and the un-Churching of the Children of Believing Jews About a quarter of a year after I had finished my Discourse a Neighbour brought me Mr. Edward Hutchinson against Paedopabtism to read it but it was sent for again so that I did but read his Epistle to the Baptized Congregations and a Letter which I think concerned Mr. Wills and the beginning of his Book p. 3. he states the Question and proves That the Infants of Believing Gentiles are not the Seed of Abraham so that Infant Church-Membership and Baptism falls to the Ground Ans But he must prove that the Infants of the Believing Jews are not the Seed of Abraham or else Infants Church-Membership does not fall I had reason to state the Question so as to the Believing Jews but if he will yield the Infants of Believing Jews to be Members and have a Right to Baptism I will prove the Infants of Believing Gentiles are Church-Members and have a Right to Baptism There is neither Jew nor Greek c. Gal. 3.28 no difference now but of this more hereafter Again we shall see whether his Arguments do not cut off the Infants of Believing Jews as well as Gentiles 1. Argu. His first Sillogism If none be the Children of Abraham but those that do the works of Abraham then Infants are not the Seed of Abraham but the Antecedent is true Joh. 8.39 Therefore Ans If none be rational Creatures but those that can Sillogize as Mr. Hutchison doth then Infants are not rational Creatures But c. If you say my Antecedent is false so is yours but it shews how strong your Argument is 2. If Isaac at eight Days old when Circumcised do not the works of his Father Abraham then he is not Abraham's Seed you argue from no Doing to no Seed A strange Argument Sir 3. If any of those Jews to whom our Lord spake these words had any Male-Children born that day they had been reputed Abraham's Seed Members of the Church and must be Circumcised the eighth day or Sin 2. Argu. His second Sillogism If those who are Christ's are only Abraham's Seed then Infants are not Abraham's Seed but the Antecedent is true Gal. 3.3.19 they are not Christs by Calling Ans Is there no way to be made Christ's but by Calling can he that made the Ear and the Heart come no way to the Heart but by the Ear what Divinity is this cannot he that infuses the Soul into the Body infuse Grace into the Soul but by the â—ar 2. Christ commands little Children to be brought to him and none to forbid them Mark 10.13 14. c. Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven then they must be Christ's we believe Christ Sir before you 3. Because Isaac at eight days old cannot answer a Call of Christ's therefore he is none of Christ's a good Argument Was John none of Christ's when he leaped in his Mothers Womb when Mary came to Elizabeth Luk. 1.44 Argu. 3. His third Sillogism If none be Blessed with Abraham but those that are of Faith than Infants are not the Seed of Abraham but the Antecedent is true Gal. 3.9 Therefore Ans Does the Text say Actual Faith 2. Alas poor Infants by this Author ye are Cursed no poor Infant dying an Infant can be Blessed Yea those Infants whom Christ Blessed Mark 10.16 were Cursed though he Blessed them for they could not Act Faith upon Christ Did Isaac when Circumcised the eighth Day put forth an Act of Faith upon Christ to come 3. Believers in Christ are so either Actually or Siminally 4. Actual Believers in Christ are so either Visibly and Really or Visibly only Visibly only such were those to whom in your Preface to your Baptised Congregations you thus speak they are not all Israel that are of Israel I know there is dross mingled with your Silver Chaff among your Wheat and the Canaanite is still in the Land It seems then you find Dross Chaff Canaanites and not true Israelites in your Baptised Congregations but you did look on them as visible Believers when you Dipped them 2. Seminally so and they first such as are Reputed so by God's Covenant with Believing Parents and their Seed 2ly Such who besides this Reputation are regenerated by the Spirit which is not without Faith Seminally Argu. 4. His fourth Sillogism If the Children of the Flesh are not the Children of God then Infants now are not the Seed of Abraham but the Antecedent is true Rom. 9.8 Therefore c. Ans I deny the Consequence 2ly It seems then no Infants are the Children of God by this Argument a very bold and wretched Assertion 2. There is a double Adoption External Ecclesiastical and Internal Heavenly Saving that hath a Heavenly Eternal Inheritance belonging to it they who had only the first these were called the Children of God Deut. 14.1 and 16. Ezek. 21. to these pertain the Adoption Rom. 9.4 Our Question is not who are the true Children of God that have that Inheritance prepared for them but who are to be Reputed the Children of God in foro Ecclesiastico Visibly so that they are Members of a Visible Church and have Right to a Visible Ordinance in the Visible Church The Dross the Chaff the Canaanites the false Israelites which you tell us are in your Baptized Congregations are none of the Children of God in a saving Sense but your Baptists did judge them to be Believers Actually in Christ if so then Children of God then you admited them Members of your Churches and so Baptized them by Dipping They were looked upon as Abraham's Seed when you admitted them The next thing he falls upon is Act. 2.39 of which after I could go no further the Book was sent for nor did I intend to make any large Discourse though it had continued with me by these four Arguments we have a taste of the Man's strength By these Arguments and the next which follows which is in all their mouths let the Reader judge whither they do not all strike as much at the Grace and Wisdom of God in his Covenanting with Abraham and his Seed Constituting the Church of the Jewish Parents and their Seed and Circumcising of the Infants as they do prove that now the Infants should not be admitted into the Gospel-Church nor Baptised So that the Anabaptists tells God that if he will Constitute the Church of the Jews right he must let their Children be grown up First Learn to know the God of Abraham Second Put forth an Actual Faith in Christ the Promised Seed to come as Abraham saw his Day and rejoyced Joh. 8.56 Thirdly Let them do the works of their Father Abraham Joh. 8.39 Fourthly Let them manifest that they are really the Children of God then admit them Members and Circumcise them Does not all their Arguments tend to this they will teach the Holy Wise God how to Constitute Churches better I will not be afraid to say That all the Anabaptists that ever were or
with them Believers in the Messiah to come by Gods Covenant with them and the Church Constituted of them So now Believers in Christ come their Seed are Reputed with them Musculus whom my Author hath put in his Catalogue of Authors hoc com p. 603. which makes the ignorant Anabaptist think he is on their side but rancks the Anabaptists in a second or lower degree of Hereticks for denying Infant-baptism and an Oath In answer to an Argument of the Anabaptists there was a Command for Circumcising but no express Command for Baptising Thus writes Facit hoc non contra nos sed pro nobis c. ibid. 338. This doth not make against us but for us saith he the sum of his answer being too long to transcribe all is this Since God hath plainly declared his Will that the Infants of Believers whose Father Abraham is should be Partakers of the Grace and Sign of the Covenant and no where do we read that this Will of God is Repealed what necessity is there after such a clear expression of his Will to desire another Command in the New Testament Since therefore Christ gave no special Command what should be done with the Infants of Believers he did sufficiently intimate to his Apostles who were Jews and brought up among the Jews that he did not take away that Grace by which God declared himself to be the God not only of Believers but also of their Seed and that he will have them Sealed with the Sign of his Grace To which do but add Matth. 19.13 14 15. we may see Christ hath not taken away this Grace from them This Answer of Musculus is full and clear and runs upon that I have been calling for an Infallible proof of God's Repealing of Abraham's Covenant I have rather wronged Musculus by not Transcribing the whole Paragraph for brevities sake I desire the Reader to view him For my part I do not yet see any absurdity if I should say as in the fourth Commandment the morality of it being that a seventh part of time be set a part for the Worship of God therefore let God please to change the day yet that Commandment binds us to sanctify that day So when God shall please to make a Gracious Covenant with Believing Abraham and his Seed and gives Command to have that Covenant Sealed and never declares his Repealing of the Covenant and its Sealing the Covenant standing still in force though God may please to change the Seal and bring in another Seal under a new dispensation yet God's former Command may well warrant us to administer the Sign and Seal of the Covenant to Abraham's Seed as before Sure I am this express Command the Anabaptists require for Baptising Infants will cast out the Lord's-Day and Magistracy out of a Christian Common-wealth Women from the Lord's Table For though there were divers Women attended Christ Luke 8.2 3. yet there was not one of them with him at his Institution of the Lord's Supper nor do we read expresly that Women were at the Lord's Table in their Churches For him that would prove it from the words 1 Cor. 11.28 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there tell us That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the Epiceen Gender and includes Male and Female I answer If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did alwaies signify Male and Female and not the Male only then it were a good proof but I told twenty places in Matthew's Gospel I looked no further where it signifies only the Male. Besides what Gender is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which is joyned with it Nor can we have ground to Excommunicate Women if they walk impenitently scandalous in the Church Partly upon their Principle who call for express Command and partly because the casting out of the Seed of Believers and Repealing the Covenant are so strange that it cannot be proved by any Consequence I have yet met with therefore I call for Srciptures as clear at least as express Commands or signification of God's Will To return to Infants They must be regenerate and have Faith some way else they must all perish what should make the thing so impoisible they should have the Habit or Seed of Faith and of all saving Graces in them I hope it is not because Christ is known only by Revelation I pray what Act of Faith in God what Act of Love to God or Fear of God c. did Isaach or John put forth towards God when being Infants they were Circumcised yet I am confident they had the Seeds of all these at that time they were sanctified then and why not then a Seed of Faith in Christ had not John it when he leaped c. In the first Synod held in New-England this was one question discussed Whether we be justified by the Habit or the Act of Faith Arguments were brought pro and con some were for the Habit of Faith then why not Infants justified by a Habit of Faith Dr. Ames in his proofs for Infant-baptism makes this his first Argument That in the very beginning of Regeneration the Soul is a meer passive the Infant is as capable of a passive reception of Christ and Grace as another Man but Baptism Seals to our Regeneration modul theal c. 4. th 12. Got. of grace p. 27. c. Socin pro. flig p. 781. That servant of Christ Mr. Tho. Hooker proves that Children may have Faith and hath a pretty large discourse upon it The Socinians say it is a Dream if they mean Actual Faith who do not say it Caelonius in answer to them proves by ten or eleven Arguments that Children may have Faith to be sure we may observe that they whom the Holy Page Records to be Godly except Menasseh were so from their Child-hood Isaac Jacob Samuel Hezekiah Josiah David Obadiah Jehoshaphat where do you read of the Saints first running a course of wickedness and then Converted How many Children may we observe that we may say as Dr. Thomas Goodwin said are sanctified from the Womb. What is the matter then that all Infants are cast out of the Church and must not be Baptised Object If you say If you could tell which they are they should be Baptised Answ Can you tell who have saving-Faith and Grace though they make Actual Profession and tell you they have it they who you say are Dross Chaff Canaanites no true Israelites in your Baptised Congregations they told you they had Faith when you Dipped them but you were mistaken 2. If that be yielded that Infants may be Regenerate may have Faith and Grace Seminally then this Text which you do so talk of does not cut them off from Baptism 3. By Abraham's Covenant let the Parents be visible Believers by their competent knowledg of Christ profession of their Faith in him and Conversation in some measure becoming Christians giving up themselves to the Ordinances and Rules of Christ's House prove themselves thus to be visible Christians and we can as
of the earth be blessed Hence that this was a Covenant of Grace no man can rationally deny The Apostle is so clear for it in Rom. 4. and Gal. 3. 1. How can God after the breach of the first Covenant now Covenant with any to be their God but by a Covenant of Grace 2. A Covenant in which Christ is promised and it is confirmed in Christ Galat 3.17 3. A Covenant wherein God preacheth the Gospel to Abraham Gal. 3.8 4. A Covenant the Righteousness whereof is the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 4.11 5. A Covenant made 430 years before the Covenant at Mount Sinai which Sinai Covenant could not disanul Galat. 3.17 Our Divines have cleared this so that I say no more of it and therefore being confirmed in Christ it must be the same with the new Covenant But as Christ was first revealed but obscurely in a promised Seed but afterwards by the Prophets there was a clearer revealing of Christ the nearer the time this Son of Righteousness should rise So the new Covenant was comprehended in this Covenant made with Abraham but by the Prophets afterwards God revealed it more fully after the Jews had so violated the Mount Sinai-Covenant Hence that which Divines-call the Anima faederis the Soul of the Covenant I will be their God was also in Abraham's Covenant My Author denies that Abraham's Covenant and the new Covenant are the same he tells us it was a mixed Covenant there were two Seeds and so Promises and of two sorts which must he applyed right to the two Seeds Ans 1. How many Covenants shall we have in the Bible by this Author Camero is blamed by some Divines for making Three Covenants but by this Author we shall have Four 1. Adam's Covenant or Covenant of Nature 2. Abraham's Covenant 3. The Israelites Covenant at Mount Sinai 4. The New Covenant 2. Are there not outward Promises also annexed to the New Covenant as well as to Abraham's Do we not read them plainly 3. Are there not two Seeds in your Administration of Baptism to Adult Persons by Dipping Real and Formal I am sure they are not all Real Christians and do not your Baptism belong to the New Covenant a Sign and Seal of the Grace threof Yet this you Administer to such as prove Notorious Hypocrites 4. Did not Abraham's Seed by this mixed Covenant enjoy besides outward Corporal Blessings those Blessings I mentioned before in the Church with more I might have mentioned 5. Did not God engage himself to be the God of all the Seed and did not Circumcision Seal up his Covenant and Engagement to them if they did perform the Condition and had they not a great advantage by God's engaging himself thus to them to lay hold upon God for their God and Eternal Portion 2ly This Covenant was made with Abraham as a Believing Person and the Father of Believers it was not made with him as a Man nor with his Seed as Men but as the Seed of a Believing Father Circumcision was the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 4.11 in which Chapter twice he is called The Father of all Believers both Jews and Gentiles and Gal. 3.29 Here a Question might be moved why Abraham should be called The Father of Believers my Reason is were there no Believers before Abraham was he the First and Eldest Believer The Father in the Family is the first in the Family so Abraham if the Father should be the first But was not Abel a Believer in Christ Enoch Noah c. surely there were Believers in Christ a Thousand Years before Abraham was Born what may we think of Adam and Eve in Charity may we not think they Believed in the Promised Seed why then should Abraham be the Father Aquinas Answering to a Question Why Circumcision was commanded first to Abraham and to none before Serm. Doct. 3. q. 70. Act. 2. Answers That Abraham was the first that received the Promise from God of Christ to be born out of his Seed and the first that seperated himself from the Society of Infidels If this were true it would serve to Answer our Question Tho' A La I de labours to defend the Vulgar Transaction Gen. 3.15 She shall bruise thy Head yet he saith it come all to one For it is the Woman by her Seed that is Christ that bruised the Serpents Head Do we think the Lord did not teach his Servants then the use and end of the Sacrifices So that Christ was promised before and there were Believers before if there were a little more revealing of Christ to Abraham now that is all I do more admire his Act in sacrificing his Son Isaac though that is given to his fear of God Gen. 22.12 I cannot think of any better reason than this though there were Believers in Christ and Abraham might be a stronger Believer but with none did God make an express Covenant a Believer and his Seed and seal the Covenant to his Posterity but with Abraham only I shall add a few more words presently 3. This Covenant was made also with and sealed to his Seed The great Question is who are this Seed my Author tells me His Spiritual Seed Whence I meet with this once and again That Abraham's natural Seed was a Type of the spiritual Seed Elect Regenerate Thus in answer to the question Whether not baptizing Infants makes not the Priviledge under the Gospel less than under the Law He answers The natual Seed of Abraham was a typical shadowing thing as the Antitype exceeds the Type the spiritual birth the carnal birth so much are we better Ans 1. What do you mean by so much are we better Were none of these who were Circumcised being Abraham's natural Seed also his spiritual Seed Your words carried it as if not Besides here would be a question How the Elect-regenerate the spiritual Seed are Abraham's Seed how is he a Father to them as such I am sure they are Christ's Seed Isa 53.10 11. And we can give reasons why they should be called his Seed he is the meritorious and efficient cause of them but Abraham neither way You would have done well to have shewn us this Abraham is not so much a Father to us as Paul was to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 4.15 neither I am sure in this respect he was Father to Isaac he did not convey Faith in his Generation of Isaac how then is he a Father to us now That there were Believers before Abraham the Apostle Heb. 11.4 5 7. Instance in Abel Enoch and Noah and more I doubt not but yet in the History written by Moses Abraham is the first person who is called a Believer upon a special Promise given to him Gen. 15.6 if any cause he was but Causa exemplaris which is Causa adjuvnans to the principal By his example we should be stirred up to believe the Promise of God as Abraham our Father did (a) An example how God will justifie us but he
so strong that they need no Seals 2ly I took God's Signs to be Seals by the Apostle's Authority I look on the Rain-bow which God calls Gen. 9.12 13. the Token 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same word used Gen. 17.11 of Circumcision of his Covenant to be not only a Sign but a Seal of his Covenant that he will not drown the World 3ly But why do you say it sealed that Promise What did it seal nothing but that That Promise is not mentioned in this Chapter but in the 12th and 22th but in this Chapter so soon as the Lord had made the Covenant between himself Abraham and his Seed immediately the the Lord adds this Circumcision and calls it his Covenant I am sure it seals this and I doubt not but the Jews did so look upon it as a Seal of the Covenant between God and them that God was their God and they his people Sir you must give me better grounds than these or else I must still be of the opinion of the great body of the most learned and pious Divines viz. That all the Sacraments of the Old and New Testament were and are Signs of the Covenant sealing up the Grace of God to Believers My Author hath more Notions about Circumcision but of them afterwards In the Child Circumcision left a signal Impression saith he A. 1. That which you call a signal Impression God calls his Covenant But 2ly Though there were a signal Impression left in the Infant yet if when it came to years it were not taught the spiritual meaning of it the Child would get no benefit by it 3ly What signal Impression is left upon those whom you baptize by Dipping when Adult more than upon those who are baptized by pouring of Water upon them when Infants True you can remember better you were dipped but Children tho' they have but a moral certainty from their Parents and others and the Testimony of the Book in which they are recorded yet being taught the meaning of it and especially if as some Parents who compose short Prayers for their Children put in that Petition for the blessing of their Baptism as some Parents do Children may keep it in mind and in time come to make as good use of it as those who are dipped when Adult and Experience I hope will prove it 4ly If that be true which Mr. Tomâ—â—s is willing to believe out of Mr. Selden that the Jews admitted Proselites by Baptism the female kind the same Author Mr. Selden and so Baxter tells us the Children also of the Proselites were admitted by Baptism to what purpose saith the Anaba t ist since they understand it not and there is no Impression left Let the Jews answer that 5ly Abraham's Seed being so numerous as the Stars in the Heavens how could the Infants circumcised when they came to riper years and living only in Canaan know that there was any Signal Impression made upon their flesh unless their Parents or others told them might not they well think alâ— men were as they or it might be proper to their Nation If they then were certain by their Parents and others informing them cannot we be as certain by our Parents Information that we were baptized 6ly May there not be a Conveyance of a great Estate to a Child that lies in the Cradle and understand nothing many years but when it comes to ripe years and see its Name in the Conveyance and the Witnesses now it can sue for it Two things are very desirable if there were nothing to trouble the Conscience a thing to be lamented and other things concur First That Baptism should ever be administred in the face of the Church Secondly The Names of all baptized Recorded both which I have known the constant practice in Independent Churches By both which and Parents Education a Child when it comes to years of understanding may be as sure of its Baptism though it makes no Impression as Circumcision did in the flesh and now sue out the Blessings which there the Lord did signifie and conditionally seal to be mine 7ly Were our Churches in that order they ought to be and were that laudable Practice which certainly is our Duty taken up viz. That special care bâ— taken that Children baptized be diligently Catechized and when they come to fit years be called before the Eldership there to own their Baptismal Covenant and give an account of their Faith solemn Prayer made for them and the Church now to take care of them and inspection over them as being their Members there would be no room for this Objection and less ground for Anabaptists to cry down Infant-baptism If we will keep Churches so far as our Duty can reach for Christ it is not preaching a Sermon or two on the Lord's-Day will do the work there is more required than so Though the Anabaptists strength lie in the incapacity of Infants to believe in Christ yet because this notion hath been a trouble to me heretofore therefore I speak the more to it 5ly This Covenant never repealed by God Now I come to the Pinch Mr. Tombes the greatest Adversary that ever the Seed of Believers had yields two things 1. That the Children of the Jews were Members with their Parents in the Jewish Church But then say I it must be by vertue of this Parental-Covenant God made with Abraham else how they should be Members with their Parents I know not 2ly That if the Children of believing Parents be Members of the Church with the Parents then they must be baptized For I grant saith he that Baptism is the way and manner of solemn Admission into the Church I mean the regular way Then the Question must be thus stated Quest When the Jews believed in Christ come crucified risen and ascended as the five thousand in Acts 4.4 Did the Lord now repeal his Covenant which he made with Abraham and his Seed admit only the Parents into the Gospel-Church but bar the Doors against their Posterity or Children I think I have stated the Question right and if this cannot be proved then I hope believing Gentiles shall find a way to bring in their Children too with the Jews and find a Title to Baptism by Mr. Tombes's Concession Affirmanti incumbit probatio This lie upon the Anabaptists to prove And here though I am far from that absurd irrational Principle of Veronius who lays down this for a Rule in our Disputation with the Papists That we must bring express Scriptures to confute them yet this casting all the Posterity of the Godly out of the Church is so wretched a Doctrine as Mr. Thomas Hooker calls it against the poor Infants that as yet want a Tongue to plead for themselves that the Anabaptists must bring Scriptures if not express yet as clear and strong as express Scriptures else I shall little regard their Writings And this I require upon these grounds First The Anabaptists require of us an express Command from
Christ to the Apostles to baptize Infants This was put upon me in the Congregation Now it is meet the Anabaptists should be honest men buy and sell by the same measure If they require of us express Scriptures we may well require of them the same Secondly All the Arguments which the Anabaptists draw from Scripture against Infants Church-membership and Baptism do strike at the Grace and Wisdom of God in his Covenant with Abraham and his Seed and his Constitution of the Church of the Jews as if the Lord had not done wisely but they will teach him how to Constitute Churches better We shall hear their Arguments anon Thirdly The holy Page tells us how much weight the Jews and false Teachers put upon Circumcision what a stir it made in the Churches while the Apostles laboured to remove it though it was a painfull bloody Ordinance We read Acts 21.21 This was the great Objection against Paul and this was 21 years after Paul's Conversion I am apt to think till the Temple the head of all the Ceremonies was utterly demolished the believing Jews did Circumcise their Children But had Paul told them the Reason was that Christ is come and now the Covenant with Abraham as to his Seed is repealed and their Seed are all cast out of the Church and therefore they must not Circumcise their Children Should we not have read the Jews Clamours and Out-cries against the Apostles in the Acts and in every Epistle and what a bar had this been against the reception of the Gospel I appeal to the Consciences of the Anabaptists But though we read of Circumcision in several places both in the Acts and the Epistles there is not one word of this Fourthly God did expresly repeal his Covenant with Israel made at Mount Sinai Heb. 8.13 That which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away This Covenant of God with Abraham and his Seed is a Covenant much noted in the Scripture and long before Sinai-Covenant Now if the Lord doth indeed repeal this Covenant with Abraham why should we not expect clear Scripture-ground The Jews quarrelled with the Apostles because they changed the Customs of Moses Acts 6.14 chap. 21. v. 21. but if they had taught the nulling of the Covenant of God with Abraham their Father too the Apostles should have heard of it with both ears and we should have read it God tells them when he repealed that Covenant He would make a new Covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah are not Children a part of the House They were so when God made that Covenant with the House of Israel Deut. 29.10 11 12. then they are in the House still then they are capable of the Grace of the new Covenant with their Parents then the want of actual Faith doth not exclude them from Baptism Fifthly God tells Abraham he will establish his Covenant and it shall be an ever lasting Covenant Gen. 17.7 If God establish it must stand If he saith it is everlasting the Entail is not cut off Nor do I doubt in the least but as when they rejected Christ and said Let his blood be upon us and our children Mat. 27.25 God did cast away Parents and Children so when God receives them again Rom. 11.15.26 the Parents shall not be received and Children remain cast out but they shall come in with their Parents If they say the word Everlasting is spoken of their possession of Canaan verse 8. and Circumcision v. 13. Ans I know well how the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for ever or everlasting is taken in Scripture but it doth not at all hinder the Argument 1. For in this Covenant is nothing Typical it is pure Grace and we have other Scriptures in the Gospel will confirm it 2. As to Circumcision it was a bloody Ordinance as was the Passeover all Ordinances so till Christ came with his Blood fulfilling all removed them No more blood in any Ordinance after Christ Zipporah calls Moses a bloody Husband at the Circumcising of her Son Exod. 4.25 26. At this time when the Jews circumcise their Children they say they may do it from Sun-rising to Sun-setting any hour on the Eighth day but they choose the Morning because the Child then being empty it will not bleed so much The Mohet or he that circumciseth sucks the Wound three times and use other means to stop the blood but no bloody Ordinance now Buxt Synor Isid p. 81.86 3. For the Land of Canaan that was conditional their abiding in it but however though they are now cast out of possession yet they have jus ad rem a just Title to it at this day Hence Ezek. 37.14.21 Ezek. 36.24 Three times the Lord promised to bring them into their own Land ver 28. the Promise runs for them It is their own then now to depart from the literal sense without some eminent absurdity that will follow upon the literal sense we ought not 6ly If God will not bring an unclean Creature forbidden into a believing Jew's House without an express word to warrant it will God cast a holy Seed out of his House and not give as clear a ground to the believing Parent to know his mind The unclean Creatures signifying the Heathen of several sorts the Hebrews say Babylonians Medes Persians Greeks Romans not eat that is not to have communion Acts 10.28 Compare Levit. 11.5 6 7. with Acts 10.11 12 13 15. and must now the holy Seed be cast out of the Church and looked upon as the Swine were then We must have clearer grounds and Texts than ever yet the Anabaptists have brought I say as strong as express Scriptures 7ly The New Testament doth give us clear Texts to prove the Church-membership of believing Parents you cannot give us clearer Texts for their unchurching unless you give us express Scriptures 8ly Let me take up one of Mr. Baxter's Arguments and improve it my way If God hath repeled his Covenant and cast the Seed of the believing Jews out of the Church then it was either in justice or in mercy But neither this nor that therefore not cast out c. thus Mr. Baxter For the first not in justice I prove thus Let Parents be never such sound Believers walk in the steps of their Father Abraham keep close in the Covenant yet the Anabaptists cast out all their Seed but this cannot be in justice for the Text saith Psal 25.10 All the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth unto such as keep his Covenant But these Jews believing Parents do so yet God repeals his Covenant with their Seed and cast them out of the Church 2. In mercy the Lord doth it not For then God gives a greater mercy in the room of that which in mercy he takes away saith Mr. Baxter This is true what Mr. Baxter saith I prove what he saith the believing Jew shall say though God hath repealed his Covenant with my Seed and cast them out
nor now do our Women put on a Shirt or any thing upon the Infant and then wash it but they apply the Water immediately to the Body I am sure it should be so in Baptism Vossius gives us large Testimonies out of Antient Writers how that Men Women and Children in those Countries were all Baptised De Baptis p. 350. I wonder the Anabaptists should be so angry with Mr. Baxter because he saith they Baptise naked the Women only had a little covering before them yea they had a Mystery in the pulling off their Clothes to shew their pulling off the Old Man some where I have read after their Dipping they were Annointed When a tumult arose in the City about Chrysolstom how the Women that were about Baptising ran away naked with other things there we may read Certainly God's Institutions are such that we may Celebrate them at Noon-day before all Men let them be Spectators and if this must be the way let them Baptise for me and Annoint too if they please So that Modesty and Life be preserved I am of Cyrian's and Austin's mind in this Point who left it indifferent so you do not absolutely tye us up to one and deny all Baptism by Dipping Cypr. 249. Aust 10.3 p. 207. Other Divines have answered this more fully and therefore I break off Here a Question falls in which I never did so much as think of till now I say Mr. Mode That Water in Baptism he saith hath no respect to the blood of Christ that it doth concur in the Mystery by way of efficacy and merit he grants but not as the thing there figured for that is the Spirit This may help as to the manner of Baptising I thought both Spirit and Blood he denies the latter and saith the Church of England doth so also as he thinks The Question is new to me I shall hardly propound my thoughts 1. If cleansing of the Soul from Sin be the thing Baptism holds out then what doth primacily properly and effectually cleanse is there signifyed but the Antecedent is true Cleansing is as much given to the Blood of Christ as to the Spirit 1 Joh. 1.7 Apoc. 1.5 Hebr. 9.14.22 Almost all things were purged by Blood 2ly We read three times Mark 1.4 Luke 3.3 Acts 2.38 that Remission of Sins is signifyed and Sealed in Baptism but how can this be if there is no respect to his Blood in Baptism Without Blood there is no Remission Heb. 9.22 Why is it called Baptism for remission of sins 3ly Why are we said in Baptism to have Communion with Christ in his Death and buryed with him in Baptism Rom. 6.3 It should rather be said buryed with the Spirit if the Spirit only be signifyed Doth not the Death of Christ comprehend in it the effusion of his Blood 4ly It is certain that in the Types of the Old Testament by Water the blood of Christ was signifyed Numb 19.9 The Water is said to be a Purification for Sin In the Hebrew it's a Sin the word often used for a Sin Offering the Dutch render it It is an Expiation Have not that Fountain Zech. 13.1 set open a respect to the blood of Jesus all the Interpreters I see respect both his Blood and Spirit Why not then so in Baptism 5ly As we are filthy are we not as guilty Is there nothing in the Ordinance to respect our guilt then it were sad yea guilt being upon us can God give out the blessing of Regeneration to us till in order his justice be first satisfied though Regeneration and Pardon are simul tempore To say it concurrs by way of efficacy and merit so it doth in any Ordinance to make it effectual But Remission of Sins being in a special manner sealed up in this Ordinance which is only by Christs Blood methinks the Element should have a respect to his Blood The utter Abolition of Sin both guilt and power is given to the Blood of Christ alone but taking away guilt is not given to the Spirit 6ly Out of the side of our Blessed Lord when he was pierced came Blood and Water Joh. 19.34 There is our Pardon and Sanctification If both these be signified in our Baptism why is not that Blood and Water of his signifyed in this Water in Baptism Hence Alcinus's Baptism was signified in the passion of Christ by the Water and Blood which came from his side Several Verses he hath upon it Cent. 6. p. 112. In That Tract which go under Cyprian's Name Baptizabantur in nube mari Hebraei jam Spiritu sancto sanguine Christi mundatur a peccatis populus Dei De Resur Chri. Hence Ambrose speaking of Baptism Ideoqque legisti quod tres Testes in Baptismate unum sunt aqua sanguis spiritusqui si unum horum detrahas non stat Baptismatis Sacramentum quid enim est aqua sine cruce Christi Deris qui c. 4. Hence Luther Baptizari nihil aliud est quum reseo illo precioso sanguine Christi lanari mundari Res significata in Baptismo est sanguis Christi Walaeu to 1. p. 84. I could produce more Authors The Application of the Blood of Christ and the renewing of the Spirit without both which our State cannot be happy I think may both be signified and these either by Dipping or powering of Water The sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus set out of old by the Ceremonial sprinkling is a famous Sentence in the Gospel Heb. 12.24 and 1 Pet. 1.2 so the powering out of the Spirit Tit. 3.5 6. Ezek. 36.25 Isa 52.15 Joel 2.28 29. Prov. 1.23 The Abolishing of Sin is the end of all Lord what a do is here before we can be delivered from the misery we have brought ourselves into what an Evil is Sin now this is not set down one way but several waies in Scripture sometimes by mortification or the Death of Sin Dipping sets out that Buried with Christ sometimes by cleansing and by purging Heb. 9.14 1 Jo. 1.9 Apoc. 1.5 But the grave do not represent that we do not use to purge and cleanse by Burying but this we do by powring Water upon our Hands upon Rooms Tables c. we can cleanse that way purge me with Hyssop Psal 51.7 How was that Levit. 14.6 7. Numb 19.18 not by Dipping Whither then you Dip or pour Water Here is 1. The same Sign or Element 2ly Here is the same thing signified the Spirit and Blood of Christ 3ly The same end aimed at the taking away or purgeing of Sin nor did I ever contend with any Man about Dipping but to deny all Baptism unless by Dipping and so set up Rebaptising and to administer Baptism only to Adult persons excluding all the Children of Believing Parents This I could never yield to To conclude though I was moved to publish my Notes by some Friends yet had I not received this Challenge for so I may call it by this Letter I think I should never have done it because I knew Men far more able than my self had done more service than I could do in the Controversie I wish the Anabaptists before they had Condemned and wrote against Infant-baptism had well studyed and well improved their Parental and Infant-baptismal Covenant followed God close for the benefits and waited though they found temptations and did not meet with all they would and reproved others for neglecting and vigorously stirred up people to the serious improvement of them Then had they done good service to Christ and his Church Whereas by the course they have taken they have increased our Divisions a thing deeply to be lamented which I shall never live to see healed I shall only desire the Anabaptists to give me answer to these two Questions clearly from Scripture Quest 1. Since God was so Gracious to make a Covenant with Abraham and his Seed and it did then consist with his Wisdom to Constitute his Church of Parents and Children while the Parents did believe in the Messiah to come why may it not consist with his Grace to continue that Covenant and with his Wisdom still to Constitute his Gospel-Church of Parents and Children the Jews now believing in Christ come If God hath plainly declared his pleasure to the contrary tell us where and we are satisfied but you must produce other Scriptures then you have done yet Quest 2. If God hath repealed his Covenant with the Believing Jews Seed turned their Children out of the Church and deny them Baptism though the Jews truly Believe in Christ come what hath God left in the room of these that carry any shew of his Blessing or good Will towards their Children during their Infant State As to their Internall and Eternal State the Infants were in as good a State then as now Christ is Yesterday to Day and the same for ever the Lamb slain for the Foundation of the World Apoc. 13.8 But as to their visible State how come they to be in the same condition that we Gentiles and our Children were in Ephes 2.12 Before Christ came and we believed in him I state the Question concerning the Jews Believing in Christ come As for the Believing Gentiles I shall let them alone till I see how you prove the casting out of the Seed of the Believing Jews FINIS