It s true there is grace in this Covenant yet it is not the Covenant of grace there is grace in this for it is grace for God declaratively to be a God to a People And secondly there was the everlasting grace included typically in this Covenant for it relates in the mysterie unto Christ as all outward Covenants Services and the Land of Canaan it self did Gal. 3. 6 Col. 2. 17. Heb. 4. from ver 3. to the 8. That it was an outward Covenant will appear 1. The thing promised in the Covenant was outward i. e. The Land of Canaan Object He promised to be a God unto them in an everlasting Covenant Answ 1. This was a promise in an outward Covenant as will appear Isa 10. 22 23. compared with Rom. 9. 29. Though the Children of Israel be as the sand of the sea yet a remnant of them shall be saved Now if God had been a God unto them in the Covenant of grace they must have been all saved and have continued in that Covenant unto this day but it being but an outward and typical Covenant relating to Christ the antitype and substance when Christ was come that Covenant was dissolved into Christ and is given forth upon the true spiritual account to the spiritual seed Gal. 3. 16. with 29. 2. It s said to be an everlasting Covenant either 1. because it was to continue its appointed time so called Everlasting as usually the old Testament Ordinances were so God promised in this Covenant to give the Land of Canaan for an everlasting possession yet they are and have been many hundreds of years turned out of it and if they had not yet that could but have been a poffession for them in their generations till the end of the world But the Covenant of grace reaches to eternity without end Psal 103. 17. Hence the Priesthood of the Law was called an everlasting Priesthood Exod. 40. 15. Num. 25. 13. Or secondly it s called Everlasting upon the account of Christ who was the substance and the Covenant it self when he came ending all other Covenants and Services Isa 42. 6. So Davids Kingdom was said to be Everlasting upon the account of Christ who was and is the true spiritual King of whom David was a type 2 Sam. 7. 16. Ps 89. 35 36. compared with Ezek. 37. 24 25. David was dead long before yet David viz. Christ must be their King for ever Thus it appears first from the Covenant it self on Gods part that it was not the Covenant of grace though grace was darkly and typically included in it only the enlightened renewed soul saw into it and partaked of Christ the substance But secondly it will appear likewise if we consider the second part of the Covenant on Abraham and his childrens part Every man-child shall be circumcised at eight dayes old v. 10. 11 12. Here is an external obedience suitable to an external covenant God promiseth the land of Canaan in lieu of this they must be circumcised which shall be a sign of their obedience and to God of his Covenant as the Rain-bow in another case 2. The Covenant being thus considered it followeth that notwithstanding this Covenant was to Abraham and his seed natural yet it is not to Believers now and their seed natural This denies your Minor and this Scripture produced by you doth not prove it Your other Scripture Act. 2. 39. I shall answer in its place when I come to your Argument drawn from it And whereas you say That there are some Infants in the Covenant of grace I deny it positively that there are Infants in the Covenant of grace upon your account viz. the account of nature because born of believing parents all fleshly boasting being taken away Rom. 3. 27. As the Covenant to Abraham and his seed was outward and typical so the Covenant of Christ or Christ the Covenant is to the spiritual seed and that only those who are of the saith of Abraham who do the works of Abraham they and they only are the seed of Abraham Joh. 8. 39. He is not a Jew that is one outwardly but he is a Jew that is one inwardly Rom. 2. 28 29. where as the outward Covenant so the natural seed are cut off and only the spiritual stands And whereas you say there is an outward being in this Covenant c. Ishmael was circumcjsed I say so too for in it self it was wholly outward this and all other Covenants and services were outward and typical except the first promise Gen. 3. The Covenant of grace now in the dayes of Christ is wholly spiritual Those then that were enlightened which were but few saw and enjoyed the substance in the shadow and form We first the substance and with it the form They were first brought by works to Christ we first to Christ and then to works as fruits of faith And whereas you conclude Baptism to be a Seal of the Covenant of Grace you are as much besides the truth in this as in the Covenant it self Because you have heard others say it therefore you affirm it too as children use to speak by tradition but where is your Scripture for it Did you ever read of any New-Testament seal besides the Spirit of Christ Ephes 1. 13. ch 4. 30. But I suppose because that it 's said Rom. 4. 11. that Abraham received the sign of Circumcision a seal of the righteousness of his faith which he had before he was circumcised that therefore Baptism is a seal of the Covenant of grace Oh gross mistake Abraham believed God when he first promised him the land of Canaan and commanded him to forsake all and go into it and that he would keep him and bless him Gen. 12. Here Abraham believed God and obeyed and went out not knowing whither and v. 17. God gave him Circumcision a sign and seal to confirm his faith which he had before in this promise And as Circumcision was given a seal of Abrahams faith in Gods promising him the land of Canaan so the Spirt of grace is the seal of faith to every believer of his interest in the spiritual land the substance of the outward the Lord Jesus So you are lost both in Covenant in Seal in the Subjects of the Covenant and all You mention Gal. 4. 28. I say upon the Gospel-account its truth as Isaac was heir to that Covenant so all true believers are heirs of the true promise and none else Whereas you say pag. 11. in way of answer to an objection That theirs is old and ended c. you answer That to make that old none but carnal Anabaptists will do it Your mouth is wide but let it pass I answer To make that Covenant which was of an outward land the same as ours which is of a spiritual land to bring in the natural seed upon that account when it is only to the spiritual seed none but a carnal and blind generation of men dare to do Christ saith
Christ in though never so wicked 3. Bastards in all in and all as soon and as well as any See pag. 5. I must tell you and that from the Lord you will have a sad account to give to the Lord one day if mercy prevent not for your abusing the Covenant of grace and thrusting a fleshly generation upon the Lord when he is seeking a spiritual a holy seed to worship him and I would have you to know that those you so often and with so much contempt and reproach term Anabaptists are not so simple as you would perswade the world to believe they are able through mercy to see into your forgeries and delusions and to discover them too in a measure and to distinguish between Law and Gospel Covenant and Covenant not confounding things together so denying Christ to be come in the flesh I shall in a word give you the difference The Covenant of the Law either that with Abraham or with Moses was a Covenant without them and the mysterie or substance was hid from all though all was in it unless those few taught of God The Covenant of the Gospel is wholly spiritual and none are in it but the spiritual seed viz. true believers though hypocrites may come in to the outward profession yet they have nothing to do to be there for there is no outside in the Covenant of grace That which you call the outward Covenant is but the outward profession of the invisible grace and that is proper only to those who are in it although the Disciples did and we may admit those that may prove hypocrites yet neither did they nor may we admit any by baptism into the visible profession of the invisible grace but those we judge by the rule of truth in this particular to have true faith and if any come in that have it not to their own peril it will be Therefore if this be truth as I am sure it is what account will those give to the Lord who bring in the natural seed to the profession of the spiritual Covenant and so make them hypocrites A day will come when the sinners in Sion shall be afraid and fearfulness shall surprise the hypocrite Isa 33. So I conclude that Infants are not in the Covenant of grace nor were ever commanded to be baptized therefore have no right unto it The fourth Argument Christians ought to be baptized But Infants of Christians are Christians Ergo They ought to be baptized Answ 1. If this Argument were truth it were a very easie thing to be a Christian Born Christians by nature no need of Christ the Gospel Spirit Regeneration any thing it makes void all the whole Gospel of grace and peace a doctrine of Devils indeed Do you not remember that Paul saith If any man preach any other Gospel then what he had preached he should be accursed Gal. 1. But you have found out another Gospel Christians by the natural generation and birth Cursed be all such soul deceiving and soul destroying Doctrines You pretend to prove your Minor with much clearness As all the parings of Gold are Gold so all the children of Christians are Christians The parings of gold are true gold and the children of Christians by this account are true Christians pared out from the spiritual man being of the same nature oh high priviledge Christians can beget Christians Saints can beget Saints by natural generation Certainly if one of the preaching brethren had laid down such an assertion you would have counted him an illiterate Ignoramus one altogether unmeet to have medled with the Scriptures or to have spoken of the things of God You would have accounted him no less then a blasphemer and worthy to be burnt with his Books Well but you proceed As all the Children of the Jews were Jews by birth Gal. 2. 15. And all the Children of the Turks are Turks by birth so all the Children of Christians are Christians and have a right to Baptism Answ 1. The Jews were all in an outward Covenant and so they were born Jews viz. in that Covenant but believers are in the Covenant of grace as hath been already proved and none are born in that Covenant by natural generation and birth so that although Jews were Jews by birth yet Christians are not so by the natural birth for that which is born of the Spirit is spirit But secondly the Jews were so by birth as a distinguishing title from other Nations so the Turks are Turks and the Spaniards are Spaniards and the French are French and the English are English by birth but they neither of them are Christians by birth But you seem to mend all in answering an Objection Then we should be born Christians and not made Christians we should be born children of God and not children of wrath You answer Parents cannot convey grace to their Children but a right to Church priviledges c. unheard of nonsence and confusion miserable bald shifts men make to patch up their own inventions 1. Christians yet no grace a right to Church-priviledges yet no grace Members of the Church yet no grace page 23. Nay members of the Church Christians a right to Church priviledges holy c. and yet have no grace are the children of wrath page 23. these are like to be goodly Christians Church Members c. Yet you dislike with the Anabaptists for not taking notice of this distinction c. A strange kind of distinction to make them Christians yet no Christians Members of the Church yet children of wrath I suppose you would learn to distinguish a little better were it not to please the vulgar sort of people that so they may please you in feeding you with the Tythes A sad thing when you shall lead along souls blind with the name of Christian yet children of wrath and if mercy prevent not are like to perish eternally for all the name of Christian Thus are souls deluded by their Teachers called Christians made Church-members and yet Children of wrath c. Alike children of wrath as Heathens page 10. The fifth Argument From Christs command and commission to his Disciples Mat. 28. 19. and from the Apostles practise answerable to that command thus your argue That which is both commanded and commended that hath both precept president and promise for it may lawfully be practised by the Ministers of Jesus Christ But Infant-Baptism is both commanded and commended for it there is both precept president and promise Ergo. Well said namesake Tom Prove this and thou hast done the deed that never yet was done Prove this and I will lay down my Arguments and practise too Had you a good cause you its like would be very bold that you dare be so bold in asserting such an Argument in such positive terms when there is never a word in Scripture of either precept president or promise to the thing you are pleading for so that your Minor is denyed You pretend to prove it
men who seek themselves yet God hath hitherto so kept and carried me that I may say truly I have endeavoured to keep a Conscience void of offence both before God and men And as to those Principles of Truth by me owned although judged by men yet my judgement is with the Lord and he knows the way of his People but the way of the wicked shall perish Though I pass under the censure of Tho. Hall whom nothing but Fire and Fagot can satisfie and under the ignominious reproaches of Feriby Sanders and a thousand more yet none of these things trouble me and let none think that I am besides my self because I thus profess and write for if I am it is to the Lord and for your sakes for whom my desire is that you may be made partaker of the truth and that as it is in Jesus not after the will of men but of God I have presented to thy consideration these two things First the insufficiency of all those grounds produced for Infant-Baptism wherein its weakness and inconsistency with the Gospel will appear and the continued practice of the baptizing of Believers cleared and vindicated 2. A brief Reply to John Feriby and Richard Sanders wherein you may finde a farther confirmation of the truth asserted in the Pulpit-Guard Routed viz. the lawfulness of the Preaching of Gifted Brethren I have likewise three things to desire of the Reader 1. To read and judge Read and consider what thou readest for I have endeavoured to compose much in few words and that because I judged it to be for thy profit large Discourses being sometimes not so usefull therefore I say be content to spare a little time to consider and contemplate upon what thou readest and happily thou mayest come to see all those strong Guards broken and disperst as the morning dew before the Sun 2. Read with patience and be not troubled at that which may seem to thee to be harsh language or contrary to thy understanding and this I assure thee considering the Spirits of those men with whom I have had to deal I have passed through with as much moderation as possibly I could without betraying the Cause and giving but a word of reproof to an insulting adversary 3. Read and judge impartially lean not to the right hand or to the left for affection sake but desire the Lord from an impartial unbyast heart to lead thee into the truth resolve not to follow the traditions of men or Churches but the written word of Truth which is able to give thee direction as a rule of life through the blessing of the Spirit of Jesus and to make the man of God perfect throughly furnishing him to every good work Tho. Collier THE Font-Guard Routed SIR IT S faln to my lot once more to encounter with you and why to me more then to others because not only the Truth of Jesus his Honour and his servants in the profession of it lieth at stake but my self likewise in a special manner being not only concerned in the case in hand but likewise being deeply aspersed by your Libellous Tongue and Pen in your succeeding word to one Collier to which I shall reply in its time and place But Sir by the way it seems you are become an absolute Souldier a grand Captain Leader But what 's the work To guard Pulpits and Fonts forsooth I suppose you 'l be cautious of suffering much in defence of your Cause if you had intended it you would not have set your guards about that which none intends to take from you that I know of But is it truth in good earnest that your Font is affronted 1. I wonder you had not had more wisdom and forecast in you at first and have set your Guard round about your Kirk so one might have served for the whole and have saved you much labour and expence of time but I suppose your wisdom lay in this You guarded the Pulpit first that so being routed there you might have a fair retreat to the holy Font and when routed there you might sound another retreat but whither I know not unless to the high Altar viz. the Communion Table so called or into the Belfrey to secure the holy baptized Bels In Pope Johns time the 14. began the vile superstition of baptizing Bels Simpsons History of the Church Cent. 10. Or to take the Church doors c. But whither am I wandring I say no more of this but leave my name sake Tom to his own choice 2. I wonder that a wise man as Tho. Hall should have so little wit or so much idle time to set up such a strong guard in defence of that which none intends to take from him we baptize in Rivers not in Fonts we do not intend to take them from you no we know not what to do with them unless c. But 3. Did you ever read in Scripture of the Font or of baptizing in the Font I know you have not I remember I have read in the Popish Histories of the holy Font in the first institution of Infants baptism from thence you had both as in its time and place I shall let you see Now to your Arguments for that is it I intend to fall upon letting pass all other things for if I rout you there as I doubt not in the strength of Jehovah whom I serve in my spirit but that I shall rout you in all your twenty Arguments so the Commands of Christ and practise of the Apostles may stand clear before the sons of men and the Churches practise in baptizing Believers vindicated in opposition to all gainsayers Now to your first Argument Page 8. From the Covenant of grace which God made with the Faithfull and their Seed they are confederates say you joyned together in the Covenant of God c. Your first Argument is this Page 9. To whomsoever the Covenant it self belongs to them also belongs the seal of the Covenant But the Covenant belongs to Believers and their Children Ergo The seal of the Covenant belongs to them also I answer First your Minor is denyed That Children of Believers are in the Covenant of grace and here lies the ground of your miscarriage ignorance and error in this particular We will therefore come first to consider the Covenant it self which is the foundation on which you stand Gen. 17 7 10 11. This Covenant it self is wholly outward and it consists of two parts the one on Gods part to be performed the other on Abrahams and his childrens part That on Gods is in ver 7 8. I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee and I will give unto thee and to thy seed after thee the Land of thy sojourning all the Land of Canaan for an everlasting possession and will be their God This Covenant is outward and consists of an outward promise The Land of Canaan c. and is not in it self the everlasting Covenant of grace
Joh. 4. 24 God is a Spirit and they that worship him must worship in spirit and in truth and such the Father seeks to worship him Jesus Christ came forth from the Father for that end that he might gain a spiritual people to worship but your great work is to get in a natural people a carnal people the fleshly seed so contradicting the end of God in giving Christ upholding the Covenant made with Abraham and Moses so denying Christ to be come in the flesh I will not say at present for your own ends and interests The force of your first Argument being thus untwisted and its weakness and invalidity laid open I need not trace you in your Parallels what I have already written puts an end to your Parallels as far as you imagine they tend to uphold the strength of your Arguments I shall present another Parallel from what I have declared leaving it to the judgment of the judicious Reader to consider 1. The Covenant made with Abraham was an outward covenant and promise of the Land of Canaan Gen. 17. 10 11 12. 1. Ours is a spiritual Covenant and promise of in Jesus Christ the true spiritual Land of rest Heb. 4. 4. to 8. 2. That was made with Abraham and his natural seed Gen. 17. 7 8. 2. Ours is a Covenant made with Christ and all his spiritual seed Isa 59. 21. Gal. 3 29. 3. Circumcision was the seal of that Covenant Rom. 4. 11. 3. But the Spirit of grace is the seal of our covenant Eph. 1 â—3 4 30. 4. That was a Covenant that many most of those in it missed of eternal life Rom. 2. 27. 4 Ours is a covenant sure stedfast eternal everlasting to those once truly in it Isa 55 3. Jer. 31. 31 32. Joh 10. 28 29. 5. That was a Covenant that might be broken and had an end as all types end when the substance comes 5. Ours is a Covenant that cannot be broken nor shall ever have an end being the substance it self of the type Now to your second Argument from Circumcision The second Argument p. 13. Such as were circumcised under the Law may be baptized under the Gospel But the Jews with their Infants were circumcised under the Law Ergo Christians and their Infants may be baptized under the Gospel You confess that your Major is questioned as well it may be so I could give you several Arguments which you would not like as well grounded as this of yours but I forbear For proof of your Major 1. You say They are under the same Covenant That is denied and rased in my Answer to your former argument It is neither the same Covenant nor the same seal an outward seal to an outward Covenant an inward seal to an inward Covenant 2. You say There is the same reason for the one as for the other our children are born in original sin as well as theirs have the same need of the seal Oh unimaginable blindness was Circumcision or Baptism either ever given to seal up the pardon of original sin If it was then it must be pardoned or not pardoned if pardoned then sure else it is but the putting a seal to a blank But the truth is they were never given either of them upon that account or for that end to seal up the pardon of original sin And whereas you say there is the same reason for the one as for the other it is denied for the command of God is the reason of the one and of the other God commanded Infants to be circumcised he hath commanded Believers to be baptized and 't is reason that he should be obeyed as in the first so in the second it 's an unreasonable and wicked thing to contradict by contrary actions the commands of Christ 3. You say If Baptism succeed in the place of Circumcision then Baptism belongs to those to whom Circumcision did belong But Baptism doth succeed in the place of Circumcision Ergo c. I answer your Minor is denied 1. There is no Scripture that saith that Baptism was ordained in the place of Circumcision it 's your own invention never mentioned by the Apostles of Christ The Scriptures you mention Act. 2. 38 39. Col. 2. 11 12. have not the least hint in them to the thing in hand and are abundantly abused and wrested to that for which they were never intended as will appear 2. You confess that Baptism was in force before Circumcision was abolished Circumcision and Baptism stood both in force by a Law for some years at least 3 or 4 years Now if Baptism had come in the room of Circumcision then Circumcision must have ceased when Baptism came But Circumcision did not cease when Baptism came Therefore Baptism came not in the room of it If it be objected that Paul circumcised Timothy after the ascension of Christ I answer that was because of the Jewes for their weakness but it was in being by the Law of God untill the death of Christ So then I reason thus That which put an end to Circumcision came in the room of Circumcision but Christ put an end to Circumcision therefore he is come in the room of Circumcision That it was Christ and not Baptism that put an end to Circumcision is cleer Rom. 10. 4. Gal. 5. 2 3. So that Baptism did not put an end to Circumcision but Christ did therefore Baptism came not in the room of Circumcision 3. It could not come in the room of Circumcision to them that never had Circumcision but women were never circumcised the Gentiles were never circumcised and it could not come in the room of Circumcision to those which never were circumcised But you will say that women were virtually circumcised in the men c. And why are they not baptized virtually in the men too if you will take your rule from Circumcision let them be baptized in the men too 4. There is no parity but a disparity between Baptism and Circumcision as your self in some things have noted 1. In the action 2. in the time 3. in the subject 4. in the end First in the action that was the cutting of the foreskin of the flesh which occasioned blood this of Baptism a dipping into or under water Secondly for the time that was to be done at eight dayes old this of Baptism when the party desireth it professing faith and repentance to the satisfying of the Church be when it will Thirdly for the subject that was the Male only this of Baptism is to be administred on both men and women professing faith in our Lord Jesus and repentance towards God Fourthly for the end that is far wide as will appear in this ensuing Parallel 1. Circumcision set forth Christ to come 1. Baptism declares Christ already come 2. Circumcision represented the circumcision of the heart the cutting off of sin and self c. 2. Baptism declares the washing away of the guilt of sin and death and burial with
same as is said of the child 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but now are they holy so that first you say holiness is never used in all the Scripture for legitimation but generally for things separated to Gods service yet here you confess holiness is attributed to the unbeliever upon the Marriage account in way of Marriage he is sanctified c. And the Infants or children are sanctified with the same sanctification in the same way and this I take to be the jenuine signification of this Scripture I shall now give my reasons for it 1. There is no such thing in the Gospel as an external federal holiness it s a meer invention of man as I have often cleared 2. This interpretation viz. That they were lawfully begotten 1. reacheth the thing in hand most sutable for as Mr. Hall confesseth the Apostle is giving satisfaction to them concerning a scruple or doubt about mixed Marriages from Ezra 10. 2 3. Nehem. 13 23. And he satisfieth them that the Believer need not put away the unbeliever as the Jew did the Heathen for God had sanctified the unbeliever to the believer else were your children unclean that is your children must depart as those did Ezra 10. and Neh. 13. But now are they holy that is holy as the unbeliever is holy sanctified as the unbelieving husband is sanctified This is sutable to the thing in hand they are sanctified as every creature of God is sanctified to the believer 1 Tim. 4. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is sanctified by the word and prayer so is the unbeliever and children sanctified to the believer that he may comfortably injoy them 3. It can be no other sanctification then that of the unbeliever and that is granted by Tho Hall to be but a Marriage-Sanctification and the childes holiness can be no other for it flows from it the unbeliever is sanctified else were your children unclean but now are they holy He doth not say the Believer is sanctified else they were unclean and that must have been the words to have made any thing for your federal holiness but the unbeliever is sanctified c. It being thus cleared that the holiness of the childe flows from the Sanctification of the unbeliever then its the same with the unbeliever but it flows from it therefore one with it and this is concluded that a cause cannot produce a more excellent effect then it self the unbeliever he is sanctified saith Tho. Hall in way of marriage then I suppose its clear that the childs sanctification flowing from hence can be but of the same nature these things thus considered I leave it to the judgment of the Reader The sixteenth Argument From the many dangerous errours and absurdities that will follow this tenet 1. Then Christians Infants shall be losers by the coming of Christ c. Ans No losers at all for what advantage is it to be in an outward Covenant and to have that which you call a Seal and not to be in the grace of the Covenant but to be children of wrath as much as heathens as you confess pag. 10. a mear cheat a seal to a blank and the truth is you cannot devise a greater cheat for Infants then to tell them they are in the Covenant of Grace yet children of wrath as well as heathens in it yet out of it and by this are the nations cheated into a Form of Godliness thinking themselves in a Covenant of Grace and in a moment go down to Hell 2. You say Then grace should be larger then then it is now c. Answ No such thing the Covenants considered that was a Covenant of the land of Canaan which belonged to all the Seed therefore they were all circumcised as a sign of their obedience and all partaked of the Promise which was but a Type of the Gospel Covenant ours is a Spiritual Covenant of the Spiritual Land the Lord Jesus and belongs to none but the Spiritual Seed and to them its more excellent and more large and as sure if not more sure then that was to the natural Rom 4. 16. That was large and sure to the natural this large and sure to the Spiritual seed 3. You say Then there would be no difference between the childe of a Christian and the childe of a Pagan c. Then Dogs and Swine shut out of the new Jerusalem Rev. 22. 15. Answ And is there any difference by nature think you unless grace make a difference doth your federal holiness and baptism make such a difference doth it receive them into the new Jerusalem when you confess them children of wrath as well as the children of heathens are notwithstanding your federal holiness Do not you by your pretended outside holiness rather shut them out of the new and true Jerusalem and dare you say Turks Tartars and Heathens are all shut out from thence May there not be a time when grace may reach them too And may not Infants when grown in years have the means of working faith and that in a more hopeful way when dealt faithfully withall and not deluded with a shadow without the substance by which means they may through grace come to attain an interest in the new and true Covenant 4. You say Then they are without Christ without hope without God c. Ans And are they any better in your fained Covenant unless they have an interest in truth in Christ and in God Which is best to be without Christ and thinke they have him or to be without Christ and know it And who are likeliest to abide longest without Christ those who are deluded and cheated with something like Christ yet not him or those who are left as they are in their natural condition that so they may have nothing to delude themselves withall but seek after the true God in the use of means God making them sensible of the want of it 5. You say Then they are the Devils children Ans So they are notwithstanding your federal holiness if they do his work Joh. 8. 44. All you plead for changes not the nature but the name a sad delusion 6. You say This robs Christ of his glory then the first Adam was more powerfull to destroy then Christ to save c. Ans It is that makes for the glory of Christ it 's the fulfilling of his will and mind But you dishonour him in calling his name upon a company of people that do not know him nor honour him in their conversation It seems you are an Vniversalian you will have Christ to save all that fell in Adam if all that partake of Adams sin must partake of Christ Truly sir none are like to partake of Christs grace but believers that I know of and this faith is the gift of God Ephes 2. 8. Therefore take heed how you stretch the grace of Christ beyond what it was intended lest you delude souls with the name of grace without the truth 7. You say Then Infants
Jesus Christ 3. That was a seal of Abrahams faith 3. Baptism is no seal but the Spirit of Christ These things considered there is neither probability reason or Scripture for the coming of Baptism in the room of Circumcision First there is no Scripture for it when false Apostles went about to bring in Circumcision Act. 15. 10. Gal. 1. the Apostle never mentions Baptism at all if it had come in the room of Circumcision they might easily have stopped their mouths with this You have Baptism in the room of it what need you trouble your selves so much But they never made use of this as an answer therefore it s evident that it came not in the room of it 2. It was in being together 3. It could not be so to them that were never circumcised And 4. there being no parity between them I adde 5. If you will have it in the room of something why might it not come in the room of those Legal washings that were amongst the Jews as well as in the room of Circumcision there is a parity in the one and likelier in the end too but none in the other their Religion viz. the Jews consisted in divers washings Heb. 9. 10. so that if you must of necessity have it to come in the room of any thing why not in the room of those washings Yet I do not believe that it came in the room of this or any other legal Ordinance but that God gave what Ordinances he pleased to that ministration and Jesus Christ gave what Ordinances he pleased to this ministration not one Ordinance putting out the other but Christ being the end of all gives out new upon his own account But secondly put case what you say were truth that it were come in the room of Circumcision which can never be proved either from Scripture or reason yet what will this help you We are or profess our selves to be Christs servants then hearken to him and obey his voice receive the Law from his mouth for he is the Messenger of the Lord of Hosts Let Christ be King give but so much honour to him as to inform you who is to be baptized and the time when it is to be done the manner how and the controversie will be soon ended The truth of the business being thus considered your Assertion and yout Parallels I leave to the consideration of the understanding Reader and so pursue you to your third Argument The third Argument Where there is a command for a thing never yet countermanded or forbidden there that thing is still in force But there is a command for signing the Infants of believers never yet countermanded or forbidden Ergo It is still in force This Argument is easily answered only it 's stated confusedly if you intend by the command for signing Believers children that of Circumcision as I suppose you do then I think that is repealed and forbidden for the Apostle saith to the Galatians that if they be circumcised Christ shall profit them nothing at all And if you deny this truth we may well take the Apostles advice Phil. 3. Beware of the concision for we are the Circumcision who worship God in the Spirit c. If you by the sign intend Baptism you had done well to shew where it was commanded to Infants and if nowhere commanded then no need of repealing or forbidding If you intend that Baptism was commanded in Circumcision that hath been answered already and it is but a whimsie of your own head there hath not been any Scripture yet produced for the confirmation of it nor ever is like to be all you say in this is but the substance of what you have said already you dance about in a line and are gotten no further yet then in your former Arguments it 's just the old Proverb A great cry and a little wooll Truly if you did know and love the Lord Jesus you could not you would not dare to go back to lay the foundation of Gospel ordinances in Legal institutions but you would look to Christ and hearken what he hath said and believe it every one that refuseth to look to him shall be cut off from among his people Act. 3. 22 23. You say Let any man shew if he can when where and how this priviledge was abrogated I answer it was abrogated and repealed in Christ that as all the Services Ceremonies Covenants Canaan Natural seed and all was typical so Christ is the body and substance of all these services ceremonies c. and the spiritual people believers are the substance typed out in the natural seed So that as the natural seed were accounted for the seed that is repealed Joh. 8. 39 44. with Rom. 2. 28 29. and only the spiritual are accounted for the seed You talk much of priviledge as if baptizing of Infants were such a priviledge to them I answer 1. Our priviledges do not consist in externals but as the Covenant was made with the spiritual seed so the priviledges of the Covenant are suitable to it see Heb. 8. from the 6. verse to the end And truly it bewrayes abundance of ignorance in those that cry out so much about priviledge as if the priviledge of the Covenant of grace consisted so much in outside things What priviledge it was to the Jews to be circumcised I know not I mean to those who were never circumcised in their hearts or what priviledge it is to Infants to be baptized I wonder unless you will make it a priviledge to be in the form without the power and so to make souls think themselves Christians when they are none so deceiving and deluding them Certainly this will be but a sad priviledge one day when both teachers and taught must give an account together I could sometimes be freely willing to part even with tears of blood in sight and sense of those many thousands yea millions of souls deeply deluded with pretended priviledges who think themselves in a good condition and in a moment go down to hell For the wicked must be turned into hell and all those who forget God And the Leaders of the people cause them to erre and they that are led of them are destroyed Isa 9. 16. Is it not much better more safe and an act of faithfulness for parents to deal faithfully with their children and let them know that they are not in the Covenant of grace but that by nature they are children of wrath as well as others that so they may through mercy come to the sight of their natural condition and their need of Christ rather then to delude them with toyes and fancies meer imaginations of the fleshly mind vainly puffed up Oh the Lord will make you know one day what it is thus to lift up your selves in fleshly boasting and to make a nose of wax of the Covenant of grace turn it which way you please in one day and out another 1. Believers children in 2. All professing
was converted 4. You say They are Church members and so by consequence Disciples Hence you argue All Church members are Disciples Infants of believing Parents are Church-members Ergo. The Minor is denyed You seem to refer to Mr. Baxter This being Mr. Baxters grand Argument I shall say something to it in this place though I have in brief answered it already If I grant they were Church-members yet they are not so now we being under another ministration more spiritual more immediate and he owns none to be members of the Church but those who are truly spiritual when but one comes in without a wedding garment he takes notice of him Friend how camest thou in hither without a wedding garment Mat. 22. 11 12. And you bring in none else but those without a wedding garment what account you will give your Lord I know not but I shal let you see the repeal of that Church-membership you so much boast of the Promises made to Abraham run all into Christ and are dissolved into him Gal 3. 16. So that if you trace the Promises you shall see where they all center The promise was made to Abraham and to his seed he saith not to seeds as of many but to his seed which is Christ 2. See to whom the Promises come forth whether to the natural or to the spiritual seed ver 29. If you are Christs then are ye Abrahams seed and heirs according to the promise So that you must now be Christs before you can be Abrahams seed and then being Christs we are heirs according to the promise So here is the promise and the heirship you need not go so far back into the old Testament if the Lord enlighten your darkness And how come we to be Christs by believing ver 26. Rom. 2. 28 29. He is not a Jew that is one outward but he is a Jew that is one inward c. So that the outward Jew the natural seed is cut off from the spiritual Covenant for when the outward Covenant was ended and the spiritual one was come then the natural Church-membership was lost and the spiritual one come in if what you would have were truth that it were the same Covenant and the same members then the Jews had not been broken off to this day for they are the seed of those that were members in the first Covenant but they are broken off for want of faith which alone gives an interest in the Covenant and we by faith stand So to wind up all Infants of believers are not Disciples no Church members therefore not to be baptized The tenth Argument All that have faith may be baptized But some Infants have faith Ergo. The Major you say none will deny Yet give me leave to question it and highly too for first those are to be baptized that manifest faith if Infants have faith which I shall question in the second place yet they have not that faith which is required of those that are to be baptized viz. In the manifestation of it so then if Infants have faith yet none knows that they have it none knows who of them have it It s apparant that none but the elect have it further its apparent that but few of the elect have it neither in infancy all that live and come to experience they had it not in infancy they can experience it they know how they came by it then it can be but those elect Infants that die that are believers then God can save without faith by vertue of his electing love in Christ and if he doth work faith in them that is able to save them without Baptism it not being required of them and it s our duty to walk by Rule then we walk safe and to administer the Ordinances of Christ according to his minde not our own the minde of Christ is that he that believeth shall be baptized Mark 16. 16. that is upon the hearing of the Gospel and confession of his Faith not Infants those that we know not whether they believe or no he hath not left us so to walk in the dark this I think is sufficient to answer both your Major and Minor although for all you say to prove your Minor there is no weight in it neither do I clearly assent that Infants have faith That Scripture you mention Mat. 18. 6. is not so express as you pretend or imagine but it relates to those who are humble and meek qualified as little children see ver 3 4 5. so that it is such a little childe so qualified one of those that did believe 1. Query What children are they that usually are persecuted for the name of Christ Infants in nature or children on in Grace 2. Query Whether Christ is now teaching his disciples and encouraging them against suffering or little Infants By this you may with ease come to perceive what Believers are intended in this Text. 1. You say They receive the Kingdom of God Mark 10. 15. It is not said that Infants receive the Kingdom of God but whosoever doth not receive the Kingdom of God as a little childe c. that is to be humble and meek and teachable c. and you had wisdom enough to give this interpretation your selves formerly but that now the case is altered you need to apply it another way And 2. Though some Infants do receive the Kingdom c. Yet it is not many as you have heard already not all 3. You say they please God because he blessed them Doth God use to bless Infants or others because they please him or doth he bless them with Grace because he pleaseth himself in so doing when they are enemies to him 4. Faith you say must be allowed them else not salvation And when the Scripture speaks of faith it intends it to such as are adult and those who are adult not believing shall be damned the Scripture determines nothing about Infants but leaves it as a secret to God for they cannot have that faith the Scripture speaks of which comes by hearing and the Scripture speaks of no other faith that I know of and therefore they cannot have that damnation the Scripture threatens to unbelievers though the elect Infants dying may obtain through the Grace of Election the same Salvation without Faith as believers do through faith Rom. 11. 7. 5. You say Though Infants cannot make an actual profession of faith as adults can yet being born in the bosom of the Church they have somewhat to bring c. Yet are children of wrath as well as the children of the Gentiles are as you confess before 1. Reckoned in the number of Gods people with the Parents No truth in that as hath been often proved none are accounted for the seed but Believers 2. Some of them elect c. 1. That some you know not 2. For that some you will take in all Finde out the Elect and then we shall be silent you say Hence we read that some
children had the spirit in their infancy John Baptist had faith in the womb the Scripture saith it not its only Thomas Hall's words Jeremiah sanctified from the womb c. and what of all this its not one swallow makes a Summer because John and Jeremiah were sanctified that is set apart from the womb to their particular offices therefore all Infants are sanctified a goodly conclusion because Balaams Asse did speak therefore all Asses may speak a likely matter You say The Promise is that in the Gospel times the childe shall die an hundred year old c. Isa 65 20. that is say you They shall be blest with spiritual life and light from Christ as if they had lived an hundred years in the Church of God when that relates to a spiritual glory in the Church of Christ which is yet to come not of the Natural but of the Spiritual Seed when they shall be freed from the former weakness and temptation this Scripture Answers Rev. 21. 1 2 3. 2 Pet. 3. 13. And whereas you say though Infants cannot lay hold on Christ yet he can lay hold on them We question not Christs laying hold on them but we are not to baptize them till they lay hold on Christ Pag. 49. you say Infants have faith repentance regeneration and before you confess they are children of wrath alike the children of wrath as heathens are pag. 10. yet now faith repentance regeneration unheard of contradictions If your preaching brethren had written such palpable contradictions you would have concluded that it had been either for want of learning or through much forgetfulness but you mend the business well you think It is virtually and potentially by way of inclination c. They have the spirit and seed of faith c. The truth of this appears apparently in Infants when they are grown doth the seed of faith appear or the seed of corruption Come forth O all ye that have any experience of the grace of Iesus and work of faith with power speak you knowledge in this particular whether there be in Infants an inclination and the seed of faith or whether there be not rather an inclination to every thing that is evil and the power of corruption remaining in them Be ashamed and blush to utter such known untruths and unheard of contradictions Children of wrath yet the seed of faith inclinations to believe I say no more but leave this Argument likewise to the wise consideration of the Reader The eleventh Argument That way which doth confound the two Sacraments and take away the distinction which God hath put between them cannot be the way of God But the way of the Anabaptists doth confound the two Sacraments and takes away that distinction which God hath put between them Ergo T is not the way of God Answ There is no truth in your Minor for first where is the Scripture that saith baptism is only for Initiation and not for Confirmation it s a fancy of your own brain may not baptism be be initiation and confirmation too 2. If it be truth what you say that Baptism is only for initiation into the Church what is become of your Mr. Baxters grand Argument That they are members of the Church then not initiated in by baptism one of your Arguments must of necessity be false I say both of them as relating to Infants 3. It was the Apostles practice to baptize believers and give them the Supper too and did they confound the two Sacraments as you call them bear with me for I know no Scripture cals them so So that the way of the Anabaptists as you falsely reproachfully call them doth not confound the Ordinances but preserve them in their place to the right end according to the right rule and you it is confound Ordinances observing neither rule place nor end The twelfth Argument Such as were typically baptized under the Law may be really baptized under the Gospel Infants were typically baptized under the Law Ergo. You reason from the type to the truth In this take a view likewise of your own ignorance in not understanding the difference between type and antitype type and substance type and truth and shew me if you can any one type in all the Scripture that typed out another type you may as well say that the Jewish Sacrifices typed out the Gospel Supper c. But all types related to substances and Christ was the substance of all legal types this truth will be clear in the resolving of these questions 1. If Christ be the substance of all types whether or no the baptizing of the natural seed in the type do not represent unto us the baptizing of the spirituall seed into the substance 1 Cor. 12. 13. Gal. 3. 27. 2. Whether or no as all the natural feed were baptized into Moses and into the sea and cloud so all the spiritual seed should be baptized into the profession of faith of Jesus Mat. 28. 19. Act. 19. 3. Whether to make the substance no other then the type the Covenant of the Gospel no other then that of the Law the seed of the Gospel-Covenant the same as the Legal the administration of Gospel-ordinance on the same subjects as of the Legal notwithstanding Christ hath given cleer rules to the contrary be not to make null the Gospel and to deny Christ to be come in the flesh and so to be the Antichrist Gal. 5. 2. Mat. 28. 20. Act. 3. 22. 1 Joh. 4. 2. 3. In a word if you will make this type the ground of your baptizing Infants first then you do not hearken to Christ the substance but honour him in the type deny him in his person and spirit secondly you are to baptize them as they were in the type viz. in the cloud and in the sea What is that to your sprinkling of Infants Thirdly you may from hence if that be your warrant from whence you ground your practise baptize your Cattel too for all passed through the sea and indeed not to be a pattern to you that you might hence take occasion to sprinkle Infants so denying Christ but a type of Christ the Saviour and Deliverer of his people that as the natural seed were saved in the type so the spiritual were and are saved in the substance viz. in Christ All you say to this Argument being thus untruly grounded is but a non sequitur and so I leave it The thirteenth Argument From the priviledges that Christ purchased for Infants Those who are subjects of Christs kingdom have right to the priviledges of subjects But some Infants are subjects of Christs kingdom Ergo Some Infants have right to the priviledges of Subjects You say The seal of the Covenant is a choise priviledge I have often said and say again that Baptism is no seal of the Covenant but the Spirit To your second Argument I say there is no truth in your Major for there is not a word of Baptizing in the Text and
have no original sin c. Ans If they have will your outward outside pretended Covenant and Seal wash it away how then doth it leave them children of wrath still as the heathens Oh sad unheard of contradictions They are not excluded from the preaching of the Gospel the ordinary means 8. You say This robs Infants of their right Parents of their comfort the Church of her members Christ of his merits and God of his glory Ans I tell you there is a great cry and but little wooll when looked after 1. Children of their rights When Christ in the Gospel hath nowhere given them that right Secondly when they have it given them it is such a right as deludes them there is nothing in it but words and wind 2. Parents of their comfort What comfort is it to parents who understand and are not as ignorant as their babes to have their children cheated sealed with a blank or a counterfeit that can do them no good 3. The Church of its members Alas of what use are such members in the Church of Christ Did you ever find such members there There are or should be none but useful members 4. Christ of his merits Did Christ merit baptism for Infants if so you should have proved it Or purchase his Church Act. 20. 28. Eph. 5. 25. 5. And God of his glory What glory would Infants bring to God in the Church of Christ Can they worship spiritually Such he seeks to worship him Joh. 4. 24. can they offer up spiritual sacrifice acceptable c This is the work of the Church of Christ 1 Pet. 2 5. and they that cannot do this dishonour God in his Church and have nothing to do to be there These things thus considered I leave the Reader to judge who dishonor God most those who contrary to his revealed will thrust upon him of their own heads a company of ignorant dead members that do not know him and cannot worship or those who according to his revealed will endeavour to keep the Church pure and admit none but those they judge living members knowing that none else can offer to him living sacrifice acceptable c. The seventeenth Argument From the benefit that redounds both to parents and their children 1. Much comfort comes hereby to Parents when they consider Gods free grace to them and theirs c. Ans 1. There is no such thing in the Gospel covenant as hath been already proved neither have you nor can you produce any such word in the Gospel-covenant but that he is a God a Father to the true seed viz. the seed of Christ and none else are accounted for the seed they and they onely who believe have received this priviledge this right to be called the children of God Joh. 1. 12. And then 2. What comfort can it be to Parents to have their Children called and accounted that which indeed at present they are not nor have no right so to be called or accounted For the Covenant of grace is this I will write my Law in their heart c. so will I be a God unto you c. And ye shall no more teach one another saying Know the Lord for ye shall all know me from the greatest to the least They that are accounted to be in this Covenant are such as know the Lord by vertue of their being taught of him And this is set in opposition to the Covenant of the Law which was made with the natural seed which were a people for the most part not knowing God But it is not so in the Gospel-Covenant there are none but those who know the Lord c. Jer. 3 31. Heb 8. 10 11. Therefore I say again that it is but little comfort to those Parents who are not more ignorant then their Infants to have their Children called and accounted that which they are not to have their Children as you say admitted into Christs school members of his Church sheep of his fold distinguished from heathens c. What true comfort can it be to Parents or benefit to Infants to have all these outward things you pretend they gain by it and yet may be without the truth of all and are as you confess Children of wrath as well as the children of heathens Is not this the way to lead them on in a fools paradise make them have good conceits of themselves that they are in the Covenant and so delude and undo them for ever And the truth is and Christ hath said it Joh. 10. 9. that He is the door into the sheepfold viz. the Church and none can enter in but by him and those who enter by him shall be saved and shall go in and out and find pasture They shal not be mocked cheated with an outside Covenant-holines Church membership c. as you serve the Children of the Nation but they shall be saved c. The eighteenth Argument All will-worship must be avoided But the refusing to baptize Infants of Christian parents till they come to years of discretion is will-worship Ergo It must be avoided Your Minor is denied You pretend to prove it with another Argument wherein your weakness appears the Argument is That which hath neither precept nor president for it in the word of God is will-worship But the deferring the baptizing the Infants of Christian parents hath neither precept nor president for it in the word of God Ergo It is will-worship Ans 1. That the weight of your Argument may the better appear unto the Reader I shall give another Argument as well grounded as yours That which hath neither precept nor president for it in the word of God is will-worship But the deferring the baptizing of the Infants of Heathen parents hath neither precept nor president for it in the word of God Ergo It is will-worship Secondly I answer That which hath neither precept nor president for it in the word of God is will-worship But the baptizing of Infants of believing parents hath neither precept nor president in the word of God Ergo it is will-worship You confess 't is true Men of years professing faith are fit subjects of Baptism So then upon your own confession we take the fit subjects But not the onely subjects excluding Infants c. Although the Scripture excludes all except men of years professing faith I prove it thus If there but one water-baptism mentioned in the Gospel as an Ordinance of Christ by way of precept and president and that is to persons of years professing faith then all others are excluded But there is but one water-baptism mentioned in the Gospel as an Ordinance of Christ by way of precept and president and that is to persons of years professing faith Ergo All others are excluded Mat. 28. 19. Mar. 16. 16. Act. 2. 38 39 41. Act. 8. 12. You require a president for it Let any man shew but one example of any Child of God that ever kept his Child unbaptized till he could