 20 21 25. Gal. 4. 29 30. The same might be said of Esau and thousands more of Abraham's Carnal Seed It was it appears from hence God's Soveraign Will and Pleasure that gave right to Circumcision and not being in the Covenant Quest But was not Circumcision a Seal of the Covenant of Grace under that Dispensation as Baptism is now a Seal of the same Covenant under this Dispensation Answ No for Circumcision was only a Seal to Abraham's
we doubt not but it is so in some good sense between the Almighty and a Believer who is the only Subject i. e. there is indeed a mutual Stipulation on both Parties in that Solemnity but an Infant can do nothing herein Baptism saith Bullinger is an Agreement or Covenant of Grace which Christ enters into with us when we are baptized c. Fourthly Baptism is called the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of Sins one end of this Ordinance therefore is this viz. To testify the Truth of our Repentance and to engage us thereby to bring forth Fruits meet for amendment of Life As their Sins are not forgiven them saith Mr. Baxter till they are converted so they must not be baptized for the Forgiveness of Sins till they profess themselves converted seeing to the Church non esse non apparere is all one Repentance towards God and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ is the sum of that preaching that makes Disciples Acts 20 21. Therefore both these must by Profession seem to be received before any at Age are Baptized And that no other say I besides them at Age ought to be baptized by this very Argument is very clear and evident Bullinger as he is quoted by Mr. Baxter I find speaketh thus viz. To be baptized in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ saith he is by a Sign of Baptism to testify that we do believe in Christ for the Remission of Sins First mark it is not only an Ingagement to believe hereafter but the Profession saith he of a present Faith. Secondly And that not a common Faith but that which hath Remission of Sin. Farewel to Infant Baptism a present Faith is required of such that are to be baptized nay and more a present profession of it too Infants have neither Faith nor can they profess it Ergo they are not to be baptized Fifthly Another End of Baptism is as one well observes to evidence present Regeneration whereof saith he it is a lively Sign or Symbol Hence 't is called the Washing of Regeneration what signifies the Sign where the Thing signified is wanting Baptism is frequently called the Laveâ— of Regeneration it being a Sign or Figure of it to the Person Baptized Christ hath instituted no Baptism saith Mr. Baxter but what is to be a Sign of present Regeneration but to Men that profess not a Justifying Faith it cannot be administred as a Sign of Regeneration Therefore he hath instituted no Baptism to be administred to such Does not this Argument make void the Baptism of Infants as well as Adult Unbelievers by the Ancients Let Mr. Baxter take it again but with a very little alteration Christ hath instituted no Baptism but what is to be a Sign of present Regeneration but to little Babes that profess not a justifying Faith it cannot be administred as a Sign of present Regeneration therefore he hath instituted no Baptism to be administred to Infants The stress of the Argument lies in the Institution of Christ in that no Baptism is instituted and commanded by Christ but what is a Sign of present Regeneration not Future therefore Infant-Baptism can be no Baptism of Christ Sixthly Baptism is called An Answer of a good Conscience by the Resurrection of Christ from the Dead or the Covenant of a good Conscience by the Resurrection of Christ as saith Sir Norton Knatchbul in his Learned Notes printed at Oxford 1677. in the belief of which Resurrection we are saved saith he as they were saved by the Ark. But now Infants cannot Covenant thus nor Witness thus in Baptism by a Belief of the Resurrection which saith the said famous Learned Man Baptism is an emphatical Figure or a particular Signal of to the Person baptized See what our Late Annotators speak upon the place In Baptism say they there is a solemn Covenant or mutual Agreement between God and the Party baptized wherein God offers applies and seals his Grace stipulating or requiring the Parties acceptance of that Grace and devoting himself to his Service and when he out of a good Conscience doth ingage and promise this which is to come up to the terms of the Covenant that my be properly called the Answer of a good Conscience it seems say they to be an allusion to the manner of Baptizing where the Minister ask'd the Party to be Baptized concerning his Faith in Christ and he accordingly answered him Dost thou believe I believe c. Acts 8. 37. Now are Children capable to do any of this Can they covenant with God Can they answer a good Conscience by believing the Resurrection of Christ or can Baptism appear to be a Symbol of it to them No nor indeed can Rantism be so to any other I mean to the Adult Seventhly Baptism hath another End and Use assigned to it viz. That the Party baptized may have an orderly entrance into the Visible Church and so have a right to partake of all other Ordinances and Priviledges thereof as breaking of Bread c. This hereafter I shall make fully appear nor is it any other thing than is generally owned by Christians and eminent Men but Infants cannot be admitted to those Priviledges viz. to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper c. and therefore ought not to be baptized for he that has right to one cannot be denied the other by any Ground or Authority from God's Word CHAP. IX Containing several other Arguments proving why not Infants but Believers only are the true Subjects of Baptism IF there is no word of Institution or any thing in the Commission of Christ for Baptizing Infants but of Believers only then not Infants but Believers only ought to be Baptized But there is no word of Institution or any thing in the Commission of Christ for baptizing Infants but of Believers only Ergo not Infants but Believers only are the Subjects of Baptism The Major Proposition is undeniable for if Infants may be baptized in the Name c. without any Authority from Christ or word of Institution or the least intimation of it in the great Commission what Innovation can we keep out of the Church This is enough to cause any Protestant to renounce his Religion and cleave to the Romish Communion who asserts the Church's Power is such that without a word of Institution she may do the Lord knows what Nor do they as far as I can find assert Infant-Baptism from the Authority of the Scripture but from the Power Christ has left in the Church in which they seem more honest than some Protestants that pretend to maintain this Rite by plain Scripture-proof without the least shadow or intimation of any such thing to the palpable Reproach of the Christian Religion As to the Minor 't is evident and owned by the Learned that those who are enjoined to be baptized in the Commission Matth. 28. are first to be taught or made Disciples But Infants cannot be made Disciples
Faith or a Confirmation of that Faith he had long before he was Circumcised but so it could not be said to be to any Infant that had no Faith. It was indeed a Sign put into the Flesh of Infants but a Sign and Seal too only to Abraham witnessing to him that he had a Justifying Faith but to the Truth of the Promises there was 'tis evident a two-fold Covenant made with Abraham 1. That he should be the Father of many Nations and that the Land in which he was a Stranger should be given to his Seed these Promises seem to relate to his Carnal Seed 2. That he should be the Father of the Faithful Rom. 4. 11. Heir of the World Rom. 4. 13. and that in him and in his Seed all the Families of the Earth should be blessed that is Jesus Christ Gal. 3. 16. Now none could receive Circumcision as such a Seal to them but Abraham because none before circumcised had such a Faith which intitled them to such singular Promises The Apostle in the fourth of the Roâ—ans shews that Abraham was not justified by Works nor by Circumcision but by Faith which he had long before he was circumcised and so but a Seal or Confirmation of that Faith he had before and to assure him of the Truth of the Promises made to him and to his Carnal and Spiritual Seed You ought not therefore to call Circumcision a Seal to any but to Abraham neither ought you to call it a Seal of any other thing to him than what the Scripture calls it a Seal of viz. And he received Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had being yet uncircumcised Rom. 4. 11. And that you may see we are not alone in this matter see what Chrysostom and Theophilact as I find them quoted by Mr. Danvers It was called a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith because it was given to Abraham as a Seal and Testimony of that Righteousness which he had acquired by Faith. Now this seems to be the Priviledg of Abraham's alone and not to be tranferred to others as if Circumcision in whom ever it was were a Testimony of Divine Righteousness for it was the Priviledg of Abraham that he should be the Father of all the Faithful as well uncircumcised as circumcised being already the Father having Faith in Uncircumcision he received first the sign of Circumcision that he might be the Father of the Circumcised Now because he had this Priviledg in respect of the Righteousness which he had acquired by Faith therefore the sign of Circumcision was to him a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith but to the rest of the Jews it was a sign that they were Abraham's Seed but not a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith as all the Jews also were not the Fathers of many Nations Moreover it is evident a Seal is a Confirmation of that which a Person hath made over to him and it doth insure him of it Now to call Circumcision a Seal of the Covenant of Grace 't is all one as to say all that were circumcised were assured of all the Blessings of that Covenant then must all that were circumcised be pardon'd and saved and so also would it follow in the case of Baptism were that acknowledged to be a Seal to all those that are baptized of the new Covenant But in a word we know nothing called a Seal of the New Covenant but the holy Spirit which the Saints were said to be sealed with after they believed Ephes 1. 13. 4. 30. unto the day of Redemption God by setting his Seal upon us assures us that we are his and that we shall have Eternal Life Baptism is called a Figure but no where a Seal and a Sign or Figure proper only to such who have Understanding to discern the Spiritual things and Mysteries that are represented thereby and wrought in them Object Say what what you will the Promise and Covenant of Grace was to Abraham and his natural Off-spring Answ Why do you not believe the Apostle who tells you the quite contrary and that he said not of Seeds as of many but to thy Seed which is Christ But it you will have it as you say see what absurd Consequences will follow and arise from your Notion And first take what Calvin saith 'T is manifest saith he that the Promise understood of Spiritual Blessings pertaineth not to the Carnal Seed of Abraham but to the Spiritual as the Apostle himself saith Rom. 4. 8 9. for if you understand the Carnal Seed saith he then that Promise will belong to none of the Gentiles but to those alone who are begotten of Abraham and Isaac according to the Flesh by this it appears you go about to shut out your selves and Children too from having any part in that Covenant made with Abraham Secondly If God made the Covenant of Grace with Abraham and his Carnal or Fleshly Off-spring and so with all Believers and their Children then all their Off-spring must have saving Grace bestowed upon them and a new Heart because these things are some of the chief Blessings contained in the new Covenant Now do you see that all the Children of Believers have the Grace of God bestowed upon them so that they are new Creatures certainly no for as Abraham had his Ishmael and Isaac his Esaâ— and David his Absolom so have most or many Believers wicked and ungodly Children and so they live and die to the great Grief of their Souls You can't think that God fails in his Promise and that the Covenant of Grace is not so firm and sure as the Scripture declares it to be one of them will follow or you must conclude your selves mistaken in your Notion But certainly they cannot miss of Grace if Mr. Blake is right for saith he Christianity is hereditary that as the Children of a Noble-Man are Noble the Child of a Free-Man free of a Turk a Turk and of a Jew a Jew so the Child of a Christian is a Christian We will grant him they are so called but withal must tell him the Children of Christian People are by Nature the Children of Wrath as well as others Fourthly This would render Grace to be a Birth-Priviledg as Mr. Danvers observes and Regeneration tied to Generation contrary to the Scripture and all good Doctrine as if a Believer doth not only beget a Child in natural Generation but a Saint also Fifthly Then the Apostle spake not true in saving the Children of the Flesh these are not the Children of God i. e. of the Promise Rom. 9. Sixthly And it also would follow that all the whole Off-spring of Believers shall be saved without you will assert the Doctrine of James Arminius that there is a falling away from Grace Seventhly And would it not follow also that all the Children of Believers know God and need not be taught saying Know the Lord for you know who saith
they shall all know me from the least of them to the greatest of them that is all those who are in the New Covenant which you say all Believers Children are even in the same Covenant of Grace made with Abraham Eighthly And then it follows also that the Covenant of Grace and Spiritual Blessings made with Abraham is tied up to Believers and their Seed only and if so what will become of all poor Unbelievers and their perishing Off-spring Object But does not Baptism come in the room of Circumcision the one being a Figure of the other Answ There is no ground so to believe since the Scripture gives not the least hint of any such thing 1. For first if it had then when Baptism came in and was in force Circumcision must have ceased immediately but after Baptism was commanded and administred we find Circumcision in being and was not disannull'd till the Death and Resurrection of our Saviour Now it would have vanquish'd as Shadows do as soon as Baptism the Antitype came in force had it been a Type or Figure of Baptism or come in the room of it 2. If Baptism had come in the room of Circumcision then the Church of God under the Gospel would have been just like the National Church of the Jews viz. made up of the Fleshly Seed but the Apostle shews thè contrary it consists of lively Stones that is a spiritual and not a carnal Seed 3. Then Males only and no Females would have been baptized because none but Male Children were to be circumcised as God commanded 4. Circumcision was administred on Abraham's natural Seed without any Profession of Faith but none are to be admitted to Baptism but by a Profession of Faith Repentance and Regeneration The first Birth or being born in a fleshly way by Carnal Generation gave Abraham's natural Seed a Right to Circumcision whereas the Spiritual Birth or Regeneration gives a Right only to Baptism according to Christ's Commission as we have proved 5. 'T is evident Circumcision figured forth another thing viz. the Destruction of the Body of Sin by Jesus Christ and the Circumcision of the Heart and therefore not Baptism c. Very full and most excellently you have to this Point Dr. Taylor who saith That the Argument from Circumcision is invalid upon infinite Considerations Figures and Types prove nothing unless a Command go along with them or some Express to signify such to be their purpose for the Deluge of Waters and the Ark of Noah were a Figure of Baptism said Peter and if therefore the Circumstances of the one should be drawn to the other we should make Baptism a Prodigy rather than a Rite The Paschal Lamb was a Type of the Eucharist which succeeds the other as Baptism doth to Circumcision but because there was in the Manducation of the Paschal Lamb no Prescription of Sacramental Drink shall we thence conclude that the Eucharist is to be administred but in one kind And even in the very instance of this Argument supposing a Correspondency of the Analogy between Circumcision and Baptism yet there is no Correspondency of Identity for although it were granted that both of them did consign the Covenant of Faith yet there is nothing in the Circumstance of Childrens being circumcised that so concerns that Mystery but that it might very well be given to Children and yet Baptism only to Men of Reason because Circumcision lest a Character in the Flesh which being imprinted upon Infants did its work to them when they came to Age and such a Character was necessary because there was no word added to the Sign but Baptism imprints nothing that remains on the Body and if it leaves a Character at all it is upon the Soul to which also the Word is added which is as much a part of the Sacrament as the Sign it self for both which Reasons it is requisite that the Parties baptized should be capable of Reason that they may be capable both of the word of the Sacrament and the impress made upon the Spirit since therefore the Reason of this Parity does wholly fail there is nothing left to infer a necessity of complying in this Circumstance of Age any more than in the other Annxes of the Type then the Infant must also precisely be baptized upon the eighth day and Females must not be baptized because not circumcised but it were more proper if we would understand it right to prosecute the Analogy form the Type to the Antitype by way of Letter and Spirit and Signification And as Circumcision figures Baptism so also the Adjuncts of the Circumcision shall signifie something spiritual in the Adherences of Baptism and therefore as Infants were circumcised so spiritual Infants shall be baptized which is spiritual Circumcision for therefore Babes had the Ministry of the Type to signify that we must when we give our Names to Christ become Children in Malice and then the Type is made compleat c. Thus far the Doctor Quest But why may â—ot Infants be baptized now as well as Children were circumcised heretofore Answ You may as well ask why Nadab and Abihu might not have offered strange Fire or why might not the Priest carry the Ark in a Cart. The Reason why they ought to do neither of those things were because God commanded them not so to do In like manner say we Children must not be baptized because God hath given no Command to do it Circumcision was expresly commanded both as to the Subject Time Age and Sex which was as you have heard the Male Children at eight days old with a severe Penalty of the Parents Disobedience But there is not one hint or the least colour of ground for the baptizing of Infants in all the New Testament as hath been proved and yet the Gospel is as one observes as express in the matter of Baptism as first touching the Subject Men and Woman Secondly As to the Time viz. when they believe Thirdly As to the Qualifications of Baptism i. e. Faith and Repentance Fourthly As to the end and use of it to signifie the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ with our Death unto Sin and rising again to newness of Life Can any think the Servant should be so careful to give Directions from God in every case about the circumcising of Children under the Law and the Son of God not to be as express in all parts of instituted Worship and our Duties under the Gospel This can't be thought see what the Apostle saith which we before hinted Heb. 3. 5 6. Quest But Children were Members of the Jewish Church as well as Adult Persons sith Mr. Smythies and so say other Pedo-Bapâ—isto as 〈◊〉 Baâ—ter and many more and since they were comprehended with their Parents in that Church-state 〈◊〉 are so still under the Gospel and therefore to 〈…〉 Answ That Children were then admitted Members of the Jewish Church is granted and 't is as evident that God hath
now quite pulled down that House of his I mean that National Church-state and broke up House-keeping and turned the Bond-Woman and her Son i. e. the Fleshly Seed Servants and Infants all out of doors the natural Branches are broken off and God hath now built him a new a glorious and more spiritual House into which he admitteth none as his Houshold-Servants to dwell in his Spiritual Family but Believers only or such as profess so to be Ye also saith Peter as lively Stones are built up a Spiritual House c. and that the old House the Jewish Church-state with all the Appurtenances Rites and Priviledges of it is pulled down and a new one built into which Infants are not to be admitted is very evident from what the Apostle speaks Heb. 7. 12. For the Priesthood being changed there is made of necessary a Change also of the whole Law which must needs include Circumcision with all the Appurtenances and Priviledges belonging to it And therefore as Infants Church-membership came in with the Law of Circumcision so it went out and was disanull'd with it they were 't is true of the Houshold of old but it was by a positive Law Shew us the like now and you do your business or else you say nothing For evident it is that what Priviledges soever are given to any Persons by an Act of Parliament which said Law was to continue in force for so long a time and no longer when that time is expired and another Parliament makes a new Law wherein many things are contained that were in the first but those certain Priviledges given to those Persons in the former Law are left out in this latter Act it would 〈◊〉 be a solly for any of them to 〈◊〉 those Priviledges by virtue of a Law that is gone and now not in force Or if a Man should have a Legacy bequeathed to him by the Will and Testament of his Friend and yet afterwards his Friend sees cause to make another Will which is his last Will and Testament and in the last Will leaves him quite out and gives him no such Legacy it would be a foolish thing for him to sue for the Legacy left him in the first Will which is void in Law by his Friends last Will and Testament Just so it is here there was an old Law wherein Infants were admitted to the Priviledges of being Members of the National Church of the Jews and so also it was in the old or former Will and Testament but that Law was to continue but till Christ came and now he has made a new Law wherein Infant-Church-membership is quite left out and the Lord Jesus has made another Will his last Will and Testament wherein the old Priviledg is not be queathed to Infants Now is it not folly in you to plead for that old Priviledg that was in the former Testament you must find your Infant-Church-membership in the New Testament as must also the Seventh-day-Sabbath-Men the old Jewish Sabbath or else they and you too say nothing but render your selves weak and strangely be-clouded and certain I am there is now no Institution no Law no Prescription no Rule no Example for keeping the Seventh-day-Sabbath in the new Law in the new and last Will and Testament of Jesus Christ nor no Institution no Law no Precept no Example contained therein for Infant-Church-membership no not the least hint or intimation that Infants should be fellow-Citizins with the Saints and of the Houshold of God neither are they so to be accounted till they believe and are to do Service in the House for though we account our Children of our Family notwithstanding they can't do any Service therein yet that is no Argument they may be Members of God's Church unless by any Law or Institution God has made them so to be The Houshold of God is called the Houshold of Faith or a Family that consisteth of Believers therefore unless you can prove Infants to be Believers they are not of this House for all that are to have admission there must be Believers or profess themselves so to be as Mr. Baxter acknowledges or else no place for them there which Infants cannot do Object But it is still objected that as the Jews and their Children were broken off so the Gentiles and their Children are ingrafted in their room as Rom. 11. 20. because of Vnbelief they were broken off and thou standest by Faith c. Answ We answer that the Reason why the Jews and their Children were broken off was not because they had not believing Parents for Abraham Isaac and Jacob were still the Parents of them all they were Abraham's Seed according to the Flesh when they were broken off as well as before but the true reason was because the terms of standing in the Church were now altered For before the Gospel-Dispensation came they stood Members of the old Jewish Church though as much unbelieving for many Generations as they were when they were broken off but now Abraham's Church-state is at an end and all the Priviledges and Immunities cease the Jewish Church must give way to the Gospel-Church the Messiah being come and about to build him up a new and more glorious and spiritual House into which none are of right to enter but such as are profest Believers for the old House or Jewish Church-state was not intended to abide for ever but only until the time of Reformation and then the Law must be changed yea the Covenant changed which they not believing nor closing in with were broken off they being willing to abide in the old House still and to remain Church-Members upon the account of a meer fleshly and natural Birth crying out Abraham is our Father and we are his Seed and are free and never were in Bondage wherefore they were broken off and that whether they would or not by reason of their Unbelief that is because they would not believe Christ was the true Messiah and that the old Covenant and all the Priviledges thereof were flying away the Substance and true Antitype of all those Shadows being come viz. the Lord Jesus Christ So that thus they were broken off by Unbelief and thou and thine O Gentile Believer stand by Faith mark it thou standest by Faith not by virtue of any Birth-Priviledg whatsoever but by Faith thy standing is by Faith yet not thy Seed by thy Faith but thou thy self by thine and they by their own Faith is that by which thou standing and not thy Seed hast right to stand in the Church and not they but if thy Seed have Faith and thou hast none they have right in the Church and thou shalt be excluded Most certain it is that under the Law the natural Seed or Progeny of Abraham were all holy with an External Ceremonial or Typical Holiness and consequently they were then all admitted to an external Participation of Church-Priviledges But remarkable to this purpose is that
have no other sence but this that the unbelieving Yoke-fellow is sanctified or made meet in respect of conjugal use to his or her Yoke-fellow And so though the one be an Unbeliever yet they might comfortably enough live together in lawful Wedlock See our late Annotators I rather think say they it signifies brought into a State that the Believer without Offence to the Law of God may continue in a married Estate with such a Yoke-fellow for else saith the Apostle your Children were unclean that is would be accounted illegitimate But now this being determined that the Husband is thus sanctified to the Wife and the Wife to the Husband though the one be an Unbeliever hence it follows that your Children are holy that is lawfully begotten which is the only sense opposite to the Determination ver 12 13. It was 't is plain about this matter those Saints at Corinth wrote to the Apostle and therefore according to the scope of the place it cannot intend any thing else And as for the use of the word Holy for Legitimate that it is in this sense used else-where in the Scripture is evident from Mal. 2. 15. where a Seed of God or a Godly Seed can be understood in no other sense than that of a lawful Seed in opposition to those born by Polygamy Neither ought any Man to infer Federal Holiness to be intended here unless he can prove from some other Text in the New Testament any such Holiness to be in Children i. e. because Parents are Believers and in the Covenant of Grace their natural Seed must therefore be so esteemed and have the like Right to Gospel-Baptism as the Children under the Law had to Circumcision which is no where to be found in all the New-Testament but the quite contrary as has been proved and therefore this Interpretation ought not to be admitted but utterly to be rejected in regard of what the Apostle Peter asseres How false and ridiculous therefore is that which Mr. Smythies hath lately affirmed Whensoever saith he God enters into Covenant with the Parent he enters into Covenant with the Children of that Parent that is the Children were included in the Covenant and the Blessings of that Covenant belonged to the Children as well as to the Parent They that will build their Faith upon such kind of Men deserve to be deceived who speak what they please and prove nothing as if this was so because Mr. Smythies says it I must charge it upon him as false Doctrine 1. As being quite contrary to the Nature of the Gospel-Dispensation and Constitution of the New Testament-Church wherein the Fleshly Seed are rejected and cast out in respect of Church-Priviledges and Ordinances 2. What is this but to intail Grace to Nature and Regeneration to Generation in opposition to what our Saviour saith John 3. 3. and Paul Ephes 2. 1 2. 3. It also contradicts all Mens Experience How palpable is it that Godly Men have wicked Children now adays as well as in former times What wicked Children and yet in the Covenant of Grace Or were they in it and are they now fallen out of it What a Covenant then do you make that sure and everlasting Covenant of Grace to be Besides we have many learned Men and Commentators of our Mind upon this Text as Mr. Danvers observes and â—uotes them Austin saith it is to hold without doubting whatsoever that Sanctification was it was not of Power to make Christians and remit Sins Ambrose upon this place saith the Children are holy because they are born of lawful Marriage Melancthon in his Commentary upon this same Text saith thus Therefore Paul answers that their Marriages are not to be pulled asunder for their unlike Opinions of God if the impious Person do not cast away the other and for comfort he adds as a Reason The unbelieving Husband is sanctified by the believing Wife Meat is sanctified for that which is holy in use that is it is granted to Believers from God so here he speaks of the use of Marriage to be holy and to be granted of God. Things prohibited under the Law as Swines Flesh and a Woman in her Pollution were called unclean The Connexion of this if the use of Marriage should not please God your Children would be Bastards and so unclean But your Children are not Bastards therefore the use of the Marriage pleaseth God And how Bastards were unclean in a peculiar manner the Law shews Deut. 23. Camtrarius in his Commentary upon this place also saith for the unbelieving Husband hath been sanctified an unusual change of the Tense that is sanctified in the lawful use of Marriage for without this saith he it would be that their Children should be unclean that is infamous and not legitimate who so are holy that is during the Marriage are without all blot of Ignominy Erasmus saith likewise Infants born of such Parents as one being a Christian the other not are holy legitimately for the Conversion of either Wife or Husband doth not dissolve the Marriage which was made when both were Unbelievers What Reason now had Dr. Featly and others to contemn this Exposition of the Text considering what we and so many Learned Men have declared as touching this matter for a more fuller Answer read Mr. Danvers p. 166 167 168 169. But after all should it be allowed that the Holiness in this Text is indeed to be taken for a Faederal or Covenant-Holiness yet we cannot therefore grant that this is a sufficient Proof for Infant-Baptism for let the Holiness be what it will whether Moral Faederal or Matrimonial neither of these is any where assigned to be a ground of baptizing Infants the Institution Commission and Practice of the Apostolical Church being that alone that can warrant the same 'T is God's Word only not Mens Reason conceited Grounds and Inferences that can justify a Practice or make a Gospel-Ordinance if all therefore was granted which you affirm of the Covenant made with Abraham of Circumcision and Faederal-Holiness yet Infant-Baptism is gone unless you can prove God hath from this ground commanded you to baptize your Children or that they were for this Reason admitted to Baptism in the Apostles Time for all your Arguments from thence prove as strongly that your Infants may partake of the Lord's-Supper c. But that any thing less than a Profession of Faith and Repentance is or can be a sufficient ground for baptizing any Person young or old we do deny sith the New Testament is the only Rule or perfect Copy by the Authority of which we ought to act and perform all Duties of instituted Worship and administer Sacraments c. which are mâ—re positive Precepts and depend only upon the Will and Pleasure of the Law-maker So much to this pretended Proof of Infant-Baptism A sixth Proof of Infant-Baptism is grounded upon Mark 16. 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be
saved but he that believeth not shall be damned Now they affirm that Infants are Believers and therefore are to be baptized Mr. Smythies says Infants are Believers in a sense or else they could not be saved nor have right to the Promises of Christ in the Gospel and if they are in any sense such Believers as are intitled to Salvation they are such Believers as have a right to Baptism if the Estate belongs to a Child in the Cradle the Indentures and Seals of that Estate belong to him likewise the Child of a Believer may as well be called a Believer as the Child of a Proselyte was called a proselyte if God gives Children but the denomination of Believers it is sufficient to entitle them to Baptism Thus Mr. Smythies But how does it appear that Infants are Believers in any sense is there any Argument or Scripture brought by this Man to prove them so to be if he can prove they have Faith and do believe in Christ he will do more than all the Men that ever lived on Earth could do I mean Children as such in common and in an ordinary way to be Believers True nothing is too hard for God to do he that can make an Ass to speak can as well cause a Babe to believe But how does it appear God has given them either the Habit of Faith or the Act of Faith or Faith in any sense to render them to be Believers But 't is intimated they are Believers by their Parents Faith why may not their Parents Baptism serve as well as their Parents Faith and they receive the Lord's Supper for them in their Names also and that be imputed to the Children by virtue of their Parents Faith And what though the Estate belongs to the Child in the Cradle together with the Indenture and Seals of that Estate Is it required the Child in the Cradle should therefore set his Seal to the Indenture is that requisite or would it make the Estate the more firm or sure to him But when you can prove Grace and Salvation to be Hereditary and that the Father's being a Believer and a godly Person all his Children must needs be such too you do your business Secondly But why do you say Children must be Believers or else they can't be saved who told you so Because Faith in Adult Persons is required as necessary in them if they are saved Can't God save poor Infants without they also do believe has God told you he cannot or will not save them except they believe I must confess I wonder at your Ignorance and daring Boldness God as Dr. Taylor observes may have many ways to magnify his Grace through Jesus Christ to them which we know not of and what have you to do with the Secrets of God who made you one of his Privy-Council you may as well say unless they repent they cannot be saved from Christ's words Luk 13. 3 5. and that they must be obedient and take up the Cross for these things are required of Adult Persons that would be saved as well as believing Thirdly Prove that God has given Children the Denomination of Believers or if it was granted he hath would it therefore â—ollow they may be baptized certainly no for we read of many who were said to believe they had some kind of Faith and so in some sense had the denomination of 〈◊〉 and yet had no right to Baptism for such ought to have 〈◊〉 Faith or to believe with all their Hearts 〈◊〉 Philip said to the Eunuch Act. 8. who are fit Subjects of that Ordinance or have a sufficient Title to it and would not that believing in any sense you speak of that entitles them to Salvation give them as good a right to the Lord's-Supper as to Baptism Come Sir you can't infer a right to an Ordinance from what grounds you please Baptism depends wholly I say again upon the Authority of a positive Law and express words of Institution and none but such who are made Disciples by preaching or who do actually believe ought from thence to be baptized I wonder what Faith 't is you suppose to be in Infants is it the Faith of the Church as Tho. Aquinas asserts which is intailed upon all within the pale thereof Or is it an Imputitive Faith from the Parents in Covenant as Musculus and others maintain Or is it the Faith of the Gossip or Surety as many of your Church say i. e. others believe for them Have they a justifying Faith as Mr. Baxter intimates or a dogmatical Faith only as in Mr. Blake's Sense Some as Mr. Danvers observes say 't is a Physical some a Metaphysical and some a Hyperphysical Faith. Some say they are born Believers others say they are made Believers by Baptism Now when you tell us what Faith they have we shall the better understand you and give you an Answer A Personal and actual Faith saith Dr. Taylor they have not for they have no Acts of Understanding besides how can any Man know they have Faith since he never saw any sign 〈◊〉 neither was he told so by any that could tell Secondly saith he Some say they have Imputative Faith But then so let the Sacraments be too that is if they have the Parents Faith or the Churches then so let Baptism be imputed also by derivation from them And as in their Mothers Womb and while they hang upon their Mothers Breasts they live upon their Mothers Nourishment so they may upon the Baptism of their Parents or their Mother the Church for since Faith is necessary to the susception of Baptism and they themselves confess it by striving to find out new kinds of Faith to daub the matter such as the Faith such must be the Sacrament for there is no proportion between an actual Sacrament and an Imputative Faith this being in immediate and necessary order to that This saith the Bishop We know there are some argue stifly for Infants having habitual Faith but as the said Doctor saith Are there any Acts precedent concomitant or consequent to this pretended Habit this strange Invention saith he is absolutely without Art without Scripture Reason or Authority But the Men are to be excused unless they had any better Arguments to defend their Practice they are forc'd to confess the Truth in the main viz. That Faith is required of Persons to be baptized and therefore they do what they can to prove Infants do believe But I will conclude this with what the said Doctor further saith And if any Man runs for Succour to that exploded Cresphugeton that Infants have Faith or any other inspired Habit of I know not what or how we desire no more advantage than that they are constrained to answer without Revelation against Reason common Sense and all the Experience in the World. CHAP. XII Containing an Answer to several other Arguments brought for Infant-Baptism Object 1. THough there is