Opinion in opposition to an innumerable company of our judgment and that not without sufficient ground if the forementioned reasons be well weighed The other is Dr. Taylor who speaks not his own sence upon the Text but personates as he tells us an Anabaptist we may see his own proper judgment in his last piece viz. The consideration of the practice of the Church in baptizing Infants of believing Parents pag. 48.49 It is saith he in our case as it was with the Jews children our children are a holy Seed for if it were not so with Christianity how could S. Peter move the Jews to Christianity by telling them the promise was to them and their children For if our children be not capable of the Spirit of promise and holiness and yet their children were holy it had been a better Argument to have kept them in the Synagogue than to have called them to the Christian Church And indeed if the Christian Jews whose children are circumcised and made partakers of the same promises title and inheritance and Sacrament which themselves had at their first conversion to the faith of Christ had seen their children shut out from the new Sacrament of Baptism it is not to be doubted but they would have raised a storm greater than could easily be suppressed since about their circumcision they had raised such tragedies and implacable disputations and there had been great reason to look for a storm for their children were circumcised and if not baptized then they were left under a burthen which their fathers were quit of for S. Paul said unto you whosoever is circumcised is a debtor to keep the whole Law these children therefore that were circumcised stood obliged for want of Baptism to perform the Laws of ceremonies to be presented to the Temple to pay their price to be redeemed with silver and gold to be bound by the Law of pollutions and carnal ordinances ad therefore if they had been thus left it would be no wonder if the Jews had complained and made a tumult they used to do it for less matters and this may serve to ballance what the Author quotes form the Doctors lib. of Proph. p. 233. Except 4. Because saith he Circumcision was only a Seal to Abraham not to believers and their Seed a Seal of the Faith that Abraham had long before he was circumcised but so could it not be said of any Infant that had no faith Repl. In this the Author doth quadrare with the Papists So say the Jesuites and so say the Antipaedobaptists Bellarmin and after him others object that Circumcision in Rom. 4. Bellarmin lib. 1. de Sacramentis is not said to be a Seal vniversally to any faith but only a Seal of the individual faith of Abraham which is clear saith he in that it is expresly said it was a Seal of the righteousness of the faith that he had being yet nncircumcised that he might be the father of all that believe but only Abraham could be such a father c. your collection saith he is naught when you say Circumcision was a Seal of Abrahams faith that therefore it is so to others for you conclude a general from a particular So he and his followers limits the use of Circumcision as a Seal of the righteousness of faith to Abraham only Paraeus gives an acute reply to this Paraus ad locum Quod omni Speciei inest toti generi recte tribuitur sicut igitur valet Homo Equus quodvis animal sentit movetur sensus motus differentia Systatica generis recte dicitur Sic. valet circumcisio est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 addita foederi obsignationis causâ ergo Dr. Sclater on the fonrth of Romans thus That which belongs in common to all the Species may well enough be attributed to the general for that which all the Species have in common they have from their general But why saith Dr. Sclater should circumcision be a Seal to Abraham only and not to others as well as him was the Covenant made with him only or with his Seed also or was Circumcision a sign of the Covenant to Abraham only or else to his Seed also if the Covenant belong to all if Circumcision was to all a sign of their being in the Covenant why not to all also a Seal of righteousness Forsooth say the Papists one end of Abrahams Circumcision was peculiar to Abraham as that he should be the father of all Believers therefore this also of being a Seal of the righteousness of faith Answ And I wonder why we may not conclude by like reason that to Abraham only it was a Sin of the Covenant because this end they mention had place in Abraham only But let us more nearly view the reasons it was Abrahams privilege only to be the father of all Believers both circumcised and uncircumcised ergo his privilege only to have circumcision a Seal of righteousness how prove they that consequence Because Paul joins both together and therefore they are of like privilege Answ Why may we not say ut supra that the necessity of the sign of Circumcision was also Abrahams privilege because it also is joined to the rest But for fuller satisfaction view the scope of the Text which is this to shew that justification belongs to Believers of both people the proof is from a sign Abraham had righteousness in uncircumcision therefore righteousness belongs to the uncircumcised for this was that the Lord mystically intended to signifie in justifying of Abraham before Circumcision and in commending Circumcision to him justifyed but why doth he mention that end of Circumcision as sealing up the righteousness of faith Answ To obviate an objection which might be made in this manner if Abraham was justified before Circumcision what profit received he by that Sacrament Answ It sealed unto him the righteousness of faith and shall we say now it was Abrahams privilege to be confirmed in perswasion of righteousness belike then his posterity either needed not such confirmation and so Abrahams privilege shall be to be the only weakling in faith that needs means of confirmation or else his Seed shall lack that help that Abraham had for establishment though the Covenant was equally made to them Thus far Dr. Sclater and I repent not may pains he hath so cleared the point that I know not what either Papist or Antipaedobaptist can say against it I shall add that which every one will subscribe to that the children of Abraham stood in much more need of a Seal to confirm their faith then he himself with whom the Covenant was originally made and for that reason was called the father of the faithful as well as for the eminency of his faith It could not be saith the Author a Seal to an Infant that had no faith Repl. I perceive he hath read Bellarmin for he jumps in with him his words are these If it be a Seal of Faith in that Baptism comes
in the place of Circumcision it is in vain to baptize Infants and why because they have not Faith Farther saith he Isaac received not the sign of Circumcision as a Seal of the righteousness of the Faith which he had being yet uncircumcised seeing he was not in the faith till after Circumcision to which there needs no other answer than this viz. Isaac was confederate with his Father Abraham and upon that account to be circumcised which engaged to actual Faith and upon actual believing it sealed this righteousness of Faith to him It was a Sign put into his flesh only Repl. We must take heed of extremes The Papists hold that Sacraments do justify and confer grace modo non ponamus obicem peccati mortalis provided that we put no bar of mortal sin which because Infants cannot do they are all discharg'd by Baptism from the guilt of original sin Against this Mr. Calvin in his Institutions doth vehemently inveigh terming it Doctrina diabolica a devilish Doctrine because men hereby are taught to rest in a corporeal Element more than in God himself and with as much zeal doth he condemn the Doctrine of nuda Signa which makes the Sacraments to be only bare and naked Signs Caveamus saith he Calvin Instit de Sacram ne vim Sacramentorum enervemus usumque prorsùs evertamus We must take heed we do not lessen the virtue of the Sacraments and quite subvert their use So Chamier as Mr. Blake observes is no less zealous against the Papists and Anabaptists Chamier lib. 1. de Sacram in Gen cap. 10. Sect. 11. For he having mentioned the use of Sacraments as distinguishing Signs addeth Hic tamen nec solus est finis nec praecipuus Sacramentorum itaque Anabaptistas aeque cum Bellarmino improbamus quibus Sacramenta nihil sunt quam Signa instituta ad discernendum Christianos a Judaeis Paganis ut Romanis olim toga erat signum quo discernebantur a Graecis palliatis This is not the only or chief end of Sacraments therefore we oppose the Anabaptists as well as Bellarmin who esteem Sacraments nothing more than signs distinguishing Christians from Jews and Pagans as heretofore a Gown was a sign whereby the Romans were known from the Grecians so that upon consideration how apt men are to flye into extremes we may conclúde that in medio consistit veritas the truth lies betwixt both as in this so in very many other points As touching the business of Circumcision it it was a sign indeed or mark of distinction to distinguish the people of God from Aliens to separate betwixt Jews by nature and sinners of the Gentiles and it was also a Seal to ratifie and confirm what the Covenant did hold forth and promise For God having entered Covenant with Abraham and his Seed Gen. 17.10 This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy Seed after thee every man-child among you shall be circumcised And whereas the Author and Bellarmin before him saith it was a sign and a Seal to put into the flesh of the Infant only it was a sign and a Seal to Abraham Mr. Cobbet enervates this Argument in his Vindication p. 54. by shewing 1. That the initiatory Seal is not primarily and properly the Seal of a mans faith or obedience but of Gods Covenant rather The Seal is to the Covenant even Abrahams Circumcision was not primarily a Seal to Abrahams faith of righteousness but to the righteousness Faith exhibited and effected in the Covenant yea to the Covenant it self which he had believed unto righteousness hence the Covenant of Grace is called the righteousness of Faith Rom. 10.1 2. I farther answer that 't is granted Infants have not actually the use of Faith but to that end was Circumcision administred to the children of the Jews as Baptism is now to our Infants that when in time to come they should believe to righteousness as all the Elect who live to age do their Faith might receive confirmation by their Circumcision in Infancy and this was that which heightned David's confidence in his encounter with Goliah reflecting upon Gods Covenant of which the Circumcision which he received in his Infancy was a sign and a Seal He goes on Neither is Baptism more than Circumcision called a Seal it is sign proper only to men of understanding representing spiritual Mysteries Repl. And why not as proper to Infants as to men of understanding because they represent spiritual Mysteries and if this be all the reason he can give he might better have said nothing for what thinks he of Circumcision did not that represent and shadow out diverse spiritual Mysteries scilicet our corrruption by nature and the nature of mortification by cutting of the foreskin Was not the glorious mystery of our Redemption by the blood of Christ signified by the blood-shed in Circumcision and yet this Ordinance was applyed to poor ignorant Babes to use the Authors Dialect and how slightly so ever he speaks of an Ordinance of like resemblance for signification yet the wisdom of God thought fit to have those circumcised that were void of understand-standing I find the Author and his party too bold in censuring of things that do any way cross their idol-opinion and the wisdom of God himself shall suffer rather than they will recede from the errour they have suck'd in yea ' its observable that some of them are as pertinacious and inflexible in their principle of opposition to Infant-Baptism and lay out as much zeal in this matter as if their Salvation were concern'd in it And not as Circumcision which was a Sign not improper for Infants Mr. Tombes Examen page 84. line 12. because it left a signal impression in their flesh to be remembred all their days but so cannot Baptism be to any Infants and some carry it farther how shall Infants know they have been baptized Repl. It is true Circumcision left a signal mark upon the Jewish Infants but what of that had they any other way to know this mark was given them for any such religious end and purpose as a sign or seal of the Covenant betwixt God and them but by the testimony of others For instance suppose an Infant born blind as we read of such a one in the Gospel was circumcised who could never see that signal mark he must be beholding to others both to be taught the religous end of Circumcision as well as to have intimation of the character he received in Circumeision It is well known that the same Ceremony is used by other nations though not as a Sacrament as the Inhabitants of Colchis the Ethiopians the Egyptians The Israelites therefore when grown up had no other way to know that signal mark was given to a religious purpose which was the principal end that Ordinance pointed at than by the information of their Parents or other witnesses And the Jewish Doctors tell us there was one appointed for that
much advance it above Circumcision what is there in it of it self since they keep such ado about it more than in Circumcision It is altogether in it self as carnal as Circumcision and the people that submit to it as carnal as others and as carnal and perverse an use do some of them make of it as the Jews did of Circumcision Some I know are more wise and sober than the rest but too too many make an idol of their Baptism they make it a fire-brand of contention and the beginning and end of all Religion When as to speak plainly the Baptism of water of it self due reverence being still had to all Gods Ordinances in their places is as low and carnal a thing as poor a Ceremony as empty a sign and shadow as Circumeision Baptism and Circumcision as to the letter are just alike as to any intrinsecal worth the one relates to the letting out of a little blood the other to the washing of the filth of the flesh The cleansing of ones hands and feet from dirt is the same with it Mr. Sydenham 's sober Exercit. and as efficacious and acceptable as this of it self In a word there is a Circumcision in the flesh and a Circumcision in the heart the former carnal the later spiritual and so there is a Baptism of the flesh and a Baptism of the spirit The Apostle derides Circumcision in the flesh where that of the heart was wanting by giving it the contemptible name of Concision Blakes Covenant sealed And as Circumcision was Uncircumcision so Dipping is Non-Baptism where that of the spirit is wanting 4. Lastly he saith Circumcision was to be a Bond to keep the whole Law Repl. The place is Rom. 2.25 Circumcision verily profiteth if thou keep the whole Law The Apostle intends both ceremonial and moral Law as else where he speaks He that is circumcised is a Debtor to the whole Law the meaning is he that is circumcised with an opinion that he shall be justified thereby that same man is fallen from Grace that is from the way of justification by a Covenant of Grace Mr. Blakes Covenant sealed and puts himself under a Covenant of works and so is bound to keep the Law in every punctilio nevertheless Circumcision in it self was properly a Bond binding the faithful to Evangelical Obedience walk before me and be upright or sincere Gen. 17.1 Circumcision which was the Seal of the righteousness of Faith did oblige Abraham to walk perfectly or sincerely before God and hereunto also Baptism obligeth us 5. He adds Circumcision was administred to all Abrahams natural Seed without any profession of Faith whereas Baptisim is to be administred to the spiritual Seed of Abraham only upon profession Repl. Here 's a double mistake for first we have shewed before that the children of excommunicated persons that were impenitent were denyed Circumcision Godwin's Moses and Aaron lib. 5. cap. 2. pag. 181. So Buxtorf Secondly we find some baptized in the fourth of Matthew and Lydias house when none that we hear of professed Faith but her self 6. Lastly He draws low is come to the Dregs Note here Mr. Tombs and he differs for Tombs grants they are both the same Sacraments for the spiritual part viz. Sanctification by the Spirit and juslification by the Blood of Christ Examen p. 83. tells us Circumcision was a sign of Temporal Blessings and Benefits to be enjoyed in the land of Canaan whereas Baptism was to be a sign of spiritual Benefits Repl. But I pray what Temporal Blessings and Benefits in the land of Canaan did they enjoy who never entred into it But this is but an evasion learn'd from the Jesuites as before For Canaan or temporal Blessings were not the only things which Circumcision sealed neither yet the main thing for Gen. 17.7 God promised Abraham to be his God and the God of his Seed this was the grand promise the main of the Covenant which Circumcision sealed up temporal Blessings were but an Additament The Text saith Circumcision was a Seal of the righteousness of Faith and so of all spiritual mercies as much as Baptism Nor is Baptism only a seal of spiritual blessings this will not be owned for a true position in Divinity for Baptism sealeth our deliverance out of afflictions as well as out of corruption yea it sealeth to us the raising our bodies from death out of the grave Cottons Grounds and Ends of Infant-Baptism as well as our souls out of the death in sin Baptism sealeth a much temporal as spiritual blessings for he that gives Christ how shall he not with him give us all things else and indeed Mr. Tombes like a Divine acknowledgeth that both Circumcision and Baptism signifie the righteousness of Faith and sanctification of the heart Exerc. p. 6. and Exam. p. 83. After all this unsound stuff the Author is pleased to grant there is some Analogy little without doubt betwixt the one and the other and since he toucheth it only with a light finger I shall give you the Analogy between them more fully The Analogy betwixt Circumcision and Baptism 1. Circumcision was a Seal of the Covenant made with Believers and their Seed 2. By Circumcision Believers and their Seed had entrance into the Church of the Jews 3. Circumcision shadowed forth the corruption of our nature by cutting off the foreskin of the flesh 4. Circumcision shadowed out also mortification to sin or regeneration by cutting of the fore-skin and casting it away 5. In Circumcision there was blood-shed which pointed at our Redemption by Christ 6. Circumcision was a Bond to Evangelical Obedience Gen. 17.1 Walk before me and be upright So is Baptism 1 Pet. 3.21 So are Believers and their Seed by Baptism into particular Gospel Churches Baptismal washing points at the same 1. Pet. 3.21 The same is signified by Baptism Rom. 6.3 4. called by Peter the laver of Regeneration The water in Baptism represents the same viz. the doing away the guilt of sin by his blood So also is Baptism 1. Pet. 3.21 Notwithstanding all this if we will follow the Authors advice we must not by any means conclude that Baptism comes in the room of Circumcision and for this reason which lies at the bottom because then he must renounce his opinion for it will thence follow that Infant-Baptism is an Ordinance of Jesus Christ But he hath learn'd from Mr. Tombes to give a ponderous reason why though there be some Analogy we must not own it to come in the room and stead of Circumcision Tombes again Exercitation p. 7. viz. Because there is an Analogy between other things and Baptism and we may on the same account say it comes in the room and stead of them As the Ark Manna Rock and from such like Arguments drawn from Analogies what Jewish Rites may by our wits be introduced to the countenancing the Papists in their High-Priest-Hood Tythes But will he never have done
nulli adulto conferendus est nisi prius ediderit confessionem peocatorum i.e. We must not Baptize any person that is grown up unless he first make a Profession of his Faith c. If we would know his mind more fully we may see it in his Comment upon the 28. of Mat. 19. It was saith he the Duty of the Apostles to Preach the Gospel all abroad throughout the World to all Nations Apostolorum officium fuit Evangelium-praedicare passim in orbe terrarum c. Verō pastorum illis suceedentium est Evangelium praedicare apud certam Ecclesiam a quae peculiaritèr sunt vocati praterea Infantes qui in illa Ecclesia noscuntur per Baptismum Deo consecrare Piscat Observ in Mat. 28. p. 746. Edit 2. Herbornae Nassoviorum Porrò ad Ecclesiam pertinent non solum adulti Credentes ac fidem profitentes sed etiam ipsorum liberi ut patet ex verbis Apost 1 Cor. ◠Quare dubium videri non debet quin illi quoque liberi inquam Infantes fidelium baptizandi sint etsi fidei non sunt capaces and by Baptism to incorporate them into the Church who make Profession of their Faith c. And it is the duty of all Pastors that succeed them to preach the Gospel to that particular Church whereunto they are called and farthermore to consecrate to God by Baptism those Infants which are born in that Church And then adds Not only Adult persons that do believe and profess their Faith belong to the Church but also their Children as appears from the words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. else were your Children unclean but now are they holy where saith he the Apostle calls their children holy that were born though but one of the Parents were a Believer forasmuch as they belong to Gods Covenant made with his Church and by consequence they belong to the Church wherefore we need not doubt but they also I say the Children or Infants of Believers are to be Baptized although they are not capable of Faith even as the Infants of the Jews were circumcised belonging likewise to the Covenant and to the Church And as if all our eminent Divines had heedlesly spoken something in favour of their way he hath the confidence to bring in more still Mr. Perkins saith he in concurrence here with these words Teaching all Nations Baptizing them saith I explain the terms thus Mark first of all it is said Teach them 1. make them my Disciples by calling them to believe repent Here we are to consider the Order which God observes in making with men a Covenant in Baptism First of all he calls them by his word and commands them to believe and to repent Then in the second place God makes his promise of mercy and forgiveness And thirdly be seals his promise by Baptism They that know not nor consider this Order which God used in Covenanting with them in Baptism deal preposterously over-slipping the Commandment of Repenting and Believing Who would not think by this that the Renowned Perkins were of his side a down right Antipaedobaptist whereas not a word of what he saith is intended against Infant-Baptisme but only to shew in what order Baptisme is to be Administred to Aliens and Pagans as appears by what he saith upon the same Text. Mat. 28.29 Which is disingeniously conceal'd by the Author Go teach all Nations Baptizing them c. In these words saith Mr. Perkins the Baptism of Infants is prescribed and the Apostles by vertue of this Commission Baptized whole Families Act. 16.15 33. As knowing Gods former Administration to his people the Children were taken into Covenant with the Fathers as the Israelites both Old and Young were baptized into Moses in the Cloud 1 Cor. 10.4 As the Nation of the Jews were first taught and then they and their Infants being confederates were circumcised so saith our Saviour Do you go Teach and Disciple the Nations and then Baptize them The last quoted in this Chapter is the famous Paraeus and what saith he he tells us saith the Author in his Comment on Mat. 3.5 That the Order was That confession as a testimony of true repentance go first Hoc enim damus Anabaptistis in Ecclesiam fuscipiendos non esse nisi praeviâ confessione fidei paenitentiae quem morem vetus servavit ecclesia nostrae hodie observant si vel Judaeus vel Turca Adultus c. Paraeus in Mat. 3.5 and then Baptism for Remission of sins afterward Very good but is this all No certainly for he presently adds this we grant to the Anabaptists that persons are not to be taken into the Church and be Baptized speaking of Aliens or those that are without as the Apostle phraseth it unless a Profession of Faith and Repentance hath gone before which custome saith he the Antient Primitive Church kept and ours at this day still observe when a Turk or a Jew that is grown is to be initiated by Baptism Thus Reader I have given thee a taste of the ingenuity of my Antagonist and I leave thee to judge of it CHAP. II. Containing his second Argument to prove the Baptisme of Believers the only true Baptism and that is if we will believe him from the Apostles Doctrine teaching the same Reply ALthough what we have before said to invalidate his main Argument drawn from the Institution of Christ be sufficient to overthrow whatsoever is brought in the two following Chapters yet we shall further add that it is not to be denyed that the Apostles assert Believers Baptisme to be a true Baptism but that they teach us that it is the only true Baptisme is utterly false and we have only the Authors word for it The Texts cited out of Act. 2.37 Act. 8.36 37. Act. 10.42 Act. 16.29 prove that grown persons unbaptized ought to be required to believe before their Baptism which we grant but to inferr thence that the Children of Baptized Believers are not to be Baptized is more then these Texts or any else that I know can yeild We read of none de facto that the Apostles Baptized A non dicto ad non factum non valet consequentia Because it is not exprest in so many words therefore it was not done is not Logical but Believers therefore none but such de jure ought to be Baptized is a sorry way of arguing The words of Dr. Taylor in his Discourse of Baptisme part 2. pag. 34. are very weighty viz. A Negative argument for matters of fact in Scripture cannot conclude c. And therefore supposing that it be not intimated that the Apostles did Baptize Infants it follows not saith the Dr. that they did not and if they did not it does not follow that they might not or that the Church may not The Scripture speaks nothing of the Baptisme of the Virgin Mary and of many of the Apostles therefore they were not baptized is a weak arguing The
words and deeds of Christ are infinite which are not recorded Joh. 20.30 and 21.25 Many things Christ did that were not written and of the Acts of the Apostles we may suppose the same in their proportion and therefore what they did not is no rule to us unless they did it not because they were forbideen So that it can be no good Argument to say The Apostles are not read to have Baptized Infants therefore Infants are not to be baptized but thus We do not find they are excluded from this Sacrament and Ceremony of Christian Institution therefore we may not presume to exclude them Now since all contradiction against Infant-Baptism depends wholly upon these two grounds The Negative Argument in matter of fact and the pretences that faith and repentance are required to Baptisme since the first is wholly nothing and infirm upon an infinite account and the second may conclude that Infants can no more be saved then be baptized because faith is more necessary to Salvation then to Baptisme it being said he that believeth not shall be damned and it is not said he that believeth not shall be excluded from Baptism it follows that the Doctrine of those that refuse to Baptize their Infants is upon both its legs weak and broken and insufficient Thus far the Learned Doctor To conclude this whereas the Apostles Preached up faith and Repentance before Baptism it was requisite they should do so according to their Commission having to do with Aliens grown up as not only the Gentiles but the Jews were in reference to the new Administration for these being the first subjects of Baptisme it was necessary they should make profession of their faith before they were admitted to it but not so in their Children to be Baptized no more then in Isaac and the Children of the Proselytes to be Circumcised Abraham believed first and afterward was Circumcised Gen. 17.24 And why so Because he was the first subject of that Ordinance and therefore could not be admitted to it but by his own faith But as for Isaac his Son he was Circumcised before believing and so was it with the Proselytes and their Children when any Gentile was converted to the Jewish Faith he had a personal Right to be circumcised and his Child likewise was Circumcised at eight days old as was the custome of the Jewish Church by virtue of Gods Covenant giving it a parental Right The Author is very unhappy at Citations for usually they serve not his purpose He acquaints us out of Bede that men were instructed into the knowledge of the Truth then to be Baptized as Christ hath taught because without Faith it is impossible to please God Magdeburg Cent. 8. pag. 220. But this Bede himself tells us was the method used amongst the Inhabitants of this Island when Paganish In initio nascentis Ecclesiae apud Britannos Beda lib. 2. Angl. Hist cap. 14. When a Church first of all began to be planted amongst the Britains and he tells us it was at that time when Gregory sent from Rome Austin and forty other Preachers and afterward Paulinus who converted Ethelbert the Saxon King but of this we shall speak more hereafter when we shall shew how Bede himself was for Infant-Baptisme notwithstanding the Author so perverts his words His other Citation is Erasmus who in his Paraphrase upon Mat. Observeth and t is a great Observation indeed That the Apostles were commanded first to teach and then to baptize c. Every Child that can read observes the same Probabile est tingere Infantes institutum fuisse ab Apostolis c. but if you would know his judgment about Infant-Baptism you may read it in his Ratio concionandi lib. 4. where he conceives it probable that the Apostles ordain'd and practised it And truly amongst other probable reasons this seems to be one if it be not a Demonstration namely because we do not read of any children of believing Parents who were Baptized when they came to years of discretion That they were Baptized I presume saith Brinsley our Adversaries will not deny and if so Note No Children of Believing Parents Baptized afterwards to be found from John the Baptist to John the Evangelist ending his Ministry which was about 60. years An Argument sufficient if not to convince the Adversary that they were Baptized in Infancy yet to stop their mouths Brinsley Doctrine and Practice of Paedobaptisme pag. 75. let them shew where and when For this let all the Sacred Register be searched from the time that John the Baptist began his Ministry to the time that John the Evangelist ended his which was about 60 years during which time thousands of Children of Believing Parents were grown up to maturity and if in all that time they can but shew any one instance of any child born of a believing Parent whose Baptism was deferred till he came to years of discretion and that then he was Baptized we will then acknowledge there is some strength in their Negative Allegation viz. We read of no children Baptized therefore There were none CHAP. III. Containing his Argument that Believers Baptisme is the only true Baptisme from the example of Primitive Saints Reply TO this there needs no more then what we have before said Sydenhams Christian Exercitation pag. 7. For as Mr. Sydenham says all that they urge as to Examples of actual Believers being baptized all along the new Testament especially the Acts and that if thou believest thou mayst We can freely grant without any damage to Infant-Baptism For 1. We say as they Professing Believers grown men were first Baptized and so they ought to be who are to be the first subjects of the Administration of an Ordinance instancing as before in Abraham c. he was 99. years old when circumcised and he must be first Circumcised before he could convey a right to his seed now you may as well argue Abraham was first circumcised when so old therefore old persons are to be Circumcised and none else as because grown persons were Baptized therefore not Infants when they must be first Baptized themselves for children are Baptized by the promise first to them and in them to their seed Now for as much as all the Examples brought by the Author out of Act. 8.12 18.8 22.14 Speak of grown persons that were the first subjects of Baptism and Jews that were Aliens too as well as the Gentiles in regard of the new Administration it makes nothing against Infant-Baptism that being of another circumstance and the disagreeing of it from them argues not the unlawfulness of it and as the same Author farther argues 2. An Affirmative Position is not exclusive of subordinates because Believers were said to be Baptized Ergo not their Seed is not true reasoning for their seed were comprehended with them in the same promise as before and as we shall more fully shew hereafter Let us now see what his Quotations of Authors or Testimonies
Love and saith it is no outward visible society gathered together into the consent and use of outward Forms and Worship Now although both are out yet I acknowledge the Author is more sober then Dell for he is for an External Visible Church under the New Testament-Dispensation for he tells us Believers upon the profession of faith are to be Baptized and added thereunto and yet take him in his own sence he cannot be excused from error and confusion for by Believers he means the Spiritual seed before mentioned not such as are Believers Equivocally or Analogically by profession only but in reality or truth as appears by the following words upon Profession of Faith by the Ordinance of Baptism were added to the Church As if when mention is made in the Acts of so many thousands that believed it did imply they were all of the Spiritual Seed Regenerated persons Annanias Saphira Symon magus who is said to believe whereas it denotes no more then a visible profession of faith which is all that the Apostles and Primitive Churches had cognizance of and this is seen in Hypocrits who are not the Spiritual Seed of Abraham And this H. D. might have learnt as well as other things from Mr. Tombes who in his Examen pag 159. tells us Profession of Faith and holyness is a sufficient warrant to Baptism And in good earnest one would think by observing the lives and conversations of some of their Proselytes they took them in upon easier terms 2. Sydenhams Exercitaon c. 3 p. 25. We further argue That if none but the spiritual seed of Abraham be the subjects of Baptism then visible believers or such as make a profession of Faith are not the Subjects of Baptism for they may not be more the spiritual seed i.e. Godly then infants 3. Nay according to this Reasoning none must be Baptized at all for who can tell who are the spiritual seed who belong to Christ according to Election and saving Faith Nor will that evasion serve their turn we have charitable ground to believe they are such because of their profession which is enough to satisfie the Church for if according to the Author the New Testament-Church is made up only of a spiritual seed it is necessary the Church should not only have a judgement of charity but infallibility to determine who are the spiritual seed 4. And since the Author and those of his way disclaim all pretence to Infallibility and are contented with the judgment of charity to distinguish of the spiritual seed knowing nothing to the contrary Hanc veniam petimus pray give us leave to act a like charity towards the children of Believers For first they may be capable subjects of Election Jacob was such a one in his Mothers Womb Rom. 9 11 Neither was it his singular priviledge but what is common to all that are Objects of Election which is free without respect to any thing wrought or to be wrought 2. They may be capable of sanctification Christ himself whilst in the Womb is termed The Holy thing which proves the nonage of Infants makes them not incapable of grace supposing Gods will and it shews God would have it so that some of them should be sanctified because Christ passed through each age to sanctifie it to us Ideo per omnem venit aetatem infantibus infans factus sanctificans Infantes in parvulis parvulus sanctificans hanc ipsam habentes aetatem simnl exemplum illis pieatis effectus justitiae s bjectionis As Irenaeus that lives neer the Apostles speaks John was filled with the Holy Ghost and what is that but the graces of the spirit although he was no more enabled to exert or put forth any act of Grace then he was able to put forth an act of reason nevertheless his soul wanted not the faculty of reason from his Mothers Womb and what though we may not say all Infants of Believers are a like filled with the Holy Ghost as John was yet may we truly say that are all as capable thereof as John 3. They are also capable of Glory of Salvation or else it would be sad but Christ hath told us of such is the Kingdom of Heaven that is Specifically as you shall see proved hereafter 4. God calls them holy 1 Cor. 7.14 and so may we By what hath been said I suppose it is evident to the impartial Reader that the Infants of Believers are as much the spiritual seed of Abraham as visible professing believers and we have as much ground if not more to look upon them as such as we have for grown Christians untill they manifest the contrary for as for the former we own them as Godly and admit them into the Church upon their own Testimony only in a visible profession which may be deceitful but the Infants of Believers are taken into Covenant with their Parents and are visible Church-Members and hereby come to have right to Baptism For the two former we have an express Divine Testimony and that they were once accounted such and the Covenant being the same as to the essential spiritual priviledges of it none of which can be made appear to be repealed It will follow that Believers Children must not be denyed the sign and seal of the Covenant they having altogether as warrantable a Right thereunto as grown Christians or Believers This is Bucers arguing on Mat. 19.13 14. Si jam ad Ecclesiam pertinent c. Cur eis signum Baptismi quo in Ecclesiam Christi qui ad eam pertinent recipi solent negaremus Bucer an Mat. 19.13 14. Let us now hear what is said to the contrary in what follows He conceives the seed of Believers have no right to Baptism Why Because saith he Though the Jews had right to circumcision as Abrahams natural seed under the old Testament yet this would not serve the turn under the new Mat. 3.9 John Baptist dischargeth them of that priviledge of Abrahams Natural Seed that admitted into the Old Church from any such right in the new Think not to say that ye have Abraham to your Father that ye are the Children of a Godly Parent That which serv'd their turn under Moses would not avail under Christ Nothing now but the fruits of Repentance give right to the Bapisme of repentance c. And must we take all this for Gospel We shall upon examination find no weight in it and nothing prejudicial to the Baptizing the children of Believers For 1. Let it be considered that these Jews to whom John spake were to come under a New Administration of the Covenant and the first subjects of this Administration must be persons able to give an account of their faith and repentance and Christ the Messiah was now come who was the chief blessing of the Covenant yea the substance of it and therefore 't was necessary that as these Jews relyed on the Covenant of Abraham so they should hold forth their relyance on
Christ in whom the Covenant was confirmed to them and their seed Cottons Dialogue of Childrens Baptism p. 130. For as Mr. Cotton observes The Axe was laid to the Root of the Tree even to the stock of Abraham and all the Branches that grew upon it and were ingrafted into it so that now if they brought not forth this good fruit to believe in Christ who was then come whom the Jews generally rejected as an Impostor they and their children were cut off from the Covenant of Abraham and must say no more We have Abraham to our Father but if they held forth Repentance and Faith in Christ then the Covenant that was made to them and to their Children before did still continue to them and to their children and that 's the ground and meaning of Peters exhortation Act. 2.38 39. Repent and be Baptized every one of you in the Name of the Lord for the promise is to you c. Now what prejudice can this be to the Baptisme of Believers Infants who are admitted in the right of their Parents laying hold on the Covenant for themselves and their seed now under the new Administration as Members of the Church of Christ and in Covenant with God 2. Neither will we take the Authors word for what follows Nothing now but fruit meet for Repentance gives right to Baptisme without some qualification For first I demand what fruit of Repentance John saw in that great multitude which he then Baptized viz. Jerusalem Judea and all the Regions round about Jordan ver 5. which could not be less then some thousands of whom he could have no cognizance as to their fruits of repentance 2. I farther demand whether he could judge this great multitude which were strangers to him to be all the Spiritual seed of Abraham And since the Author observes from Johns words they had no right to Baptism from being Abrahams natural seed neither could he look upon them all as the spiritual seed let him tell us on what account he baptized them 3. It is like he will tell us they confessed their sins ver 6. and so were Baptized But will any man think they did all do so or is it said he baptized no other but such It will be hard for any man to prove that John did impose this upon them We find as Mr. Marshal notes that he Baptized them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Repentance not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as state in Actual Repentance and his calling upon them for Repentance and Preaching the Baptism of Repentance shews that this was the lesson which they were all to learn not that they all manifested it before he Baptized them For ought we can find from the Text the Pharisees and Sadduces were Baptized by him and had they been such Penitents it had been great uncharitableness to call them Vipers We have the Author over-lashing again in the next words for he lies open every where Nothing saith he short of the spirits birth can orderly admit to Water-birth and Spiritual ordinances But since you are not Infallible let it be supposed you have been mistaken in your judgment and have baptized a person which afterward appears to be unregenerate Did you admit him orderly or no you will say you did because he was Baptized under the apprehension of being regenerate The Church lookt upon him as such and saw nothing to the contrary Very good now you are come about to what I would have and indeed if the New Testament-Church did consist only of the spiritual seed real Godly ones how abominably is the Ordinance prophaned when it so happens as it often doth that any Hypocrites are Baptized and when it appears that the Title which they had to Baptisme was but seeming will it not follow that all that was done in reference to them was a Male-Administration and Null ab initio Mr. Blakes Covenant sealed and as God looks upon them as unbaptized though they have been dipt so ought the Church to look upon them and if these Hypocrits shall repent and be converted are they not bound to offer themselves a-fresh to Baptism and can the Church refuse them and thus according to the Authors principle there will be need of a Multiplication of Baptisms He concludes this Chapter with the sayings of two Doctors as wide in judgement from each other as the two Poles yet it seems he can make them meet to serve his purpose The first is Dr. Owen who is much engaged for his Elogy but nothing at all for wresting his sentences from his intention 'T is well known the learned Dr. like to the rest of his Brethren of the Congregational way is a zealous Assertor of Infant-Baptism and the import of what he says in his Catechisme is no more then what all Congregational men hold namely That the matter of the Church is a Society or Fellowship of visible Saints and this according to the singular dexterity of this Antagonist who beats us still with our own Weapons is found to be point blank against Infant-Baptism But we shall clear this point in the next Chapter under which it falls properly to be spoken of The other Gentleman is Dr. Taylor we have said enough of him before how much he was for Infant-Baptism notwithstanding he plays the Orator and tells us he will act the part of an Anabaptist and shew what may be said for them though they are in an Errour but let us hear what he says for according to the Author he doth rarely accomodate that which he thinks is truth when as it is only by bestowing a few complements upon an error we shall seldom meet with such a parcel of affected words delivered in such a strain as did notably fuit with the Genius of the times when he writ them that is before the turn of times when men were high flown and above Ordinances The Baptism of Children saith he is an outward duty a work of the Law a Carnal Ordinance it makes us adhere to the Letter without regard to the spirit to be satisfied with shadows to return to Bondage to relinquish the mysteriousness the substance the spirituality of the Gospel c. This is brave stuff indeed high towring language I never met with the like unless it were in Mr. Saltmarsh his shadows flying away and beams of Glory And is not the Baptism of Believers think you bravely accomodated with these Rhetorical Flowers Is there one grain of Logick or Reason in all he saith And then at last the Doctor doth so well accommodate that which H.D. calls the truth that he attempts to maintain it by two gross errors delivered in one breath for saith he if the Mystery goes not before the Symbol yet it always accompanies it but never follows it in order of time But first I would fain know who told the Doctor that Grace always accompanies Baptisme for that I take to be the plain English of Mystery and Symbol without the help
that in time will produce its proper Actions It is certain that they can receive the new birth and are capable of it The effect of it is salvation if infants can receive this effect then also the new-birth without which they cannot receive the effect and he illustrates the point by a Similitude thus As the reasonable soul and all its faculties are in children Will and Vnderstanding Passions and Powers of Attraction and Propulasion yet these faculties do not operate or come abroad till time and art observation and experience have drawn them forth into action So may the spirit of grace the principle of Christian life be infused and yet lie without action till in its own day it is drawn forth and then he goes on Who is he that understands the Spirit so well as to know how or when it is infused and how it operates in all its periods and what it is in its Being and proper Nature or how or to what purpose God in all varieties does dispense it Then again if Nature saith he hath in Infants an evil principle which operates when the child can choose but is all the while within the soul Why cannot Infants have a good principle through Grace though it works not till its own season as well as an evill principle 4. Though Infants are uncapable of performing such duties as are incumbent upon professing men and women yet this hinders not but that they may be Church-Members Pray tell us what duties could those Israelitish Babes perform who notwithstanding their incapacity were asis before Members of the Church with their Parents And though they answer not all the Characters Christ gives his Adult Disciples which the Author objects against them yet they are capable of union to the Church and Fellowship in the priviledges thereof They are capable of her prayers and other pious offices and for whom the Church hath a more special care and obligation of tenderness for their souls than for others that are Without and why should this seem strange since they are Members of the Common-wealth and of the family and are capable of union with both estates and the priviledges thereof and yet cannot perform obedience to the State and Orders of either In like sort Infants are admitted Tenants but the Fealty or Homage is respited till they are of age 5. Lastly Christ himself as Mr. Baxter notes was head of the Church according to his humane nature in his infancy and this proves that the nonage of Infants makes them not uncapable of being Members And let any judge whether it be his will that no Infants should be Members For my part saith he when I consider that Infant State of Christ our head and the honour done to him therein it strongly perswades me that they know not his will who say they will not have Infants to be visible Members He farther Objects the Church of England who in their 19th Artiele do acknowledge that the visible Church is a number of Christians by profession This is down right Mr. Tombs's Examen part 3. pag. 41. only Tombes hath more charity for the Infants of Believers though not without some contradiction For he there acknowledgeth that in facie Ecclesiae visibilis Infants of believers are to be accounted Gods to belong to his Family and Church and not the Devils And what do any of us say more But mark Reader how Mr. Tombs doth esteem them such why saith he it is so as being in a near possibility of being Members of the Church of God by an act of opinion grounded on probable hopes for the future But to make them actual members of the visible Church is to overthrow the definitions of the visible Church that Protestant writers give particularly the Church of England Art 19. To which Mr. Marshall answers If overthrows it not at all for they all include the Infants of such Professors as Infants Male and Female too least you say that Circumcision made them Members I add also saith he Baptisme now as well as Circumcision of old is a real though implicite profession of the Christian Faith Next we have Dr. Owen whom he cites no less than four times in what follows in this Chapter whose judgement is sufficiently known to be against our Opposites And notwithstanding the misinterpretation the Author puts upon some passages in the Doctors Catechisme we have a particular account of his judgment in Print in a Book called A Declaration of the Faith and Order owned and practised in the Congregational Churches agreed upon and consented unto by their Elders and Messengers in their meeting at the Savoy Octob. 12. 1658. where to my knowledge he was present and the principal man of that Assembly and concerning the point before us we have it chap 29. Art 4. thus exprest viz. Not only those that do actually profess Faith in and obedience unto Christ but also the Infants of one or both believing Parents are to be Baptized and those only And in complyance herewith we have the judgment of the Synod of Elders Assembled at Boston in New-England appointed by the Court 1662. who strongly maintain by several Arguments in that printed piece That the Insant Seed of Believers are Church-Members and that being according to Scripture Members of the visible Church they are consequently the Subjects of Baptism See also the Presbyterian judgement upon the point in the larger Catechisme of the Assembly of Divines Baptisme say they is not to be administred to any that are out of the visible Church and so strangers to the Covenant of promise till they profess their Faith in Christ and obdeience to him But Infants descending from Parents either both or but one of them professing Faith in Christ and obedience to him are in that respect within the Covenant and to be Baptized we see here who they take to be of the visible Church and within the Covenant and to be baptized As for the Authority of particular Authors we have them on our side in great abundance Piscator hath it thus on the 28. of Matthew Porrò ad Ecclesiam pertinent non solùm adulti fidem profitentes sed etiam ipsorum liberi Not only grown persons who profess the Faith appertain to the Church but also their Infants Theodore Beza in his Absters Cat. Heshuii pag. 333. hath this passage Meritò arbitramur Infantes fidelium in peculio domini censeri We rightly judge the Infants of the faithful to be of the Lords Flock and he speaks of them there before Baptisme And in our Margent Bible we have this Note upon the first of Corinthians 7.14 They that are born of either of the Parents faithful are also counted Members of Christs Church because of the Promise Act. 2.39 Peter Martyr loc Commun cl 4. c. 8. p. 821 823. Non excludimus eos Infantes ab Ecclesia sed ut ejus partes amplectimur c. We exclude not Infants from the Church but imbrace them as parts John Calvin to whom
sufficient so that in this long train of Authors which our Antagonist quotes he doth but magno conatu nugas agere take a great deal of pains in trifling But that which he cites from Mr. Daniel Rogers seems to have more weight who in his Treatise about Baptism Part 29. Confesseth himself to be unconvinced by demonstration of Scripture for it This is taken from Mr. Tombe's Examen Tombes Examen p. 2. pag. 2. To which I answer one man may be fully convinced by Scripture-demonstration when another is not but 't is fit the Reader should know all that Mr. Rogers saith there upon the point for it is unhandsome to bring in scraps out of Authors He tells us he no less doubts of the warrantableness of Infant-Baptism than he doth of the Creed saying that sundry learned men have undertaken to stop their Schismatical mouths that oppose it and to answer their peevish Arguments and though he saith his scope tends another way yet gives his reasons for it 1. Because Circumcision was applyed to the Infants on the 8th day in the Old-Testament 2. There is no word in the New-Testament to infringe the liberty of the Church in it nor special reason why we should bereave her of it 3. Sundry Scriptures afford friendly proofs by Consequence 4. The holiness of the Child External and Visible is from their Parents therefore the seed being holy and belonging to the Govenant the Lord graciously admits them to the Seal of it by Baptism Farther he brings a passage out of Mr. Baxters plain Scripture-proof for Infants Church-membership and Baptism Where he confesseth pag. 3. That Infant-Baptism is not plainly determined in Scripture Hear what he saith Reader and then judge what he gains from Mr. Baxter all that he saith is as follows viz. The Scripture speaks fully of those particular controversies that were on foot in those times but more sparingly of those not then questioned and then names divers questions which the Scripture fully and plainly determines But saith he many others as difficult which then were no Controversies have no such determination and yet mark it the Scripture is sufficient to direct for the determination of these too if we have wisdom to discern the Scope of the Spirit to apply general rules to particular cases Such is the Case of Infant-Baptism Afterward in the 9th page we have this The grounds saith he upon which Infants are Baptized are very easy and plain though to many it be difficult to discern how it is from those grounds inferred and therefore though some few learned and Godly and humble Men do doubt of it yet in the whole known Christian part of the World there is but few After this we have something brought out of Dr. Taylor 's Lib. of Proph p. 239. concerning Previous dispositions that are requisite to Baptism of which Infants are not capable But to prevent transcribing I refer the Reader to his latter Piece of the Consideration of the Practice of the Church in Baptizing Infants where he himself confutes what he had said in his Liberty of Proph. you have it pag. 25 26. Here also we have a parcel of Authors introduced who do all are rolundo express fully their judgments That nothing must be done in Gods Worship without Scripture-Warrant Mr. Ball is one of them whose saying our Antagonist fetcheth out of Mr. Tombes Exerc. pag. 9. M. Tombes Exercit pag. 9. so it is also in his Exam p. 2. Tombes Examen p. 2. joyned to that of Mr. Rogers before-mentioned Mr. Balls words are We must look to the Institution and neither stretch it wider nor draw it narrower than the Lord hath made it For he is the Institutor of the Sacraments according to his own good pleasure and it is our part to learn of him both to whom how and for what end the Sacraments are to be administred c. But why doth he not set down all that Mr. Ball hath in that place Circumcision and Baptism saith he are both Sacraments of Divine Institution and so they agree in the substance of the thign signified the persons to whom they are to be administred and the order of Administration if the right proportion be observed as Circumcision sealed the entrance into Covenant the Righteousness of Faith and Circumcision of the heart so doth Baptism much more clearly As Abraham and his Houshold and the Infants of Believing-Jews were to be Circumcised so the Faithful their Families and their Seed are to be Baptized At last he thinks to rout us quite with a saying of Bellarmin's whose very name gives us an Allarm and sounds Bellum Arma War Arms. The Anabaptists saith Bellarmine call for plain Scripture-proof for the Baptizing of Infants and their Argument from defect of Command or Example have great force against the Lutherans foras much as they use that Principle every where viz. That the Rite which is not in Scripture having no Command or Example there is to be rejected Yet it is of no force against Catholicks who conclude that Apostolical Tradition is of no less Authority with us than the Scripture but that this of Baptizing Infants is an Apostolical Tradition c. To which I Reply that the Author might well have omitted this of Bellarmin since it is but acunning insinuation of that Jesuitical Sophister to set Protestants at greater distances amongst themselves to advance the esteem of their adored Tradition And yet he himself speaking elsewhere of Infant-Baptism saith satis aperte ex Scripturis colligitur c. Infant-Baptism is plainly enough gathered out of Scripture CHAP. II. The Historical Account which the Author gives of Iafant-Brptism in its Rise and Establishment Examined and Condemned In this Chapter he presents us with the History of Infant-Baptism and tells strange news if you will credit him of its Original since the Apostle's days Thus he begins 1. From the learned Authorities before given we have gained thus much that as there was no Precept in Scripture for the Baptizing of Infants so neither was there the least Practice to be found thereof in the Apostles days as was so ingeniously before Confessed by the Magdeburgenses Luther Calvin Erasmus Rogers 1. BUt we have made it appear Sr. that you reckon your gains too fast and have much erred in casting up the Sum as the Reader may find in the preceding Chapter I question not if he be impartial he will conclude you have not gained a farthing but are rather a loser hitherto For among all those Learned Authorities before given there is no passage although never so much strained that saith any more than this There is no Express precept in Scripture for the Baptizing of Infants and this every Child knows but in saying there is no Express one they intimate thereby there is an Implicite one I love not to repeat the Reader may if he please reflect upon what they say And in asmuch as the point relates to matter of Fact
why then should it stand in force against Infants in their own persons not capable of contemning and whose Parents desire it but are prevented by necessity Alas poor infants that you free from contempt in your selves and your Parents also must yet away to Hell for bare want of Baptism and yet grown persons as Papists themselves acknowledge in the same want have access to Heaven so they be free from contempt Can we imagine bare want to be more prejudicial to Infants then to grown men But what Reader if it appear that the place cannot be understood of Baptism at all I must leave it to thee to judge of what is offered to shew that 't is only Regeneration and not Baptism that is concerned in the Text for Water and the Spirit here by an Exegesis are one or if you will according to the judgement of Dr. Taylor by Water is meant the effect of the Spirit Nor is this the single judgment of Dr. Taylor but very many others who in their time were the Magna Ecclesiae lumina who so interpret it amongst whom are Calvin Beza Piscator Calvin indeed acknowledgeth the ancient Expositors followed Chrysostome that the Text was to be understood of Baptism yet professeth himself of another mind Beza in his Annotations of the place declares himself to the same purpose that he understood by Water in that place is meant rather the effect of the spirit then the Sacrament of Baptism sin verò malimus Christum cum Pharisaeo disserentem Aquae nomine ad externas ablutiones allusisse c. I rather conceive Christ reasoning with this Pharisee under the name of Water doth allude to those external washing which were useless without the cleansing of the Spirit Et Spiritus nomen sit exegesis that is a figure which signifies a dark speech made clear by another word which here is the Spirit nominis aquae sicut alibi spiritus ignis in baptismo conjunguntur By the name of Water we are to understand by an Exegesis the Spirit as elsewhere the Spirit and Fire are joyned Though the Order be inverted there and he gives the reason of it So Piscator except a man be born of Water that is ex spiritu sancto exserente quasi vim aquae Of the holy Spirit which operates in the soul as Water doth in the body and he also referrs to the same place Mat. 3.5 Of being Baptized with the Spirit and with Fire We have also the great Chamier arguing the same seeing in this sense the words bear an absolute truth without any limitation The Author concludes this with sporting himself at the different grounds upon which the Assertors of Infant-Baptism hold it out as the Fathers upon one ground the Lutherans upon another the Calvinist differing from them the Episcoparians one way the Presbyterians another and the Independents have a peculiar ground varying from them all Now thanks be to Mr. Tombes his eleventh Argument against Infant-Baptism for all this Exercitation pag. 33. The Assertors of Infant-Baptism little agree amongst themselves saith he upon what ground they may build it Cyprian and others draw it from the Universality of grace and the necessity of Baptism to Salvation Austin brings the faith of the Church others the Church of England substitute the promised surety in the place of the Faith and Repentance of the Baptized The Lutherans the faith of the Infant others the faith of the next Parent in Covenant in a gathered Church Reply This saith Mr. Geree unto him hath art I will not say Sophistry in it and what though divers men have let fall different grounds yet none of those are the main upon which they ground it for that 's the Covenant of Gods grace that takes in the Child with the Parent if saith he I should from several ways or Arguments used by the Antipaedobaptists say they did oppose Infant-Baptism on several grounds therefore their opposition were invalid you would think my answer unsolid and so do I your Argument Father I desire the Author to reflect upon his own party who oppose childrens Baptism by denying that Covenant made to Abraham was a Covenant of Grace some say it was Temporary some Typical some mixt and I know not what So they much differ in the foundation of their practice Some build it on a bare confession of sin whatever the man be as to grace some on profession of Faith some on signs of grace c. Mr. Geree saith well weakness in mens sight variety of fancy and principles carry men into different ways of defending the same truth The Author now frames his exceptions against those Scriptures which hold forth a Covenant-Right to the Children of Believeers 4. Argument from federal holiness excepted against and from whence we inferr their baptizing and thus he begins Paedobaptists being loth to part with the Tradition and yet seeing the rottenness of the ancient ground upon which 't was built found out this new foundation for it of Covenant-Holiness of which Zwinglius about 120 years for aught that he can learn was the first Founder and singular from all that went before him All this is from Master Tombes The Author a notorious Plagiary having taken all in his 43. pages following from Mr. Tombes his two Books of Exerc. and Examen I mean as to the substance of it and most in his words and method only indeed he hath two quotations out of Dr. Taylor and one out of Dr. Owen Mr. Tombes Exercit. p. 11. and so throughout to the endc of this Chapter both Arguments Authorities Scriptures and Cryticismes with this difference that he varies a little in some things and doth not speak so warily as he Mr. Tombes in his Examen part 3. pag. 35. begins the Argument as framed by us from the connexion between the Covenant and the Seal but this man ends it with that and the Scriptures are in both one viz. Gen. 17.7 Acts 2.39 I need not therefore much trouble my self for an Answer to the Author for the same which Mr. Marshall gave Tombes doth the work to a hair The Author tells us that for ought he could learn Zwinglius was the first Founder of the Argument for Baptism from federal Holiness and this indeed he learnt from Mr. Tombes his Exercitation pag. 11. whose words are Whether any in the Ages before the last past expounded it of federal holiness I am not yet certain and in the two last lines of page the 79. of his Examen he hath it thus viz. None that ever I met with expounded it of federal Holiness till the controversie of the Anabaptists in Germany To this I will seek for no other answer then what Mr. Marshal gives him the cause saith he I confess depends not upon this whether such an interpretation was then first put But it discovers some defect in your reading and then shews Athanasius one of the most Ancient Greek Fathers and Tertullian one of the most Ancient of the
Lattin Fathers bring this Text to prove the Prerogative of the Infants of Believers in such a sense as they could not have done if to their understanding it had not related to the Covenant of grace But to the Argument and let us see what is excepted against it The Argument is this viz. They who are holy with a federal or Covenant holiness ought to be baptized But the Infants of Believers are holy with such a holiness Ergo This is grounded on the Text which saith else were your Children unclean but now are they holy Against which it is excepted that there are two things in the Argument asserted but not at all proved First that the holiness in the Text is a Federal or Covenant-holiness Secondly that federal holiness qualifies Infants for Baptism both which the Author positively denies upon the following grounds First because the Holiness in the Text be it what it will be whether Moral Federal or Matrimonial is neither here nor elsewhere assigned to be a ground of Baptizing Children upon it being only the ground laid down in the institution that can warrant the same To which I reply That in the first part of the Book chapter the first is shewed how the Infant Seed of Believers are included in the institution or comprehended in the Commission as baptizable and being not willing actum agere I must referr the Reader thither We have also proved that they are of the Church of Christ chap. 6. of the first part upon which account they are likewise subjects of Baptisme Farther if their holiness be a Covenant-holiness that is a holiness of special separation to God and he owneth them as his peculiar ones by virtue of his Cove nant-Relation this is virtual ly and implicitly a word of command for the Baptizing such In fants Antipaedobaptists are ever up with this note where is your command What word of Institution have you to bear you out To this we have spoken enough before in telling them we have an implicit command for what we do and farther we offer this Syllogisme They to whom God is a God in Covenant have a command to receive the seale of the Covenant Gen. 17.10 11. If then the same Covenant be given to Believers and their Seed and if Baptism be given to Christians instead of Circumcision as shall be proved in its proper place then the same command which obliged Abraham to be Circumcised and his seed doth in like manner the faithful and their seed also Secondly Because saith he if it should be granted that Faederal holiness were a ground to baptize Children upon under the Gospel as it was to Circumcise them under the law yet it will appear from substantial Arguments that no such holiness is intended here Let us hear what they are namely 1. Because there is no such Holiness in the new-Testament as Federal belonging to Children Well argued this seems to be neer of kin to idem per idem it is not because it is not So there is no such holiness intended in the Text Why Because there is no such holiness in the New Testament and the Text is in the New Testament The matter is well mended in what follows It is no where to be found This is only a Dictate for he addeth no reason It is no where to be found But you must understand he means by himself and his party that have made such inquisition and search into Scripture that they only have found what is there what they judge to be the fence of Scripture is so and we must all come and learn of them what the Scripture contains what it implyes and what may be inferred from it what not Away with this Popery But what if I say the Covenant holyness of Children may be found in this Text I see no reason but my word may be be credited as well as his Nay if we must go by an implicit faith we shall carry it for allmost all the Godly and Learned Divines in Europe have found Covenant-holiness in the New-Testament not only in the 2 Cor. 7.14 But in Rom. 11.15 16 17. where it is said if the first fruits are boly so is the lump if the root be holy so are the Branches which demonstrates the Covenant-holiness of the children of believing Gentiles now under the Gospel as much as of the Jewish children that descended naturally from Abraham under the Law but this must not be admitted and why 1. Because it contradicts the Gospel-Dispensation as before that is I suppose in the first part of his Book chap. 5. and I referr the Reader to our Answer of that Chapter to which I adde this by way of surplusage that if our Children be not federally holy how could the Apostle press the Jews to imbrace Christianity by telling them The Promise is made to you and to your seed and to all that are afar off even as many as our Lord God shall call So that to say the Doctrine of Federal holiness contradicts the Gospel-dispensation is to contradict the Gospel which expresly says the contrary Act. 2.38 39. Where mark the words are not the promise Was to you and to your Children but is intimating that the Covenant is not repealed but in force still under the Gospel-Dispensation as much as ever it was anciently to the Jews and their posterity and to them that are afar off the Gentiles and then to their Children too even their Infant Children otherwise these two absurdities would follow 1. The grace of Christ under the Gospel-dispensation would be less then what it was under the Law for then the believing Parent with his Children were federally holy and if it were not so now then should we be in a worse condition under Christ then under Moses 2. It will render the Children of the Jews also in a worse condition upon their coming in to Christ then they were in under the legal Administration contrary to that Jer 30.20 Ezek. 37.25 26. 2. His second Reason is Because such apprehensions intails Grace to Nature Regeneration to Generation contrary to John 3. That which is born of the flesh is flesh and Eph. 2. We are all the Children of wrath by Nature This hath been before answered and I shall only now say that this is a false and fraudulent insinuation to beget a prejudice in the weak against our assertion of federal holiness for he knows very well 1. That our Divines hold that gratia non transfunditur per carnem and that grace is not extraduce Grace is not hereditary that is inherent Grace We all ways affirm that all Children are alike depraved and all the posterity of Adam are alike conceiv'd in sin and brought forth in iniquity all are Carnal and unclean by nature 2. We farther affirm that though all the Children of Believers are not holy with an inherent personal holyness that accompanies Regeneration yet the Children of either believing Parent are holy with a holiness-relation put upon them and
train after it The Holiness is not one and the same as before and therefore cannot entitle to the same privileges And besides I add the Covenant was not made with the Believer and his Yoak-fellow but with him and his Seed and therefore the one hath a right to the Ordinance of Baptism the other not The third Argument such as it is is from the consideration that children in the Text is not to be limited to Infants Mr. Tombes again Examen p. 73. or such children that they might have since the Religious difference happened but of grown children for a mans Child is his Child though thirty forty or fifty years old c. 'T is wonderful to behold the shifts of errour This is old Tombes again Exam. pag. 73. He saith Your children indiscriminatim without difference as well those you had before one when of you was a Believer But this Muse is soon stopped by these considerations Quòd enim nonnulli ad liheros ex utroque infideli susceptos extendunt qui non sint spurii sed legitimi falso dici apparet ex hypothesi pauli Quor sum enim vel de spuriis vel dc infidelis utriusque naptiis dissereret Bezae Annot. in locum First That the Corinthians could not possibly be so filly as to doubt whether those children which were begotten in their Infidel state were Bastards before this Religious difference happened nor can we conceive the Apostle would have suggested such a false thing unto them as if those Children had been to be so reputed had not one of them turned Believer Secondly The Children then born after one of them was turned Christian is unquestionably that which the Apostle intends and if so then Children is most rationally to be limited to Infant Children such as should be or had been newly born upon their Parents Believing for we may well suppose the scruple arose presently after conversion about cohabitation and converse with their Infidel-Yoak-fellows and whether it were not irreligious not Fornication as Antipaedobaptists very weakly suppose for the Believer to procreate with the Infidel His fourth Argument why it cannot be a new Covenant-Holiness that qualifies and intitles to Baptism is First because that cannot be known The fourth Argnment taken from Mr. Tombes vide Mr. Baxters plain proof for Infants Church-Membership and Baptism p. 92. for if the Parent professing faith be a Hypocrite and not in Covenant themselves then may you Baptize a wrong subject as well as a right I perceive the Authors strength is almost spent His reason runs low and is near come to the dreggs for what doth this his arguing amount to shall we not find those who are for Baptizing grown persons upon the profession of Faith in the same praedicament may not these be Hypocrits also and not in Covenant and if so do they not Baptize a wrong subject When therefore they have cleared this difficulty for themselves they have done it for us Farther if it be the reality of Faith and Holiness in grown persons that qualifies for Baptism then none must be Baptized because this cannot be known but if it be said a serious profession is sufficient for De occultis non judicat Ecclesia The Church judgeth not of secret or hidden things Then the same also is sufficient for the Infants of such so professing The distinction which is used by Divines may give light in this point namely there is an external being in Covenant in facie visibilis Ecclesiae in the esteem and judgement of the Church and that is visible Profession or Holyness and this gives right to visible priviledges 2. There is an internal being in Covenant in regard of the spiritual faving benefits of it and it is out of the reach of the Church to judge of this latter I shall shut up this with the words of Mr. Marshal in his Defence of Infant-Baptism pag. 108. viz. When therefore I say they Infants are visibly to be reckoned to belong to the Covenant with their Parents I mean look what right a visible Professor hath to be received and reputed to belong to the Visible Church Quà visibilis Professor as a visible Professor that right his child hath so to be esteemed Now I conceive the Author himself will confess that the spiritual part and privileges of the Covenant of Grace belongs not to visible Professors as visible but only to such among them who are inwardly such as their external profession holds out but yet there are outward Church privileges Mr. Blakes Covenant Sealed which belong to them as they are visible Professors As to to be reputed the Children of the Kingdom Mat. 8.42 Act. 3.25 And in this sense St. Paul speaking of the Body of the Jewish people saith Rom. 9.4 To them pertaineth the Adoption Not the spiritual adoption but the honour of being separated and reputed Gods Children Deut. 14 and the Glory and the Covenants c. Secondly he saith such an absurdity would follow that no Vnbelievers Child is in Covenant or Elect c. To this I answer that no Unbelievers child is in Covenant in the sence before mentioned that is in facie Ecclesiae in the face of the Church until he make a Profession of his Faith Nevertheless he may belong to the Election of Gods Grace but that 's not to the point in hand for Election is not a Covenant nor any in Covenant because elected Thirdly he adds the concurrent Testimony and Confession of many Learned Commentators and parties themselves upon the place that the Text is to be understood of matrimonial and not federal holiness As Austin Jerom Ambrose Melancton Musculus Camerarius Erasmus to which saith he we may adde many more as if these were collected by his own pains Whereas he hath only added the last the rest were all gathered and published by Mr. Tombs neer thirty years since And that the Reader may not think I injure him I shall parallel them once more H. D. Jerom saith because of Gods appointment Marriage is holy H. D. Ambrose thus The Children are Holy because they are born of Lawful Marriage H. D. Melancthon in his Commentary on the place thus Therefore Paul answers that the 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 granted to Believers from God so here he speaks the use of Marriage to be holy and to be granted of God H. D. Musculus in his Comment upon the place confesseth That he had abused formerly that place against the Anabaptists H. D. Camerarius in his Commentary upon the place saith for the unbelieving Husband hath been sanctified an usual change of the Tense that is Sanctified in the lawful use of Marriage for without this he saith it would be
Author and all the party conclude that the Seed to whom the Covenant belongs is the Spiritual and not the Carnal Not being born after the flesh but believing that makes us children of the promise To this exception of his in which their greatest confidence lies I reply Repl. 1. It is built on a most gross corrupting and abusing the Scriptures Let us then diligently consider those two places in the Galatians And afterwards that in the Romans First touching that in the former place the words are verse 16. He saith not to Seeds as of many but of one which is Christ Beza upon the Text saith obscurus locus est it is a place not easily understood a dark Scripture and indeed too dark and intricate for Antipaedobaptists so boldly to ground their opinion upon so directly contrary to the sence of many plain places The question is what doth the Apostle mean here by Christ By Christ cannot be meant Christ solely personal for then no Believer should be accounted for the Seed but only Christ who as concerning the flesh came of Abraham And he and none else should be concerned in the promises But it is to be understood of Christ mystical as Beza there notes Apostolus eo nomine non solum caput sed membra cum suo capite designans the Apostle by the word Christ denoting both Head and Members Capnt Corpus unus est Christus the Head and the Body make up one mystical Christ the word Christ being to be taken collectively in this place so we have it 1 Cor. 12.12 to which Beza refers And if this be the sence of it as what else can rationally then as Mr. Sydenbam notes this Text will make rather for us than against us for if we exclude all Infants from being of the Body of Christ we must in so doing unavoidably exclude them from Salvation for he is Saviour to no more than he is head of which is his Body As for the words in the nine and twentieth verse that will afford the Antipedobaptists little relief the words are If ye be Christs then are ye Abrahams Seed and Heirs according to promise from whence saith the aforesaid Author they argue the Apostle here describes who are the Seed so that now no children born of believing parents can be the Seed for they must be Christs according to that v. 16. We are all the children of God through Faith in Christ Jesus But let such understand what Beza saith on the place namely that the Claramontanus Bible hath the words thus and he thinks more right 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If you be one in Christ then are ye Abrahams Seed which comports well with the former verse There is neither Jew nor Greek neither bond nor free c. but ye are all one in Christ Jesus and if ye be all one then Abrahams Seed From which 1. It is clear that the Design of the Apostle is to take away all difference between Jew and Gentile and to hodl forth their unity in Christ and that this is the very scope of the place Beza shews fully in his Annotations upon it and that now there is no distinction betwivt them as formerly But the Gentiles are become Abrahams Seed as well as the natural and believing Jews Quod unius Seminis nomine collectivo significatur as before in the sixteenth verse which is pointed out to us by the collective name of one Seed 2. The Apostle here hath no intent to shew the distinction of Abrahams Seed as the Subject of the outward priviledges and administrations of Ordinances but to shew that none are spiritually and really Abrahams Seed and Heirs of promise but such as are Christs one in him with Abraham for if this should be the distinction of Seed as the subject of outward Ordinances it would be as much against professing Believers as Infants for the proposition from this Text as our Opposites draw it is thus none but those who are Christs are Abrahams Seed and none are Christs but real Believers and therefore none but they must be baptized But how weak is this 1. Because if none but such are Abrahams Seed and consequently none but such the subjects of Baptism then visible Believers are not the subjects of Baptism for they may not be Christs no more than Infants 2. None must be baptized at all upon this account for who knows who is Christs according to Election and saving Faith To say we have charitable grounds to believe visible professors are Christs till we see the contrary is not to the question as stated nor as it lies in the Text the Text saith If ye be Christs then ye are Abrahams Seed they say none are in Christ but real Believers See Chapter the fifth of the first part of the Authors Treatise and none must be baptized but the spiritual Seed and that will require not only a judgment of charity but infallibility to determine And besides the Apostle is describing here what the real and spiritual Seed are as having an inward right to Christ and not what the apparent Seed of Abraham was for he speaks to the Galathians who were visible professors and Believers then in appearance and he puts them upon a trial of themselves whether they were Christs or no. I have been the larger in quoting something from Beza but more from Mr. Sydenham who speaks abundance of reason that you may see how wretchedly this Text is abused by our Opposites And how far wide it is from the purpose for which they usually bring it Now for that other place Ram. 9.7 8. They that are the children of the flesh these are not the children of God but the children of the promise are counted for the Seed What do they gather from hence Why that Infants because children of the flesh are not under the promise this indeed is well argued for this is to make the Apostle contradict himself in the same breath for the Text saith In Isaac shall thy Seed be called Now that was a child of Abrahams flesh and yet a child of promise too And from hence issueth three undeniable Propositions as Mr. Sydenham noteth 1. That Abrahams spiritual Seed were as much his fleshly Seed also Isaac as Ishmael except Proselytes and Servants 2. The Covenant was administred to all Abrahams natural and fleshly children as if they had been his spiritual and before they knew what faith was or could actually professs Abrahams faith 3. When there is mention of Abrahams carnal Seed in opposition to his spiritual Seed it cannot be meant primarily or solely of those that descended from his flesh for then Isaac and Jacob were the carnal Seed yea Christ himself who as concerning the flesh came of Abraham It must be therefore understood 1. Of those of Abrahams Seed which degenerated and slighted the Covenant of the Gospel such as Ishmael and such of whom the Apostle speaks of Rom. 9.1.2.3 his Brethren and Kinsmen after the flesh
affirm p. 6. saying that Christianity is hereditary that as the child of a Noble man is noble the child of a Free man free a Turk a Turk and of a Jew a Jew so the child of a Christian is a Christian But I pray Sir who told you this of Mr. Blake was it not your old friend Mr. Tombes Exercit. p. 53. your words differ very little If this be true saith Tombs that the Covenant of grace is a Birth-right priviledge then the children of Believers are children of Grace by nature for that which is a Birth-right privilege is a priviledge by nature and if as Mr. Blake saith p. 6. to but neither of them names the Book Christianity is hereditary that as the child of a Noble man is noble the child of a Turk is a Turk of a Jew a Jew the child of a Christian is a Christian then saith Tombes just as my Antagonist Christians are born Christians O wonderful that men should so agree And how are they then saith he the children of wrath by nature and saith our Author this is in contradiction that 's some alteration to the Scripture which saith we are children of wrath One would think these men did very well agree they do so often meet and kiss each other but t is in aliquo tertio that is in the point of Baptism for I hear from those that knows them both intùs in cute that they are at a great if not irreconcileable distance in some other matter But I would have the reader to understand that those words are not Blakes though charg'd upon him by Mr. Tombs to render him odious which is very sad And that learned godly man being very sensible of the injury signifies to Tombes that he disowns it and adviseth him to forbear such device I believe saith he no such thing that Parents conveigh to their children as by Birth-priviledge a being in Christ Jesus but if you understand by Christianity the bare name or title of Christian together with a right to Church priviledges then I shall own the thing but disclaim the expression A sufficient vindication from so sordid a Calumny and if this were so unworthily done in Mr. Tombes what shall we think of the Author who hath lick'd up that vomit again and cast it upon Mr. Blake after he had so well cleared himself which he could not but know Nor doth our Doctrine contradict those Scriptures which saywe are children of wrath by nature and except a man be born again c. Joh 3.3 for even all the Elect are born sons of Adam children of wrath and yet they are the children of promise Isaac himself was visibly the child of promise in his infancy he was born by promise Rom. 9.7.8 9. and yet in respect of natural generation he was a son of Adam a child of wrath Another Absurdity he fancies Mr. Tombes again is That then all the posterity of Believers must bâ—saved without saith he you will necessitate the Doctrine of falling from grace Down right Mr. Tombes Exerc. p. 52. if God keeps his Covenant it follows that all the posterity of Believers are saved or if some are not saved though they be in the Covenant of grace there may be Apostacy of persons c. This is a non sequitur for the Covenant of Grace is not absolute and saving to all that are once within it it is absolute saving to the Elect Seed but not to those who partake of the out ward priviledges of it but take not hold of it by faith It may truly be said of all Elect Infants born of believing Parents that they are absolutely under the Covenant as Isaac in his Infancy even before they believe Mr. Cotton's Grounds and Ends of childrens Baptism Dr. Proston of the Covenant yea their believing in Gods time is given to them as the effect and not the cause of the Covenant But as for others who only partake of the outward priviledges of it and no more that do not believe it is not saving to them As for the other dismal Consequence of Falling from Grace which they say we must hold if Infants of Believers be in Covenant and not all saved This is like the rest the fear is more than the hurt for as Mr. Cotton saith whom soever God taketh into Covenant are in a State of Grace but what Grace either common or saving Grace The Elect are in a state of saving Grace and they shall never totally fall away but persons may fall away from a state of common Grace and from the external priviledges of the Gospel Covenant of Grace quatenus it respects outward spiritual priviledges Those that stick at this and will not own it for Truth may do well to give us the sence of those Scriptures psal 44.17 Dan. 11.30 31. Where they are said to be false in Gods Covenant and to apostatize from it Another dismal consequence which is only the result of an idle and erroneous conceit is That we tie up the Groce of Gods Covenant to the children of Believers only and then what hope for the children of unbelievers No fear of that for the children of unbelievers may belong to the Election of Gods Grace but have no right to be baptized but upon their own personal profession nor are the children of those who are called Christians to be ranck'd with the children of Pagans for they are in a nearer capacity of Salvation being born in a nation where the Gospel is preached of whom the Apostle speaks who being strangers to the Covenant are said to be without hope Lastly he saith our Doctrine overthrows the Covenant of Grace it self concluding an interest without faith and deriving a Title by Generation Not so Whatsoever both they and Papists would fasten upon us for in this they are agreed for we say that the Infant Seed of Believers are Confederates with their Parents and God excepts of the Parents Faith and embraceth the children into the same Covenant with them Licet pueri Infantes fidem non habent Deus tamen eorum parentes compellans ipsos etiam complectitur God taking the believing Parents into Covenant takes the children in with them as we have before more fully shewn out of Calvin on Mat. 28.19 Mark 16. according to the Tenor of the Covenant I will be thy God and the God of thy Seed Nor do we hold we derive a Title to the Covenant by Generation for Foedus non transfunditur per carnem saith Peter Martyr the Covenant is not propagated or transmitted by way of natural Generation that which is born of the flesh is flesh the Parent communicates his nature and the corruption of it Mr. Prinsley of the Doctrine practice of Pedobaptism unto his child but nothing of Grace That is the free gift of God and this it is that brings the child of the Believer into Covenant as well as the Parent even the free and gracious promise of God made
to both Now Reader see some of the dismal consequences of their Doctrine who deny the children of Believers to be taken into Covenant with them 1. It puts a sacrilegious restraint upon the Covenant and makes an essential variation in it without warrant 2. It excludes them from the ordinary way of Salvation for if they have no visible interest in the Covenant no not so much as externally in regard of Gods visible dispensation then they have no visible interest in Christ the Mediator of the New Covenant 3. It exempts and shuts them out from a participation of the Spirit and sanctification of their natures whereby they may be made meet for the inheritance of the Saints for all the influences of the Spirit is by virtue of the Covenant 2 Pet. 1. Now Mr. Tombes himself acknowledgeth that Infants may be sanctified 4. They have no ground of comfort in the death of their children no more than they have concerning a Turk or unconverted Indians child for that which affords a visible ground of hope of the salvation of another is his visible interest in the Covenant of Grace to be an Aliene to the Covenant of promise is to be without hope in the Apostles Account Eph. 2.12 So that we may say with Mr. Ford concerning all the children of Heathens dying in Infancy They are taken into the hands of God who indeed may for any thing we know save them by Prerogative and an undiscovered depth of mercy but he hath afforded us no ground so much as to hope that any of them are saved because the Statute-Law of the Kingdom doth not extend Salvation beyond the Covenant Now an Anabaptists Faith concerning the Infants of believing Parents even his own puts them into the same irrelative condition as to God and the Covenant with the children of Infidels and by consequendce under the same hopelessness of Salvation Now let tender Parents consider who undoubtedly would think it a sad thing to bring forth children to the destroyer what sad principles theirs are by and according to which they must kiss their beloved Babes when they are a dying with that sad Farewel which the dying Heathen gave his departing soul Animula vagula blandula c. And truly one of their Opinion in this town and supposed godly said in my hearing they had no ground of it 5. And consequently they have no ground of hope ever to see them again with comfort at Christs appearance for there is no foundation of hope of a glorious resurrection unto life but by virtue of the Covenant Luke 20.36 37 38. Heb. 11.16 Act. 26.7 8. The other Scripture that he encounters with is that Act. 2.38 A parallel place to that in Gen. 17. The Argument which we bring for Infant Baptism from hence is this Those to whom the promise doth belong to them belongs Baptism but to those that repent and their children the promise belongs therefore to them and their children belongs Baptism Against this he hath a double Exception 1. By the promise there is not meant the Covenant of grace but the giving of the Spirit called the promise of the Father prophecied of by Joel 2.28 To which we answer That though in the fourth and seventeenth verse Whereis mention of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit which refers to Joels Prophecy yet the promise in the eight and thirtieth verse is of another nature and not meant of those extraordinary Gifts for 1. Because it is such a promise as is still a fulfilling and shall be throughout all the times of the New Testament paralled to that Isa 44.3 I will pour out my Spirit on thy Seed and my blessing on thy Off-spring It is such a promise as appertains to Parents and to their children and all that shall be called to the end of the world whereas the promise of extraordinary Gifts was but pro tempore for a certain time and relating to that season 2. It cannot be understood of extraordinary Gifts because Peters hearers had no such Gifts nor had the Jews or Gentiles who were afar off and afterward called such miraculous Gifts and as Mr. Stephens notes if the promise to you and to your children be meant of extraordinary Gifts how will the parts of the Text agree with each other The Apostle exhorts them be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and then gives this reason For the promise is to you and to your children If therefore the promise be meant of extraordinary Gifts then the command be baptized every one of you will stand in immediate relation to such a promise And so the matter will come to this Issue that all that are baptized and particularly they that renounce their old to take up a new Baptism they will have a promise made to them and to their children to speak with diverse kinds of languages Which promise I never understood-was made good amongst them for few of them have any more than their Mother Tongue On the other side if the promise be taken for the promise of Christ and for remission of sin by his blood in this case it will be easie to shew the connexion of the words for what can be more aptly spoken than this Be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus for the remission of your particular sin for the promise of the pardon of sin by the blood of Christ doth belong to you and to your children 3. The promise here mentioned was to give hope to those poor creatures and to prevent the despair which they were ready to fall into upon conviction that they had crucified the Lord of Life and what comfort could this bring to their wounded consciences to tell them they should have the miraculous gifts of tongues 2. 'T is farther objected by children are no other meant than the posterity of the Jews To which we reply with Mr. Sydenham 1. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies off-sping though never so young Joh. 16.21 Luk. 1.31 Mat. 1.26 Luk. 1.57 2. 'T is an indefinite word therefore must not be restrained to grown children except God had exprest it in a peculiar phrase 3. It must be understood of their Infants because he useth the phrase of speech to these Jews which they had been trained up in from their fathers I 'll be the God of thee and thy Seed and the Jews must needs understand him speaking in this Dialect of their children included in the promise 4. Why should the Apostle name children if he had not meant Infant Seed otherwise it had been sufficient to have said the promise is to you and as many as the Lord shall call but therefore names children because it had relation to the Covenant It is true what the Author saith concerning Dr. Hamond that he conceives children to be there really the posterity of the Jews and not particularly their Infant children but that is but one Doctors
purpose whose name they called Baal Berith and Sandak that is the Master of the Covenant and to this sence Junius and Tremelius interprets that in Isaiah chap. 8.2 where 't is said that he took unto him faithful witnesses viz. Vzziah the Priest and Zacheriah Faithful witnesses to what why to the Circumcision of his Son Mr. Brinsley and from hence it is conceived ariseth that aneient custom of witnesses grown now into a meer formality in baptizing children Concerning which Reverend Mr. Cotton hath these remarkable passages Mr. Cottons Grounds and Ends of Infant-Baptism that when children are baptized upon the profession of their God-fathers and God-mothers for so they call it it is not the intendment or Doctrine of the Church to baptize them upon the Covenant or profession of them which is one of the mistakes of our Author p. 184. of his Treatise but to bind the sureties that when the child groweth up to years of discretion they shall assist the Parents in the Christian education of the child that he may learn and practice those good things which at his Baptism they promised or undertook for his as appeareth by the charge given to the Sureties I shall add that the same Office may be much mere needful in case the childs Parents dye before it comes to years of discretion 5. Except Circumcision was not administred to Believers as Believers and to their Seed but according to the Institution to all the natural lineage and Posterity of Abraham good or bad Repl. In which passage there are two mistkes for 1. Abraham was a Believer and was not Circumcision administred to him as a Believer and to his Seed The whole body of the Israelites professing the worship of the true God wer accounted Believers and all the world besides Infidels without God and afar off Eph. 2.12 17. But as for the Jews they have the name of Gods people his peculiar people they are said to be near unto him Psal 148.14 A people called by his name 2. Chron. 7.14 And God owns them as his Eph. 3.15 And all upon account of the Covenant God made with Abraham and his Seed and 't is upon the account of the Covenat of free-grace that any among the sons of men are the people of God 'T is true indeed the Apostle says Rom. 9. All were not Israel that were of Israel all were not godly by virtue of Election and Regeneration there were many of them his people nay most for though Israel be as the Sea-sand yet a remnant only shall be saved By Covenant relation or external profession only as there are Believers only by profession now under the Gospel by virtue of which they are esteemed within the Covenant and admitted to the privileges annexed 2. That confident assertion too is spoken without book namely That Circumcision belonged to all the lineage of Abraham good and bad For 1. His Female-posterity were not circumcised personally this he himself objecteth against us and that right enough for the command was only for the Males not Females by reason of their incapacity 2. If any credit may be given to the Jewish Doctors as who is so silly as to deny it them in a matter of Fact of this nature they tell us that the Male-children of an excomunicated person that remained impenitent were not circumcised and that this was one of the ways by which they punished impenitent excommunicated persons Buxtorf hath it out of the Epistles of the Rabbins Godwin 's Moses and Aaron lib. 5. cap. 2. pag. 181. and we have the same attested in Godwin's Jewish Antiquities 3. Moreover during so long a time as the Israelites were in the wilderness there was not one Infant of all that were born there circumcised and so they wanted the signal mark We see in some cases the Ordinance was suspended as Christ allows us a dispensation in respect of the Sabbath and we may say of Circumcision as he did of the Sabbath Circumcision was made for man and not man for Circumcision Circumcision belonged to all the posterity of Abraham good and bad as he says before without any such limitation as is put upon Baptism if thou believest with thy heart thou mayst Repl. And why was that But because not only the Eunuch there but the rest of the adult persons that we read of in the Acts who were baptzed were the first Subjects of the Ordinance and that requires personal profession of Faith was in Abraham who was circumcised but it was not so with his children and they were all of them Aliens for not only the Gentiles but Jews also were to be look'd upon as such in reference to the new administrantion of Baptism and therefore it was necessary they should make a profession of their Faith Mr. Geree Vind. Paedoboptist and acceptance of the Govenant-under the new administration before they were admitted to the Seal thereof Baptism so if any Minister of the Gospel should preach to Jews and Pagans they are to have some account of their Faith before they ought to baptize them but upon their believing and being baptized the promise takes in their children also to a participation of the same Ordinance For as we have before hinted Abraham believed first and afterward was circumcised but he having a Covenant made with him and his Seed Isaac his Son was circumcised before Faith So was it with the Proselytes and their children so that here lyes the fallacy when that shall be taken for a rule absolutely necessary in the administration of Baptism which is only so in some respect Farther to what he saith of no such qualification mentioned that the Parent should be a Believer to capacitate the Infant for Baptism It may suffice to tell him there was no need thereof for the Apostles knew well enough the Covenant in the former administration to extend to visible Believers and their Seed which was never repealed by the coming of Christ But will you deny Abraham to be a believing Parent was not he a Father to them all what then he was a publick common Father which reaches not the case in hand neither have they any other in his stead therefore the Analogy holds not Repl. This is a poor shift for that Abraham was a publick Father we all hold according to that of the Apostle Rom. 4.11 He received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the righteousness of Faith which he had yet being uncircumcised that he might be the Father of them all that believe though they be not circumcised that is the uncircumcised Gentiles that believe as well as of the Jews But why is he termed the father of Believers in both people I suppose no better reason can be given than what I find in Doctor Sclater upon the fourth of Romans namely because from him the Blessing of the Covenant is derived as an inheritance passeth from the Father to the Son or because in him the Covenant is made with all
Book I add That I deny the Proposition to be Universally true that Teaching Faith Repentance ought alwayes to precede Baptism For Persons to be Baptized are either 1. Original which have no precedent title To such Teaching Repentance Faith must precede their Baptism for such having not precedent Evidences of being in Covenant must put forth some acts of Faith Repentance of their own that so they may have evidence of right 2. Secondary and derived viz. Infants of former Believers and 't is not requisite that Teaching Faith Repentance should precede their Baptism This distinction of Primary Original or Secondary and Derived Persons in the Title to the Sacrament of Baptism would answer most of the Author's Arguments for him if he would please to consider it We call the Believing Parents Original and their Infants Secondary and Derived Persons for distinction sake Not as if the Father were the Original of his Son 's right to the Covenant or Seal No God's meer Grace in Christ who at the first Institution of the Covenant was pleased to take in both the Believer and his Seed is the Original of both their Rights The Seed Deriving it immediatly from the Tenour of the Covenant as well as the Father But because the Relation of that Infant to that Believer as his Seed is a determining Mean bringing him within the Covenant from which his Right proceedeth If you say How prove you this distinction of First and Original Persons and Secondary and Derived out of the Word I prove it 1 From the Tenour of the Covenant it self I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed after thee where there is this distinction of persons in the Covenant 1 To thee Abraham actually believing 2. To thy Seed after thee brought within the Covenant by being thy Seed and by thy actual Believing though they for the present are not actual Believers and so the Seal was to be put on them in that Right even before their actual Believing 2. So is there ground for it in applying and holding out the Covenant in the same Tenour under the Gospel as is before shewn from Act. 2.39 There are the same two states of persons 1. You and others as many as shall be actually called 2. The Seed of them and others so actually called 3. In the constant Practice according to this warrant in the taking in of the Proselytes He who came in and took hold of the Covenant was Circumcised on his actual taking hold of it but then the Original-Persons actually professing they stayed not for such actual profession in the Seed of such a one but gave them the Seal as persons in Covenant even before actual Profession I have been the larger because this is the Key which must open the way to be satisfied in the lawfulness of Infant-Baptism and to repel all Arguments against it 2. Those places in the Commission Go teach all Nations Baptizing c. to which he should have added the other Mark 16.16 He that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved must be taken in the Latitude of Original Persons not of Derived for of such alone doth Christ speak there giving Commission of the planting and first-gathering of Churches for that the Whosoever in Mark must not be taken in a full Latitude of necessity is plain from the other clause to which it is convertibly prefixed viz. Shall be saved for if the Vniversality of the speech reach Infants to exclude them absolutely from Baptism it must also reach them in the same manner to exclude as full from being Saved as is before noted in the first Chapter of this Book 2. By changing the Subjects of Christ's appointment viz. Men and Women of knowledg and understanding capable to Evidence Faith and Repentance for ignorant unconverted Babes that know neither good nor evil This was answered just now in what was said to the altering Christ's Order in the Commission and there is more in the first Chapter of my Book Part 1. 3. By frustrating the Holy and Spiritual Ends of the Ordinance See what a full answer we have given to this and how short he comes of making good this charge Chap. 4. Part 1. 4. By inverting the order and manner from Dipping to Sprinkling Which is answered Chapt. 2. Part 2. 5. By introducing much Error and false Doctrine as 1. That it was to take away Original Sin Answer Although some of the Fathers have spoken too highly of Baptism and our Authors own Theophilact whom he quotes Chap. 7. pag 82. for one of his eminent witnesses for Believers Baptism speaks very Hyperbolically of it as that all our Sins are drowned in Baptism as Pharaoh and the Egyptians were in the Red Sea that Infidels dye in their Sins because unbaptized for which extravagancies and others as that Christ by Baptism had open'd Heavens door which was shut against us by Adam's Sin he is censured by the Magdeburgenses Cent. 10. p. 190. And likewise Bellarmine and the Popish School-men speak magnificently of it as Baptismo reipsa tolli peccata ita ut non solum non imputetur sed nec sit quod imputari posset ad culpam which he intends not only of Original Sin in Infants but Original and Actual in grown Persons but notwithstanding this error Infant-Baptism as to its warrantableness receives no prejudice no more than the Baptism of grown persons 2. It is also acknowledged that very many Episcopal Divines and others who are Protestants hold that Original Sin is done away by Baptism but in a way quite different from the Papists for they assert Original Sin to be removed by Baptism ex opere operato from the Work done and that it is so done away as that there is an utter abolishment of it so as not to render the Baptized person obnoxious to God's Wrath and Condemnation for not only the reatus peccati Originalis the guilt of Original Sin but in Baptismate tollitur id quod veram propriam rationem peccati habet the very essence or being of Sin is taken away it is with them annihilated Concil Trident Sess 5. for so speaks the Council of Trent with a si quis neget Anathema sit if any one denies it let him be Anathematized On the contrary Protestants ascribe the doing away only of the guilt of Sin by the Blood of Christ applyed by the Spirit in that Ordinance but they assert the inherence of Original Sin in Infants after Baptism which shews it self early in the fruits thereof when they are capable of acting Electively And all that I apprehend they say upon the point is that there is a possibility and probability as some say others go higher to a certainty that in elect Infants those that dye in Infancy the Season of God's doing that which all acknowledg to be done at one time or other before death viz. the doing away the guilt of Original Sin is at the time of Baptism and that Text Act 22.17
Arise and be Baptized and wash away thy Sins hath a favorable aspect upon Gods designing and blessing that Ordinance for the sealing of pardon in reference to grown Persons 2. To work Grace and Regeneration This is Mr. Tombes his 7th Argument against Infant-Baptism Exer. pag. 30. and to effect Salvation by the work done Although the Author knows all Protestants disclaim this and condemn it for a damnable Error yet he seems indirectly at least to charge it upon the Church of England which for my part I look upon it as very unjustly done What means else those reflections of his pag. 148. upon that passage in the Service-Book in the Rubrick before the Catechism viz. That Children being Baptized have all things necessary for their Salvation and be undoubtedly saved and then after Baptism the Priest must say We yield thee hearty thanks that it hath pleased thee to Regenerate this Infant with thy Holy Spirit just comporting saith he length and breadth with Pope Innocent's first Canons Answer 'T is fit the Church of England should be believed in what sence she intends those words Baptism by the Ancients was commonly called Regeneration or a new-Birth so 't is by the Scripture Tit. 3.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Washing of the new-Birth or Regeneration and we may learn it in her Articles which speaks her at an infinit distance from the absurd and irrational Error of Salvation by merit or ex opere operato and 't is not for others to put what interpretation they think meet especially such as are Obnoxious to her Lash Will you hear what Mr. Cotton of New-England an Independant as they call them speaks in Vindication of the Church of England in this particular matter and at a place where he needed not her favour and as I take it at a time when she could not help him which are circumstances that will not suffer us to suspect him of flattering or fawning We have it in his grounds and ends of Children's Baptism Notwithstanding saith he those expressions in the Service Book yet the Church of England doth professedly teach the contrary Doctrine not only in their Pulpits but in Books allowed by publique Authority She doth assert that the Scraments do not beget Faith nor Regeneration ex opere operato but they are signs and seals thereof Nor do I find that the publique Prayers of the Church are contrary hereunto but as in judgment they do believe that God by Covenant promiseth to pour clean Water upon us and our Seed Ezek. 26.25 Is 48.3 and that he Sealeth the Covenant and Promise by Baptism 3. That it was an Apostolical Tradition And for that we have the Testimonies of Origen and Cyprian as before Mr. Tombes his 4th Argument against Infant-Baptism Exerc. p. 28. Chap. 3. Part 2. who lived near the Apostles days and in which Chapter we have also shewn how Tradition is both by the Fathers of old and Reformed Churches taken in a safe sence different from that corrupt one of the Papists and not derogatory to the authority of the Scripture 4. That Children have Faith and are the Disciples of Christ Answer No Paedobaptists ever held Children had personally actual Faith for their condition is insufficient for the production of Intellectual Acts but as for the habit and grace of Faith the inherent infused power of believing it is more than any Antipaedobaptist in the World can prove they have not for 1. Their condition makes them not uncapable of Sin and Corruption in the Roots and Principles of it most of them confess it Anabaptistae ut Paedobaptismum prorsus tollerent peccatum negârunt Originale ut non sub esset causa cur Infantes Baptizarentur Dr. Prideaux Lect. 22. pag. 331. though some of them deny Original Sin and therefore not of the Roots and Principles of grace of which Faith is one for the acts of both are Moral and Intellectual But whether Infants Baptized have any such thing as a distinct habit of Faith or no this question of their Baptism depends not upon it It is a hidden thing The ground on which we give them Baptism must be visible and so it is viz. their being the Seed of Believers and hereby visibly entitled to the Covenant and so to the Seal of it We look not to what they have but to whom they pertain viz. to God as being the Seed of his Servants That they are Disciples is sufficiently proved Chap. 1. Part. 1. 5. That all Children of Believers are in the Covenant and federally Holy That 's abundantly made good Chap. 3. Part 2. 6. By defiling and polluting the Church viz. 1. By bringing false matter therein who are no Saints by calling being neither capable to perform duties nor enjoy priviledges Notwithstanding their inability to perform Duty yet they are capable of enjoying Priviledges as we have abundantly made good Chap. 6. Part 1. and are as true matter for the Church now under the Gospel as formerly under the Law as is there made out 2. By laying a foundation of much Ignorance and Profaness Cujus contrarium est verissimum The contrary is most true for 1. Infant-Baptism layes a singular good foundation for knowledg for in that Children are taken into Christs School they are in a near capacity to be taught and those who recommend them to that Ordinance are obliged to promote their knowledg and to see them brought up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord. And we know the Liturgy of the Church of England But the neglect hereof is much to be lamented the Children are not lookt after as they should be nor do Ministers mind them of their duty gives charge You must remember that it is your part and duty to see that this Infant be taught so soon as he shall be able to learn And that he may know these things the better ye shall call upon him to hear Sermons and chiefly you shall provide that he may learn the Creed the Lords-Prayer and the ten-Commandments in the English Tongue and all other things that a Christian man ought to know and believe to his Souls health c. Secondly it laies a good foundation for Holiness They are minded by their Baptism to cast of the Devil's service as soon as they are able to reflect that they were from their very Cradles dedicated to God whose Livery they have worn And some have repelled great temptations by virtue of their engagement to God by Baptism in their Infancy hence saith Mr. Ford in his 2d Dialogue concerning the Practical use of Infant-Baptism pag. 87. There is a very Prophane Spirit fomented under the Wings of Anabaptism for how can it be otherwise than such which endeavours to extirpate so considerable a means for the advance of Conversion and Sanctification as he shews Infant-Baptism to be Hence saith he arise grievous prejudices against those Ministers Societies and Ordinances in which God hath been wont
Believers and their Seed But what is this to the children of Believers what benefit redounds to them that do not actually believe nor profess the Faith of Abraham having not the use of reason the same Learned Doctor gives this answer although Infants have not actually the use of reason nor can actually believe yet to that end as Circumcision heretofore Baptism is ministred to Infants that when in time to cime they shall believe to righteousness their Faith may receive confirmation by Baptism in infancy received as Davids Faith did against Goliah he reflecting upon his Circumcision the sign and Seal of Gods Covenant with him when he went out against Goliah that uncircumcised Philistine To this purpose saith Augustin In Abraham praecessit fidei justitia accessit Circumcisio signaculum justitiae fidei c. In some justification goes before the Seal as in Abraham and Cornelius in others the Seal is before righteousness Sicut in Isaac qui octavo suoe nativitatis die circumcisus est praecessit Signaculum justitiae fidei c. As in Isaac who was circumcised the eighth day the Seal preceded Faith Ita in Baptizatis infantibus c. So in infants that are baptized August de Bapt. contra Donat. l. 4. c. 24. Excep 6. Because Baptism came not in the room place and use of Circumcision and the reasons he brings to prove it are diverse we shall now examine them First he saith It must not be look'd upon to come in the room and stead of it by any means and why 1. Because then Males Mr. Tombes Examen p. 4. not Females would be baptized Reader we must now give thee notice that we are to renew our combat with Mr. Tombes for this first reason is his Examen pag. 4. And the old Answers will do well euough 1. The reason why Females were excluded from an actual participation of Circumcision was their incapacity 2. They were virtually circumcised Mr. Marshal Defence of Infant Baptism and reputed among the circumcised ones in that they were admitted to the Passeover when the express command of the Law was that no uncircumcised parson must eat of it Exod. 12.48 And farther it appears they were reputatively circumcised by that passage where 't is said the whole house of Israel was circumcised and by that of Sampsons Parents who were displeased that he took a wife of the uncircumcised Philistins Judg. 14.3 for if the Israelitish women had not been accounted circumcised in the Males Circumcision could have made no difference between Wife and Wife 2. His next reason is Because all Believers out of Abrahams Family were not circumcised Mr. Tombes Exer p. 4 Mr Tombes Exercit. p. 4. He gives instances of those out of Abrahams Family that were not circumcised Repl. I have answered this before that some of them lived before the ordinance of Circumcision was instituted and others for other reasons were not circumcised as I have shewn but I love not to repeat 3. His third reason is because then the circumcised needed not to have been baptized if they had beem already sealed with the new Covenant Seal but Christ himself and all his Apostles c. were circumcised yet nevertheless were baptized Repl. If this deserves an Answer take this The Covenant of Grace both under the Law and Gospel is one and the same for substance though as to the external administration thereof there is a difference and accordingly the Seals are different The Landlord if he please may break the old Seal and set on a new one to the grant he makes to his Tenant 2. He saith it comes not in its room and stead as to the ends and uses Repl. Though as to some circumstances there be a difference between Circumcision and Baptism in regard of their ends and uses yet there is no material difference as to substance But let us see his reasons why Baptism succeeds not Circumcision as to the ends and uses which are these 1. Because Circumcision was a sign of Christ to come in the flesh but Baptism that he was already come Tombes exerc pag. 4. Answ There is a very good harmony notwithstanding that quoad substantiam as to the substance they both look at Christ and agree in the main The one signifies and seals the remission of sins by and through the blood of Christ to be shed the other through that blood already shed There is an agreement in the signification though not in the manner of signification 2. He saith Circumcision was to be a partition-wall between Jew and Gentile but Baptism testifyed the contrary Mr. Tombes again quoting Cameron for it Exerc. pag. 4. and then p 6 Circumcision separated the Israelited from all nations but Baptism signifieth that all are one in Christ Repl. Though Baptism be no partition-wall between nation and nation yet the end and use of Baptism is to distinguish Christians from Pagans Turks and Infidels One of the ends of Baptism is to be a badge of distinction betwixt those who are within and those who are without as the Apostle speaks 1 Cor. 5.12.13 3. The Author farther tells us Circumcision initiated the carnal Seed into the carnal Church and gave them right to carnal Ordinances but Baptism was to give the spiritual Seed an orderly entrance into the spiritual Church and a right to partake of the spiritual Ordinances Repl. Although I have ground to hope my Antagonist is a spiritual or godly man yet he talks here at a carnal rate for what thinks he of Isaac and Jacob and Christ himself they were the spiritual Seed as well as the carnal or fleshly Seed of Abraham for as concerning the flesh Christ came of him As for his expression of carnal Ordinances it is Scripture language Heb. 9 10. And the Apostle means those Levitical outward Ceremonies which were placed in terrene and earthly matters that reached only the flesh or did sanctify only to the purifying of the flesh But sure the circumcised had right to all the other Ordinances of a spiritual nature as well as those and the Author is to rash in calling the Church of God under the Old Testament a carnal Church I scruple not to say it is a carnal speech of him But 't is observable all is carnal with some men that doth not suit with their Genius when in the mean time the carnality lieth unseen by them in their own proud censorious self-conceited contentious spirits And did indeed Circumcision initiate into the carnal Church that is the Church of God under the old Testament was Jesus Christ the head of a carnal Church he was the head of the Church under the Law as much as of the Church now in the days of the Gospel and will any sober man say he was the head of a carnal Church This were heterogenous indeed that a spiritual head should be joined to a carnal Church But I pray what singular virtue do these men see and find in Baptism that they so