notwithstanding I have lately so fully answered all they have urged upon this account still insist upon this ridiculous Argument as appears by their 12 Numbers to their fifth Volume And what I have now said may serve for a further Answer to them as well as to you but if we hear any more of this we shall further expose you and them than yet we have done In Pag. 6. you seem to answer a Question viz. Why our Saviour did not particularly name Infants when he instituted Baptism in the room of Circumcision Your Answer is because there was no occasion for it What need say you our Saviour declare that Infants ought to have the Seal of the Covenant applied to them when it was never denied them it had been highly requisite that our Saviour should have particularly named them now but being all ways included before if our Saviour had intended their Exclusion now he would most certainly have declared it c. Answ 1. I answer you say the Seal of the Covenant was never denied Infants and therefore what need our Saviour particularly name Infants when he instituted Baptism Sir but did not our Saviour know there would be just ground for us to deny Infant-Baptism since he commanded none in the great Commission to be baptized but such who were made Disciples by being first taught And he being God as well as Man did know from hence it would be denied as it has been by some godly Christians from the first time it was as an human Device introduced into God's Worship as hereafter we shall prove sure this being so there was all the reason imaginable that he should speak of their Baptism in his great Commission had it been his Will they should be baptized 2. And why should the baptizing of Believers be so clearly and so often spoken of in the New Testament if a being in the Covenant was a sufficient ground to baptize them without a positive Precept or express Command to baptize them since they were always from the beginning of the World look'd upon and known beyond doubt to be in Covenant and so you cannot say of Infants tho you say the Seal was never denied them for there is no mention of their being in Covenant as to have any Sign or Rite assigned them of it till Abraham's days and that that Covenant then viz. of Circumcision was not a Covenant of Grace we shall hereafter God assisting clearly prove Therefore say you what you please there was more need for our Saviour to have Infants Baptism and Church-Membership particularly mentioned than that of Believers had it been the Mind of Christ they ought to be baptized and made Members of the Gospel-Church 3. Besides the Dispensation of the Gospel requires it since it differs in Nature Rites and Priviledges from that of the Law or under the Old Testament The Church-State of the Jews being National and that of the Gospel Congregational had Christ only confirmed old Covenant-Rites and manner of Priviledges Membership and Initiations c. there might be something in what you say but evident it is that the Matter and Form Rites and Priviledges of the Gospel-Church according to the Constitution Laws and Ordinances of Christ quite differ and are of another sort to those of the Law Think not to say within your selves We have Abraham to our Father c. Now the Axe is laid to the Root of the Trees Mat. 3.9 10. Now as if he should say the case is altered your being the fleshly Seed of Abraham would do then or give you a right to Circumcision but this will not do now this will give you no right to Gospel-Baptism the Dispensation is changed actual Faith and Fruits meet for Repentance are required of all who have a right to Baptism 4. Moreover 't is evident that Christ in bringing in and establishing of the second Covenant and Gospel-Church-State dissolved and for ever took away the old Covenant and Church-State of the Jews with all their Rites initiating Ordinances and Priviledges whatsoever Suppose a Man should make his Will and bequeath such or such Legacies to such and such Persons and yet afterwards he abrogates that Will and makes another which is his last Will and Testament in which he leaves out the Names of those Persons and doth not bequeath those Legacies to them Can they recover those Legacies by virtue of the old abrogated Will The case is the same here If Infants have right to Baptism and visible Church-Membership it must be found in Christ's Gospel which is his last Will and Testament or they have no such Right you may be sure nor ought to be baptized He took away the first that he might establish the second Heb. 10.2 Your second Answer to this Objection viz. That Infants are no where commanded to be baptized is this viz. Altho they are not say you particularly named yet are they necessarily included in the Commission Mat. 28.19 20. Infants being a very considerable part of all Nations surely the universal all Nations does include the Individuals tho our Saviour does not particularly name them To clear this you make use of a Similitude Suppose say you the King should grant his Royal Charter to make this your Market-Town a Corporation and all the Inhabitants of it Free-Men would any be so idle as to suppose that this Royal Grant doth not include your Children because it doth not particularly name them Is not the Son of a Free-man a Free-man as well as his Father Thus in the Sacred Charter and Royal Patent of the Covenant of Grace which is sealed by Baptism all the Priviledges and Promises of that Covenant granted to Believers concern their Children as well as themselves Acts 2.38 The Promise is to you and to your Children the Promise of the Covenant belongs to you and to yours The Infants then of Believers are included together with themselves tho not particularly named Answ 1. I reply that you argue not only sophistically but also very weakly for are not Pagans Turks and Infidels with the profane and ungodly Men and Women and their Children a very considerable part of all Nations nay the far greatest part of all Nations for Christ's Flock comparatively is but a little Flock And are these included in the Commission tho not named You must say they be or else confess there is nothing in what you say in the least upon this account 2. If that Universal does include every Individual in all Nations all these are included as well as Infants of Believers Sir you must be corrected here for your bold and daring Abuse of the Sacred Commission of our Blessed Lord for I appeal to your Conscience or to the Consciences of all impartial Men whether by virtue of the Commission any one Person ought to be Baptized but such who is first Taught 't is not said Go Baptize all Nations mark but go ye therefore teach all Nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is
which you in Pag. 8. laid down thus viz. If the Infants of believing Christians under the Gospel are in Covenant with God as the Jewish Infants under the Law were then the Seal of the Covenant which is Baptism may and ought to be administred to them But the Infants of Believers under the Gospel are in Covenant with God as well as the Jewish Infants under the Law were Therefore Baptism the Seal of the Covenant ought to be applied to these as Circumcision was to them Answ Tho this Syllogism is not perfect in Form yet I will pass by that Oversight of yours and consider it in each part and finding it sophistical must deny the whole Argument 1. For first as to your Major If the Infants of Christians were in Covenant with God as the Jewish Infants were yet Baptism cannot belong to them unless God hath commanded them to be baptized and made it also a Seal of the same Covenant for as much as Baptism as I have told you before once or twice already is a meer positive Law or Institution 't is not Man but God himself must make it their Duty to be baptized and a Seal of the Covenant if it were so indeed but God hath neither enjoyned them or made it their Duty to be baptized nor appointed it to be a Seal of the Covenant of Grace to them Ergo. Also you mistake in calling Circumcision a Seal of the Covenant made with Abraham for 't is only called the Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith he had that is Abraham and which he had being yet uncircumcised 'T is not called a Seal of the Covenant but of Faith and that too of Abraham's Faith only because none before they were circumcised had such a Faith but himself only Nor can you prove Christ's true Baptism is a Seal of the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel the holy Spirit is the only Seal of the Covenant of Grace mentioned in the Scripture Ephes 1.13 14. chap. 4.30 If therefore I should grant that the Infants of Believers under the Gospel as such were in Covenant with God which I must deny yet it would not follow in the least that they ought to be baptized from that ground for were not think you all the Children of the Godly before Abraham's time or before he received that express Command to circumcise them in your sense in Covenant with God If you do not say this why do you affirm that the Children of Believers were always or ever in Covenant as well as their Parents but if it were so Do you think it was their Duty to circumcise them If you should say no because they did not know to circumcise them was the Will of God But you might say more viz. it was not the Will of God they should do it 't is God's Command only and not their being in Covenant made it their Duty to circumcise their Children and had God given us such a Command or any Authority to baptize our Children we ought and would baptize them but must not dare not without such positive Command or Authority 2. We utterly also deny your Minor and say that the Infants of Believers as such under the Gospel are not in Covenant with God We will therefore examine your Grounds to prove that which you affirm upon this account Pag. 8 9. and thus you argue viz. They who by Circumcision were once solemnly taken into Covenant with God and never since were solemnly cast out do undoubtedly continue in a Covenant-State But Infants under the Law were solemnly by God's Appointment taken into Covenant with himself and were never since by any Command of God cast out therefore they do still continue in Covenant Answ 1. I answer first of all that your Argument is not true in form Is Circumcision in your Minor Sir if you are a Logician speak like one your Minor should run thus viz. But Infants were once by Circumcision solemnly by God's Appointment taken into Covenant c. But I 'll pass by that and must tell you your Argument in another respect is lame also You do not tell us what Covenant 't is you here intend ought you not to have added They who were once solemnly taken into the Covenant of Grace by Circumcision c. but Infants were once solemnly taken into the Covenant of Grace by Circumcision If you do not affirm that you say nothing that concerns our Controversy If the Covenant of Circumcision was not the Covenant of Grace you will and must give up your Cause and if you say that you ought to have put it into your Syllogism 3. There is yet another fault in your Argument If you would include the Controversy ought you not to have said All they who c. Can your Conclusion be good when your Propositions are bad and defective But to the business If you say Infants as such were solemnly taken into the Convenant of Grace by Circumcision then I deny your Minor Infants as such were never by Circumcision nor any other ways under the Law taken into the Covenant of Grace Moreover I affirm that tho they were once solemnly taken into Covenant with God by Circumcision yet that Covenant and that Covenant Seed viz. the natural Seed of Abraham are both solemnly cast out and this I shall God assisting prove and afterwards take off all those pretended Absurdities you in the 9 th and 10 th Pages of your Book mention and give a full Answer to your Reasons and Arguments you bring to prove the Covenant of Circumcision was a Covenant of Grace 1. And now to proceed to raze and quite overthrow this main Foundation and Pillar of Pedo-baptism I shall argue as Mr. Tombs hath done whose Arguments could never be yet answered We are first of all to consider whether the Gospel-Covenant and the Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham be the same Secondly Inquire what Seed of Abraham it is of which 't is said I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed Gen. 17.7 Thirdly Whether there be the same Reason of Circumcision and of Baptism in signifying the Gospel-Covenant Fourthly Whether there is the same Parity of Reason for the one as for the other First The Covenant made with Abraham we affirm is not a pure Gospel-Covenant but a mix'd Covenant partly made with his Natural or Fleshly Seed and partly made with him and his Spiritual Seed and therefore we thus argue Arg. 1. If the Covenant takes its Denomination from the Promises and the Promises are mix'd some Evangelical belonging to those to whom the Gospel belongeth some Domestick or Civil Promises specially and absolutely respectinâ— the House and Natural Seed of Abraham and Policy of Israel then 't is a mix'd Covenant But the Covenant takes its Denomination from the Promises and the Promises are mix'd some Evangelical belonging to those to whom the Gospel belongeth some Domestick or Civil Promises specially and absolutely respecting the House and
Abraham had before he was yet Circumcised nor do many of them nor can they walk in the Steps of Abraham having not his Faith If any object and say If Infants of Believers are not included in that Covenant made with Abraham How can any of them who died in Infancy be saved I answer 1. Cannot God save dying Infants unless they were included in that Covenant made with Abraham How then could the dying Infants of the Godly who lived before that Covenant was made with Abraham be saved God has a thousand Ways through Christ's Undertakings to save dying Infants as Dr. Taylor notes which we know not of Secret things belong to God and revealed things to us 2. Were they in any sense included in that Covenant made with Abraham though not accounted counted for his Natural or Spiritual Seed yet it would not follow from thence that they ought to be Baptized because the Females who were truly Abraham's Natural Seed and some of them might be his Spiritual Seed too yet were not Circumcised no more than the Male Children of the Godly were before Abraham's Time And 3. Were they in Covenant as they are the Natural-Seed of Believers then Baptism however does not bring them into the Covenant and if so their State is good whether Baptized or no. And if Baptism brings them into the Covenant of Grace then they have not right thereto because they are in the Covenant And if Baptism brings them into the Covenant of Grace and makes the Covenant sure to them then it would follow that 't is in the Power of Men either to bring their Children into the Covenant of Grace or keep them out and that it is in effect to say Parents have Power to save or destroy their Children and how absurd that is I will leave to all impartial Men to judg I shall in the next place prove that the Covenant of Circumcision was not a Covenant of Grace or Faith and therefore doth not concern the Infant-Seed of believing Gentiles 1. I argue thus That Covenant that was made to separate the Natural Seed of Abraham from all other Nations of the World and made sure unto them the Earthly Promise of the Possession of the Land of Canaan could not be a Covenant of Grace which concerns the Infant-Seed of Believers under the Gospel But the Covenant of Circumcision was made to separate the Natural Seed of Abraham from all other Nations of the World and made sure unto them the Earthly Promise of the Possession of the Land of Canaan Ergo The Covenant of Circumcision could not be a Covenant of Grace which concerns the Infants of Believers under the Gospel The Major cannot be denied because the Gospel or second Covenant is established upon no such earthly Promises as the Covenant of Circumcision was not that we should have an Earthly Kingdom or possess the Land of Canaan but it is established on better Promises than these as Heb. 8.6 Also if that Covenant concerned us or our Children who are Gentiles then the Gentiles had equal Right to that Earthly Inheritance and then were not the Natural Seed of Abraham separated from all other People upon the account of that Earthly Blessing as their Possession only As to the Minor see Gen. 17. I will establish my Covenant between me and thee v. 7 And I will give unto thee and to thy Seed after thee the Land wherein thou art a Stranger all the Land of Canaan for an everlasting Possession and I will be their God v. 8. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy Seed after thee Every Man-Child among you shall be cirumcised v. 10. 1. There were some who were circumcised to whom the Promise of the gospel-Gospel-Covenant God made with Abraham did not belong as Ishmael Esau c. God expresly said that his Covenant i. e. the Covenant of Grace was not established with Ishmael but with Isaac and yet the Covenant of Circumcision belonged to Ishmael as well as to Isaac See Gen. 17.20 21. As for Ishmael I have heard thee behold I have blessed him c. But my Covenant will I establish with Isaac whom Sarah shall bear unto thee Compare this with Rom. 9.7 8 9. Not because they are the Seed of Abraham are they all Children that is Children of the Covenant of Grace or the Children of God but the Children of the Promise are counted for thy Seed see Gal. 4.29 30. Nay all that were in Abraham's House whether born there or Strangers or such who were bought with his Money were circumcised but will you say all these were in that gospel-Gospel-Covenant God made with him Moreover there were other Persons in Abraham's House who no doubt might some of them be in the Covenant of Grace and had the Promises belonging to them who were nevertheless not circumcised namely the Females also Male Infants dying before the eighth day coming from Abraham Moreover other godly Men who were not of Abraham's Family yet lived in his time as Melchisedec Lot Job c. none of these had right to be circumcised But if any object and say the Females were circumcised in the Males I answer with Mr. Tombs it is without Proof and by like perhaps greater Reason it may be said that the Children of Believers are baptized in the Persons of their Parents and therefore are not to be baptized in their own Persons Also 't is apparent that the Jews comprehended in that Covenant made with Abraham and circumcised accordingly were nevertheless not admitted to Baptism upon that foot of account which had the Covenant of Circumcision been a Gospel-Covenant i. e. of the same nature I see no reason why John Baptist should deny their Argument i. e. We are Abraham's Seed c. Hence it plainly appears that the right Evangelical Promises were not the adequate Reason of Circumcision But as I have before said the Precept or express Command of God to Abraham And from hence I shall infer this third Argument That Covenant that was made with or did belong unto the fleshly Seed of Abraham and ungodly ones as well as the godly was not a Covenant of Grace or gospel-Gospel-Covenant But the Covenant of Circumcision was made with or did belong to the fleshly Seed of Abraham as Ishmael Esau and all the lineal Seed of Abraham who were ungodly as well as to the godly Ergo The Covenant of Circumcision was not a Covenant of Grace or gospel-Gospel-Covenant If all who are in the Covenant of Grace or gospel-Gospel-Covenant do know the Lord from the greatest to the least of them then the Covenant of Circumcision could not be the Covenant of Grace or gospel-Gospel-Covenant But all who are in the Covenant of Grace or gospel-Gospel-Covenant do know the Lord from the greatest to the least of them Ergo The Covenant of Circumcision was not the Covenant of Grace This Argument is fully proved by that in Jer. 31.32 33 34. Speaking of the
Gentiles believing that are fit and grafted into Christ by Faith St. Paul saith The Children of the Flesh these are not the Children of God but the Children of the Promise are the Seed of Abraham Rom. 9.8 Now this Covenant we grant thus made with Abraham is one and the same with the Covenant of Grace but what does this signify to the Infants or fleshly Seed of Believers as such And thus I shall pass to your next Argument pag. 14. CHAP. III. Wherein Mr. Burkitt ' s other Arguments are answered viz. 1. Infants are capable of the Spiritual Benefits by Baptism 2. Also that they have habitual Faith 3. That Christ has Lambs in his Fold therefore Infants 4. Infants are capable of Christ's Blessing they were brought to Christ and received by him 5. Infants are in Covenant with a federal Holiness therefore may be baptized YOur third Argument to prove Infants ought to be baptized is this viz. If Infants are capable of Spiritual Benefit by Baptism then Baptism may and ought to be administred to Infants if they are capable of the inward visible Grace sure they may partake of the outward and visible Sign if the Word of the Promise doth belong to them surely the Seal of the Promise ought not to be withheld from them But say you the former is true viz. That Infants are capable of Benefits by Baptism therefore the latter is true they ought to be Baptized There are amongst others two special Blessings and spiritual Benefits which Infants are capable of by Baptism namely Remission of Sin and Regeneration 1. Remission of Sin this being an Act of gracious Favour in God discharging a Person from his obnoxiousness to Wrath upon the score of Guilt contracted an Infant is certainly as capable of this Act of Favour as a grown Person To prove this you bring in a Simile That an Infant of a Traitor is as capable of the benefit of the King 's gracious Favour as the Father himself Suppose the King should send for a Traitor's Child out of the Cradle say you and before all his Courtiers declare That whereas the Blood of that Child was attainted by its Father's Treason and therefore according to Law it s whole Inheritance became forfeited to the Crown yet says the King I will pardon this Infant freely and restore him to all his forfeited Rights and in token thereof I command one of my Ministers to wash the Infant in pure Water signifying thereby to all my Subjects that he is cleansed from his original Attainder and Corruption of Blood and that I am perfectly reconciled to him I demand say you now whether any one can truly say that this Action was insignificant to the Child because he did not understand it c. Answ Were not the Male Infants of Believers before Abraham's days as capable of the Priviledges and Benefits of Circumcision as Abraham's Male Infants were If so why were not they Circumcised If you say it was Because God did not require them to be Circumcised they were not commanded to do it Even so say I God hath not commanded Believers to baptize their Infants therefore whatsoever Benefit or Blessing they are capable of it signifies nothing in the Case unless there was a Command or Law given us to baptize them 2. Might you not as well argue that Infants are capable of the Benefits or Spiritual Blessings signified by the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper therefore may partake of that also Are not they capable of Redemption from Sin and Wrath by the breaking of Christ's Body and shedding of his Blood 3. And are not Infants of Unbelievers nay Turks and Pagans capable of the Spiritual Benefits signified in Baptism sure as considered in themselves they are and why then may they not be baptized also 4. Sir 'T is not such are capable of receiving a Favour or Priviledg from God but rather who he hath in his Sovereign Wisdom granted that Privilege unto And let me tell you your Simile quite overthrows your own Argument for if God because he is graciously pleased to acquit our Children who die in their Infancy from the Original Guilt they brought into the World with them through the Atonement made by Jesus Christ and in token thereof had commanded us to baptize them the Case was clear and our Controversy was at an end but since he has not required us to do any such thing whatever Grace or Favour he is pleased to afford to any of our Infants we have no Warrant to baptize them his Will and Law and not our Fancies being that which gives us Authority to do all we do in his Name or Worship If God had commanded us to baptize our Infants we would no more say that Action would be insignificant to our Children no more than Circumcision was to Children under the Law whom God required to be Circumcised 5. Besides in the last place Baptism doth not by God's appointment belong to them who are capable of the Benefits or Blessings signified thereby as Remission of Sin and Regeneration c. but only to such who are capable to repent and profess Faith in Christ these we say and none else ought to be baptized if the Royal Charter or Grant of the Lord Jesus be observed in the case of a regal Right to Baptism Suppose the King should grant to you and to all in your Parish who have been Traitors to him who are skilled or learned in the Mathematicks and understand the Law to be Officers in some of his Courts and will then also upon submission pardon you and them of all your horrid Crimes will you upon this carry up several ignorant unskilful Persons who are in your Parish tho as guilty of Treason as your selves and offer them to the King to be Officers and Clerks in his Courts who indeed as they are untaught in that Art so see not their own Guilt nor submit themselves to the Mercy of the King and say yet they are capable of Pardon and to receive the Sallary also Sir All that are to be baptized are by virtue of the great Commission of our Saviour to be first taught and made Disciples by teaching and take heed you add not to his Word nor attempt to invert the Order of the Charter and gracious Grant of the King of Heaven and Earth nor go about as you do to make void his Commands by your own Traditions 2. In pag. 15. you say Infants are not less capable of Regeneration of their Nature than of Remission of Sins it being certain that no unclean thing can enter into Heaven that none can be saved whose Natures are not renewed either the sanctifying Grace of God say you must be allowed Infants or Salvation must be denied them Regenerating Grace is called by St. John the Seed of Grace 1 John 3.9 No way hinders but that the Soul of an Infant may be as capable of this Seed as of a grown Person for say you I argue thus '
If the Image of God consisting in Holiness was received by the Soul in the first Creation without the Soul's Contribution to the Production of it Why may not the same Image of God be restored to the Soul in the second Creation without the Soul's Concurrence and Co-operation to the Restitution of it for why may not the Spirit of God produce in an Infant that imperfect â—egeneration whereof we are now speaking as well as he did that perfect Holiness in which our first Parents were originally created 1. I answer Were there not a dangerous Sting in the Tail of some of your impertinent Interrogations I might pass them all by without any further Answer than I have before given you Sir who questions the Power of God who is a free Agent and may do what he pleases He may 't is true regenerate an Infant or change the Nature of a Child in its Mother's Womb and may be doth change or regenerate the depraved Nature of those Infants who die in their Infancy but who knows what Infants they are he thus works upon and fits for Heaven Secret things I tell you again belong to him 2. But should God tell us which Infants Hearts and Natures he hath thus renewed yet that can be no ground or warrant to us to give them the Sacrament of Baptism no more than the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and you know well enough the first Fathers of the declining Church brought in Infant-Baptism to wash away that Pollution of their Nature or free them from the Guilt of Original Sin and also those Fathers gave the same Infants the Lord's Supper and had indeed as good Authority from God's Word to do the one as the other And assure your self they shamefully erred in both because both were done without any Warrant or Allowance from God But Sir how inconsistent are you with your self even just now you tell us that the Infants of Believers are in Covenant with God as well as their Parents and are therefore holy and from that ground ought to be baptized But now it seems as if that Argument was gone with you and notwithstanding that federal Holiness they are unclean and unless they have actually sanctifying Grace and their filthy Natures are changed they cannot be saved You just play the part of a Fencer and resolve to try your Skill with every Weapon one while you are a Presbyterian another time a Church-of England-Man But Sir speak doth Baptism change the Nature or regenerate the Child or doth it not the Seed which St. John speaks of he affirms remains in those Persons in whom it is wrought sow'd or infused see 1 Joh. 3.9 And no doubt was there indeed such a Divine Habit or Seed of Grace infused into Infants in their Baptism but it would appear in their Lives when grown up Such as is the Cause such is the Effect or Product that is produced i. e. if Regeneration was wrought in all the Infants you Rantize Holiness would be the Effect of it when they come to Age of Understanding but all Men see the contrary i. e. they shew their evil and unclean Natures as soon nay before they can speak plain therefore you preach false Doctrine if you affirm that Baptism renovates or changes their Nature Nay and were it so all that are baptized would be saved Shall one Soul who passes through Regeneration miss of Salvation Reverend Stephen Charnock tho a Pedo-baptist speaks more like a Divine and Logician than you do See his Book on Regenerat sol p. 75. saith he Many Men take Baptism for Regeneration the Ancients usually give it this term one calls our Saviour's Baptism his Regeneration this confers not Grace but ingageth to it outward Water cannot convey inward Life How can Water an external thing work upon the Soul in a Physical manner Neither can it be proved that ever the Spirit oâ— God is tied by any Promise to apply himself to the Soul in a gracious Operation when Water is applied to the Body If it were so that all that were baptized were regenerated then all that were baptized should be saved or else the Doctrine of Perseverance falls to the ground And again he says That some indeed say that Regeneration is conferred in Baptism upon the Elect and exerts it self afterwards in Conversion But how so active a Principle as a spiritual Life should lie dead and asleep so long even many Years which intervene between Baptism and Conversion is not easily conceivable So far Mr. Charnock 'T is well you call it an imperfect Regeneration Abortive or a Monster no doubt for Baptism forms no Child of God if it did how come Simon Magus who was baptized to miss of Regeneration Acts 8.13 And indeed this is an easy way to Heaven I mean if there is no need of further Regeneration than that poor Babes have in Baptism I know your Church saith that an Infant is made thereby a Child of God a Member of Christ and an Inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven Sad Doctrine God deliver England from such Guides as teach the common People Nay all who will be led or taught by them that Baptism makes them Christians and so never teach them to look after any other Regeneration tho such whom you baptize as you call it if they live when they are grown up prove wicked and ungodly Persons or carnal Worldlings Sir take heed what you do lest the Blood of your deceived and miserable People be required at your hands Is not this to heal the hurt of your People slightly and to cry Peace Peace when there is no Peace This is the Sting I saw in the Tail of your Argument You ask many Questions Why may not this be so and Why may not that be so Who taught you thus to argue what do you prove But that which troubles me most is this viz. That after you have put forth these unlearned and weak Questions you draw Conclusions therefrom with daring Boldness after this manner viz. What an high Affront then do these Men give to the Omnipotency of the holy Spirit who affirm that it is as vain a thing to hope and pray that Almighty God should regenerate an Infant with his holy Spirit as to expect that he should illuminate a Stone or a Tree pag. 16. But say you if Infants are found capable Subjects of regenerating Grace and Remission of Sin as I hope appears then surely they are capable of Baptism for the outward visible Sign ought not to be denied to such as are capable of the inward spiritual Grace Answ 1. Sir you are to be rectified Do we deny the Omnipotency of the holy Spirit none of us never doubted of the Power of the Spirit in regenerating an Infant if he pleases so to do but you are to prove God doth do it and that by Baptism too for that 's the thing you seem to contend for which we deny we say God can of
more nor with any who are of your Spirit but if you write again let it be in Love and not in Wrath not hard Words but hard Arguments and you will not offend your abused Friend and Servant who wishes well to your Soul John Tredwel Preston-Place April 30 1692. A Certificate under the Hands of several sober and impartial Persons WHereas Mr. Burkit of Mildin in the County of Suffolk hath in his late Book called An argumentative and practical Discourse of Infant-Baptism very unjustly reproached the People called Anabaptists and particularly Mr. John Tredwell Preacher of God's Word declaring that he the said Tredwell hath lately at Kittle-Baston in the said County of Suffolk baptized several Persons in a nasty Horse-pond into which the Filth of the adjacent Stable occasionally flows and that the People baptized in the said Pond came forth with much Mud and Filthiness upon them c. We whose Names are hereunto subscribed do solemnly certify and declare to the whole World that those Reports and Assertions of the said Mr. Burkit are uttâ—rly and notoriously false for we taking a strict View of the said Pond and Stable find the Dung or Filth of the said Stable runs the quite contrary way from the Pond into the Road. Moreover we solemnly certify and declare that the Persons who were baptized in the said Pond came forth without the least Speck or Spot of Dirt or Filth upon their Clothes the Water being clean In witness whereof we have set our Hands this 3d Day of May 1692. John Tyril sen Gent. Baptists William Brown Not Bapt. Samuel Denny David Sare jun. Thomas Cable Thomas Game William Steward William Boram Thomas We le Thomas Boss  John Noble THE EPISTLE TO THE READER Christian Reader IT grieves and afflicts my very Soul to see such Strifes Animosities and Bitterness of Spirit amongst Christians because of that Difference there is amongst us in respect of some Truths of Jesus Christ in a time when we are all threatned by the common Enemy I am afraid it is the Fore-runner of a dismal Hour which is coming upon us But indeed of all who have of late come forth against us called Anabaptists none have shewed a worser Spirit than this Mr. Burkit who writes himself Rector of Mildin in Suffolk and that which troubles me the more is what I have lately heard by a worthy Gentleman concerning him i. e. That he is look'd upon as a sober Person and one also well affected to the present Government would all his Brethren in that respect were like-minded But in this Attempt of his I know not what he aims at Should we not all unite together in Love and Affection and strive to promote Peace and Concord and not tear one another in pieces after this manner I am sure this cannot tend to the Honour of God which he has done nor to the Service of the Church or State but we have been provoked by him to vindicate our selves and therefore none who are unprejudiced can blame us Should we suffer our selves to be loaded with Reproach and Infamy and not endeavour in a just way to clear our selves and that Truth of Christ we are so well established in from the certain Testimony of the sacred Scripture and must we be exposed for making God's Word our only Rule herein as a corrupt and erronious sort of People because we affirm from thence Believers only are the true Subjects of Baptism and that Baptizing is Dipping and not Rantising especially since 't is well known in all the Articles of Religion we are acknowledged to be sound and orthodox and that by our Adversâ—ries themselves only this is the out-cry you deny Infant-Baptism The reason of which Reader thou wilt see if thou dost but weigh well what is said in the ensuing Treatise And now to you my Brethren who own this despised Truth of Christ viz. The Baptism of Believers let me give you one Caution i. e. Take heed you are not ashamed of Christ or to own his holy Appointment or his Servants because reproached by ill Men or others through undue Prejudice left Christ be ashamed of you when he comes at the last Day in the Glory of the Father with all his holy Angels Reader there are two things I would desire thee to note First That I have repeated some of my Answers to Mr. Burkit often partly because he repeats the same Arguments and partly because I would indeavour to make it clearly to appear that many or most of his Arguments he brings to prove Infants ought to be baptized do as fully and as apparently tend to prove Infants ought to receive the Lord's Supper therefore I have drawn almost upon every like Occasion the same Inferences for that as he hath for the other which I intreat you to consider well of Secondly Whereas you will find both Hebrew Greek Latin German Dutch as well as English made use of other more or less in the insuing Answer I would not have you think I understand all those Languages but I have had the Assiâ—tance of a Learned Person tho in that case only who is my Friend and Acquaintance that so the Work might the more fully and effectually be done I 'll say no more but leave it to the Blessing of God and thy serious Examination and remain yours in the Lord's Service in the Work of the Gospel Benjamin Keach From my House near Horsly-down Southwark May 12 1692. THE Rector Rectified and Corrected OR Infant-Baptism Unlawful CHAP. I. Disproving the Arguments for Infant-Baptism taken from Circumcision With several Arguments proving the Covenant of Circumcision no Gospel-Covenant Confuting also the Arguments for Infant-Baptism from the pretended Jewish-Baptism AS to you Six Propositions I shall begin with the first and so speak to them in order Proposition I. Your first is this viz. That Baptism by Water is a Sacrament of the New Testament instituted by Jesus Christ for the solemn admission of the Party baptized into the visible Church and to be a Sign and Seal unto them of the Covenant of Grace Answ You and I are thus far agreed save only I deny that Baptism is any where in God's Word called a Seal of the Covenant of Grace for if it was then all Persons baptized have all the Blessings of the Covenant of Grace made sure to them I know no other Seal of the Covenant of Grace but the Holy Spirit I mean that seals those Covenant-Blessings and Spiritual Priviledges to our Souls see Ephes 1. 13 14. Chap. 4.30 Whereas you say the Quakers who disown any Baptism in Water were once our Proselytes is not true of the greatest part of them tho some few of them might depart from that Faith and Profession we are of Many others of them you cannot be ignorant come from you and some from the Presbyterians c. Nor could our Practice of baptizing none but Believers or such who make a Profession of Faith midwive their evil and
disciple make Disciples in all Nations baptizing them that is such who are so taught or made Disciples And this is according to Christ's own Practice Jesus made and baptized more Disciples than John c. John 4.1 first he made them Disciples and then Baptized them and thus runs his Commission Therefore since none are expressed as required in all Nations to be Baptized but such as are first taught and discipled Infants of Believers as well as Pagans and Unbelievers and their Children are excluded As when God commanded the Male Children to be Circumcised he thereby excluded all Female Children Or when he commanded Abraham to Circumcise on the eighth Day he virtually forbad him to Circumcise on the seventh or ninth day as I said before or as when he commanded the Ark to be carried on the Priests Shoulders he forbad them to carry it on a Cart and for their presumption so to do it provoked God and cost Vzzah his Life So and in like manner all that are not expressed as injoined or required to be Baptized by the Authority of the Commission are excluded 3. And as to your Simile there 's nothing in it for you should first prove that the Nature of the Sacred Charter of the Church about the Royal Grant of that Spiritual Corporation runs Parallel-wise with the King's Charter of making a Civil Corporation make that appear and you do your Business But alas Sir you beg and instead of arguing take that for granted which is utterly denied 'T is not the first Birth that brings us into the Covenant of Grace but the Second not Generation but Regeneration not being born of Believers but by our being born of God See John 1.12 13. To as many as received him to them gave be Power Gr. Priviledg to become the Sons of God Which were not born of Blood nor of the Will of the Flesh nor of the Will of Man but of God If ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham 's Seed and Heirs according to the Promise Gal. 3.29 The Children of the Flesh these are not the Children of God Rom. 9.8 Thus the Royal Charter of the Gospel or Spiritual Corporation of the Covenant and Gospel-Church-State runs i. e. You must be a Believer you must be born again be a new Creature and so must your Children before you or they either can be free-Men and Women of this Corporation or be Fellow-Citizens with the Saints and Houshold of God Ephes 2.19 And indeed the Covenant of Grace ran thus as it was made with Abraham though he was in it yet all his Children were not included though Circumcised Was the Royal Grant made so that it included Ishmael and Esau Were the Promises and Priviledges of the Covenant of Grace belonging to them doth not the Apostle positively deny it in Rom. 9.7 Neither because they are the Seed of Abraham are they all Children but in Isaac shall thy Seed be called that is they which are the Children of the Flesh these are not the Children of God but the Children of the Promise are counted for the Seed Ver. 9. 4. If all the Priviledges and Promises granted to Believers so concern all their Children they must all be saved for that is the Promise and blessed Priviledg of all Believers He that heareth my Words and believeth on him that sent me hath everlasting Life and shall not come into Condemnation John 5.24 If this were true Doctrine that you teach the deceived and blind World the Priviledges of Believers Seed were great indeed and their State happy but alas 't is no such thing they are as born and as they come into the World from the Loins of their Parents in the same woful condition and alike polluted as the Children of Unbelievers and many of the best of God's People have now-adays as well as formerly wicked Children and many die in Sin and perish eternally which they could not do had they the same Promises and Priviledges their believing Parents have therefore you teach false Doctrine and ought to be rectified and sharply corrected 5. If they have the same Priviledges their believing Parents have and that by the Royal Grant and Charter of Christ given to his Church Why do you not as the ancient erroneous Fathers did give them the Eucharist I affirm they have as much right to that Sacrament as they have to the Sacrament of Baptism as I shall prove in its place by your Arguing and Argument 6. And lastly As to that Text cited by you to prove what you say in Acts 2.38 For the Promise is to you and to your Children doth not refer to their Children quatenus as Children but to such of their Children or Off-spring God by his Word and Spirit should call as the Sequel of the Verse clearly shews for the Promise is to you and to your Children and to all that are afar off even to so many mark as the Lord our God shall call To you Jews and not only to you but to the Gentiles also which were said to be afar off as the Apostle speaks Ephes 2.17 And came and preached Peace to you that were afar off But then 't is with this Restriction or Limitation even to so many of you and your Children and them afar off which the Lord our God shall call and when Children are by the Grace of God effectually called we deny not but that you may Baptize them In pag. 7. upon the Popular Objection as you call it against Infant-Baptism from the Silence of the Scripture in that Case you argue thus viz. That which by a just and necessary Consequence is deduced from Scripture is as much the Mind of Christ as what is contained in the express words of Scripture To confirm this you bring in the Arians who rejected Consequential Proofs c. And say you if you of the Anabaptist Perswasion do the same know that if you deny evident and necessary Consequences from Scripture then first you deny your Saviour's way of Arguing and secondly you condemn your own Practice c. Answ 1. You basely misrepresent those you call Anabaptists for we do not deny nor never did necessary Consequences deduced from the Scripture or such Consequences which naturally and genuinely follow from those Texts they refer to or are drawn therefrom Though Sir I must tell you Consequences that are genuine or are naturally deduced from the Scripture to prove and demonstrate Matter of Faith as in the case of the Resurrection or about the Deity of the Son of God or any thing of like nature are one thing and Consequences brought to prove a Positive Law or Institutions are another thing Pray did God by Moses give forth any Law or positive Rite or Precept so darkly that it could not be proved but by Consequences for that is the case here between you and us Moses delivered every Law Statute and Ordinanance so plainly to the People of Israel that he that ran might read it And shall any
Man think that our blessed Saviour who declared all things plainly from his Father and was faithful as a Son over his own House would leave any positive Law or Precept of the Gospel so dark that there is no way to understand it but by Consequences 2. But secondly our main Objection lies against your pretended Consequences for we positively deny that any of your Inferences or Consequences which you bring to prove Infant-Baptism do naturally follow from the Scripture-Texts to which you refer or from whence you draw them and blame us not since your own Brethren such too as Dr. Hammond Dr. Taylor Bishop of Down c. do affirm that those Scriptures from whence you draw your Consequences for this Practice are not naturally drawn therefrom but are very uncertain and doubtful if you know not this it will appear you have read but little of them 3. As touching Prayer that is a Branch of Natural Religion or a Moral Duty and therefore quite different from this the Controversy is about yet that it is positively enjoined and commanded in the Gospel also we deny not Pray always pray without ceasing and for every thing give Thanks What can be more plain Besides we sin not if we pray thrice a day or seven times a day therefore Prayer is unadvisedly and improperly mentioned by you upon this account 4. As touching Womens receiving the Lord's-Supper that is proved more than by Consequences Let a Man examine himself i. e. Man or Woman for so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek and Adam in the Hebrew signify There is one Mediator between God and Man Is not the Woman comprehended as clearly as the Man Are not Male and Female all one in Christ Jesus Gal. 3.28 And as we have lately told your caviling Brethren the Athenian Society did you never read of the Figure Sylepsis or Conceptio that comprehends the less worthy under the more worthy indignioris sub digniore As for Example Quid tu soror facitis ego mater miseri perimus tu uxor qui adfuistis testes estete and is no less true in Divinity See that full Text 1 Cor. 6.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they two shall be one Flesh Mary the Mother of Jesus and the other good Women who were Christ's Disciples were of the number of the hundred and twenty Disciples who brake Bread with the three thousand that were added to them Acts 2. 'T is said Acts 8.12 They were baptized both Men and Women Now such a Consequence as this we deny not viz. Women were Disciples Women were baptized and therefore broke Bread for all who were true Disciples of Christ and baptized had an undoubted Right to the Lord's-Supper Bring us such Grounds and Consequences for your Infant-Baptism and Church-Membership and we will contend with you no more But to satisfy the Reader more fully as to this I desire him to see Mr. Danvers Answer to Mr. Blindman 5. As to the first day of the Week being the day appointed for Christians to observe under the Gospel in the Worship and Service of God we have Proof enough without Consequences Sir we always affirm an Apostolical Practice or a Gospel-Precedent is of like nature and of equal Authority with a Gospel Precept Do we not read Acts 2.1 2. that when the day of Pentecost was fully come the Disciples were all gathered together with one accord in one place which was the first Day of the Week And was not this their assembling on that day as the day of the Christian Sabbath ratified and confirmed from Heaven by that wonderful Effusion of the Holy Ghost or extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit And is it not said Acts 20.7 the Church came together on the first Day of the Week to break Bread And doth not the Apostle exhort the Church at Corinth 1 Cor. 16.1 2. upon the first Day of the Week to make Collections or to gather and lay in store for the Poor as he had given Orders to the Churches of Galatia this they could not do if they met not on that Day And what tho we cannot prove without Consequences that he who was the Lord of the Sabbath did change the Day c seeing we have such plain and express Examples or Precedents for the Observation of the first Day of Week and none but that in the times of the Gospel Therefore now we say 6. Could you give us but one Example one Precedent in all the New Testament that any one Infant was baptized we would give up the Cause but as you can give us none so you cannot give us any Consequences that without the abuse of the Scripture naturally flow from the Texts to which you refer therefore all this stir in mentioning these particular Cases are remote to your Business and prove nothing they being not like parallel Cases to yours But to come to your Argument for Infant-Baptism which you would have to run parallel with that for Womens receiving the Lord's-Supper I will repeat them both and then reply to the last All Christ's Disciples ought to partake of his Supper Women are Disciples therefore to partake of his Supper You proceed All Christ's Disciples ought to be baptized but some Children are his Disciples therefore to be baptized 1. I deny your Minor you say some Children are Disciples the Scripture you bring to prove it is Acts 15.1 8 10. Answ That Scripture proves no such thing the Yoke that was laid on the Neck of those Disciples were Men or Adult Persons or Gentile Saints they were such Disciples those false Brethten would have laid the Yoke of Circumcision upon 2. A Disciple is one taught or instructed as the genuine and proper Signification of that word holds forth but Infants have no Understanding and therefore are not able to be made Disciples by teaching Your second Proof is their Parents Dedication of them to Christ I answer Parents have no Warrant from God's Word to dedicate their Children to Christ by Baptism nor doth that Dedication infuse any Divine Habits into them or the least Light Knowledg or Understanding therefore that Dedication cannot render them to be Disciples Your third Proof is Christ's gracious Acceptation of them at their hands Answ I answer Christ only laid his Hands upon some Children who were brought to him and blessed them but this doth not prove they are Disciples or that he baptized any Infant But more of this hereafter I proceed to your second grand Argument Pag. 8. CHAP. II. Wherein the grand Argument for Infant-Baptism taken from the Covenant made with Abraham is fully confuted Proving the Covenant of Circumcision was not a Covenant of Grace wherein both Mr. Burkit and the Athenian Society are clearly answered The Legal Covenant and Fleshly Seed being under the Gospel both cast out the Plea for Pedo-baptism from the old Covenant-Right is vanquished I Come now to examine your second grand Argument for the Baptism of Infants
into the Church Sure had Paul been of your Judgment he would have rather past by that Priviledg when he spoke of Circumcision which he calls the chief and have said chiefly in that it was a Seal of Infant Church-Membership But since he speaks the quite contrary who shall we believe you or the great Apostle of the Gentiles And evident it is he confirms the same Doctrine Gal. 5.3 For I â—â—stify to 〈◊〉 Man that is Circumcised that he is a Dâ—â—tor to keep the whole Law And Hence 't is said to be a Yoke of Bondage which neither they nor their Fathers could bear Acts 15. because it obliged them to univerâ—â—l Obedience or to keep the Law perfectly and brought them under a Curse if they did not Gal. 3.10 These things considered fully shew of what stamp and nature Circumcision was together with that Covenant to which it did appertain I come now to what you further assert in the 9 th Page of your Book viz. That Infants were in Covenant under the Law and by special appointment of God Gen. 17.7 but are not now cast out by Christ under the Gospel This differs but little from the old Argument of Mr. Baxter Sidenham c. the latter speaks thus Infants of Believers were never cast out of the visible Church of which they were once Answ 1. Infants being once Members of the Jewish Church doth not prove they were ever Members of the Gospel-Church the Male Infants of God's Priests under the old Covenant when grown up had other Priviledges If we must call Circumcision a Priviledg which the Sons of Christ's Ministers have no right to under the Gospel and yet no where in express words in the New-Testament excluded from that Priviledg 2. But I have proved the Covenant for Infants in Covenanting under the Law was no Gospel Covenant and so concerns not our Infants 3. According to that Maxim Ownis privatio intimat habitum you know that every Dispossession implieth a Possession Infants therefore cannot be cast out of the Gospel-Church before it can be proved they were ever admitted If Mr. Burkitt or the Athenian Society or any Men living can tell us in what visible Administration Children were admitted visible Church-Members before Abraham's days which was above 2000 Years and you say somewhat you affirm they were always in Covenant Mr. Sidenham makes mention of a two-fold being in Covenant 1. In relation to Election 2. To be in Covenant In faciâ— visibilis Ecclesiae To this I answer The Covenant of Circumcision belonged to the Children of the Flesh to Ishmael and Esau as well as Jacob who were not in the Election of Grace therefore those who were Circumcised were not so in Covenant Children of Unbelievers may be in that sense in Covenant as well as the Children of Believers as many of them afterwards prove to be nay may be more of them than of the Children of Believers 2. As touching Infants being in Covenant In facie visibilis Ecclesiae in the face of a visible Church I answer Though they were so in the Jewish Church under the Old Covenant some with Circumcision were brought in and some without it yet that Covenant and Covenant-Seed are as I have and shall yet prove cast out which will be a final Answer Thus I argue If the Covenant for incovenanting of Infants was the Old Covenant signified by Hagar and that Covenant-Seed signified by Ishmael are cast out then the natural or fleshly Seed of Believers are cast out or not to be admitted into the Gospel-Church But the Covenant for Incovenâ—â—â—ing of Infants was the Old Covenant signified by Hagar and that Covenant-Seed signified by Ishmael are cast out Ergo The 〈◊〉 or fleshly Seed of Believers are cast out or not to be admitted into the Gospel Churchâ— see Gal. 4.22 23 24 25 26. For it is written that Abraham had two Sons the one by a Bâ—ndâ— woman the other by a 〈◊〉 woman Ver. 24. Which things are 〈◊〉 Allegâ—ry for these are the two Covenants the one from the Mount Sinai which gâ—ndereth to Bondage which is Hagar c. Ver. 30. Nevertheless which saith the Scripture Cast out the Bond-woman and her Son for the Son of the Bond-woman shall not be Heir with the Son of the Free-woman By Hagar is meant all agree the Old Covenant and by casting her out is held forth the abolishing or taking away of the Old Covenant He took away the First that he might establish the Second 2. By Ishmael is meant the natural Seed of Abraham and so the natural Seed of all Godly Men of his Race that succeeded him who were Members of that Church and as the late Annotators note by this place is signified The total Destruction of the Jewish Church which consisted of Parents and their Children or the whole Nation of Israel this Church and Church-Seed and manner of Church-Membership is cast out and gone for ever Pray read Mr. Cary's Solemn Call and what I have formerly said in that Book intituled Gold Restn'd or Baptism in its Primitive Purity p. 113. Mr. Cary and we all say That Children were once admitted Members of the Jewish Church But evident it is that God hath now quite pulled down and razed that House to the Foundation thereof I mean that National Church of the Jews and broke up House-keeping and turned the Bond-woman and her Son i. e. the fleshly Seed or natural Off-spring of Abraham out of Doors the natural Branches are broken off and God hath now built him a new and more glorious and spiritual House under the Gospel into which he admitted none as his Houshold-Servants to dwell in this his Spiritual Family or Gospel-Church but Believers only or such as profess themselves so to be Yea saith St. Peter as lively Stones are built up a spiritual House c. And that the Old House the Jewish Church-State with all the Appurtenances Rites and Priviledges of it are abolished or pulled down and a new one built and set up into which Infants are not to be admitted is very evident Heb. 7.12 For the Priesthood being changed there is made of necessity a change also of the whole Law which must needs include Circumcision with all the Appurtenances and Priviledges belonging to it And therefore as Infant Church-Membership came in with the Law of Circumcision and as a direct Part of the Old Covenant or Old Law so likewise plain it is that it went out and was disannulled with it Take again my former Simily viz. What Priviledges soever are given to any Person by an Act of Parliament which said Law was to continue in Force so long and no longer then when that time is expired and another Parliament makes a new Law where many things are contained that were in the first Law But those divers Priviledgâ—â— given to those Persons in the former Law are left out in this latter Act would it not be a piece of Folly for any of them
other ways than by a Mediator c. Answ 1. I have proved that Covenant made with Abraham was a mixt Covenant and I deny not but the Covenant of Grace made in Christ was promised to Abraham which takes in only the true Spiritual Seed and to all those God is in a special manner become a God unto 2. Evident it is all manner of God's Covenanting Transactions since the Fall of what nature soever have been no other ways than through the interposition of a Mediator as that with Noah about the Flood c. Gen. 9.8 9. in that God shewed himself to be the God of the Old World and so he is by Creation and Providence c. Yet it doth not follow that Covenant was the Covenant of Grace or that God hath received them into special favour with himself So when God gave out that fiery Law on Mount Sinai he told them Exod. 20.2 I am the Lord your God c. This was the very Introduction to that part of the Law which was written in Stone which nevertheless the Apostle expressly calls it A Ministration of Death and Condemnation 2 Cor. 3.7 8. and that it killed and could not give Life Now must this be a Covenant of Faith or Grace How is it then that the Apostle Paul says The Law is not of Faith also the Covenant of Grace giveth Life But I argue thus The Law could not give Life Ergo The Law was not a Covenant of Grace And so much to your first Note or Observation 2. Your second Observation is The Duration and Continuance of this Covenant made with Abraham the Lord calls it an Everlasting Covenant c. Answ You might have left out this only it helps to add to the number you have answered this your self in saying The Hebrew word for Everlasting sometimes signifies no more than a long continuance of Time Sir We know it very well and those Mosaical Rites that ended in Christ are said to be for Everlasting But when the Lord saith he will be a Person 's God for ever and ever or everlastingly it denotes his being so to all Eternity But God never said he would be the God everlastingly or to all Eternity to all who were concern'd in the Covenant of Circumcision Nor was he Ishmael's God so though Circumcised and has he not cast off that whole Nation of the Jews with whom he made that Covenant and is not so their God now though he is I confess to all Eternity or everlastingly the God of all Abraham's Spiritual Seed viz. all true Believers in Christ 3. Your third and last Argument or Note to prove the Covenant of Circumcision a Covenant of Grace is taken from the Benefits and Blessings conveyed by it To be a God unto him and to his Seed and that everlastingly is a most comprehensive Gospel-Blessing for hereby God gives a Person an Interest in all that he is and in all that he has so far as can be communicated to a Creature This Blessing promised to Abraham comprehends Christ Grace Holiness here and Glory and Happiness hereafter And accordingly we find the Apostle Heb. 8. uses the same Expression with this of God's to Abraham I will be to them a God and they shall be to me a People Answ This is idem bis idem culpandum est the same again which is already answered Sir Is God everlastingly a God to Abraham and to all his fleshly Seed and to Believers who are the Spiritual Seed of Abraham and to all their fleshly Seed I say is this so Does God give himself all he is and all he has to every Believer and to all his fleshly Seed Have all their Children or every one of them Christ Grace Holiness here and Glory and eternal Happiness hereafter Or are you not to be justly blamed thus to jumble things confusedly together 'T is true the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham and all his true Spiritual Seed who are the Elect have Interest in all God is and has so far as it can be communicated to Creatures and we know they have Christ as well as are Christ's as Paul notes Gal. 4. and Grace here and shall have Glory hereafter But a multitude of Abraham's natural Off-spring and the natural Off-spring of Believers have neither Christ nor Grace nor shall be saved but perish eternally Therefore this may serve for an Answer with what I have proved before touching the Nature of that two-fold Covenant made with Abraham To what you speak in the second place pag. 12 13. as also in your third Reply viz. If the Covenant which God made with Abraham be one and the same with the Covenant of Grace then our Infant-Seed have right to Baptism Answ You had this before and I have already answered it only I shall add a Passage or two of Martin Luther Paul therefore concludeth with this Sentence saith he They which are of Faith are the Children of Abraham That corporal Birth or carnal Seed make not the Children of Abraham before God As if he would say There is none before God accounted as the Child of this Abraham who is the Servant of God whom God hath chosen and made Righteous by Faith thrô carnal Generation but such Children must be given before God as he was a Father but he was a Father of Faith was justified and pleased God not because he could beget Children after the Flesh not because he had Circumcision under the Law but because he believed in God He therefore that will be a Child of the believing Abraham must also himself believe or else he is not a Child of the Elect the believing and the justified Abraham but only the begetting Abraham which is nothing else but a Man conceived born and wrap'd in Sin without the forgiveness of Sins without Faith without the Holy Ghost as another Man is and therefore condemned Such also are the Children carnally begotten of him having nothing in them like unto their Father but Flesh and Blood Sin and Death therefore these are also damned This glorious boasting then we are the Seed of Abraham is to no purpose Thus far and much more to the same purpose he excellently dilates upon Mr. Perkins on the Galatians concerning the Covenant made with Abraham The Seed of Abraham saith he is the Seed not of the Flesh but of the Promise And this Seed is first Christ and then all that believe in Christ for all these are given to Abraham by Promise and Election of God Moreover this Seed is not many as Paul observeth but one It is objected That the word Seed is a Name collective and signifies the whole Posterity of Abraham Answ It doth sometimes saith he but not always for Eve saith of Sâ—th God hath given me another Seed Again he saith this one particular Seed of Abraham is Christ Jesus here by the name Christ first and principally the Mediator and then secondly all Jews and
hath laid down as an Everlasting Rule That unless a Man be born again he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3.3 requiring Regeneration as an indispensable Condition in a Member of his Church a Subject of his Kingdom for his Temple is now built of living Stones 1 Pet. 2.5 Men spiritual and savingly quickned from their Death in Sin and by the Holy Ghost whereof they are Partakers made a meet Habitation for God Ephes 2.21 22. 1 Cor. 3.16 2 Cor. 6.16 which vital Supplies from Christ its Head encreaseth in Faith and Holiness edifying it self in Love And saith Dr. Taylor they that baptize Children make Baptism to be wholly an outward Duty a Work of the Law a carnal Ordinance it makes us adhere to the Letter without regard of the Spirit to be satisfied with Shadows to return to Bondage to relinquish the Mysteriousness the Substance and Spirituality of the Gospel which Argument is of so much the more consideration because under the Spiritual Covenant or Gospel of Grace if the Mystery goes not before the Symbol which it does when the Symbols are signations of Grace as the Sacraments are yet it always accompanies it but never follows in order of Time And this is clear in the perpetual Analogy of Holy Scripture The Lord open your Eyes Sir I am perswaded you speak as you believe But to proceed You come in pag. 26. to the Gospel-Church 1. From the Command of Christ 2. From the Practice of the Apostles 3. From the constant usage of the Primitive Church after the Apostles 1. That Infants were to be admitted into the Christian Church you say appears from our Saviour's express Command in the words of the Commission Mat. 28.19 Go disciple all Nations baptizing them that is go and proselyte all the Gentile Nations without distinction of Country Sex or Age whatsoever make the Gospel-Church as large as you can Answ 1. Who is so blind as he who is not willing to see It is evident to all Men who understand what they read that none are to be baptized by the virtue and plain meaning of our Saviour's Commission but such only who are first made Disciples as I have proved or as St. Mark renders it such who believed And that 't is so I have already proved 1. From the Practice of Christ John 4.1 he first made Disciples and then baptized them 2. From the Practice of the Apostles who always required Faith and Repentance of such they by virtue of their Commission did baptize as Acts 2.37 8.27 10.47 3. From the Nature of the Ordinance it self it being a sign of that inward Grace the Person baptized ought to have 4. From the Nature of the Gospel-Church it being only built up of living Stones and to be no larger than Christ appointed it But say you pag. 27. doubtless had our Saviour here intended the exclusion of Infants out of the Visible Church he would have acquainted her with this Alteration Christ being faithful to him that appointed him as was Moses in all his House Heb. 3.2 Answ I must retort it back upon you with much better Reason Doubtless say I had our Saviour intended the admission of Infants he would at this time have acquainted his Disciples and so us that it was his Will they should be received since as you well say he was so faithful and the rather because he commanded his Disciples to receive into his Church such who were taught or made Disciples When he commanded Abraham to circumcise his Male-Infants Abraham knew well enough he was not to circumcise his Females though he received no Negative Law in the case What is not commanded I say again is forbid especially in all Instituted Worship or else whither shall we run Thus your first Proof is gone having nothing in it 2. Baptizing Infants appears in the Christian Church you say from the Practice of the Apostles who baptized whole Families i. e. Lydia and her Houshold Acts 16.15 the Jaylor and all his c. Answ 1. If there were no Families or Housholds but in which there are some Infants you might have some pretence for what you infer from hence but how palpable is it that there are every where many whole Families in which there is no Infant or Child in Non-age and this being so what certain Conclusion or Consequence can be drawn from hence 2. Besides you know by a certain Figure called a Synecdoche a part is put for the whole as Isa 7.2 5 8 9. the Tribe of Ephraim is put for all Israel 'T is said All Jerusalem and Judea went out to be baptized by John in Jordan In 1 Sam. 1.21 22. the Text saith expresly The Man Elkanah and all his House went up to offer unto the Lord yet in the next Verse 't is as expresly said That Hannah and her Child Samuel went not up and yet 't is said all his House went up 3. As touching the Jaylor's House 't is positively said Paul preached to him and to all that were in his House do you think he preached to his Infants if he had any And to put the Matter out of doubt 't is said He rejoiced believing in God with all his House as well as 't is said He was baptized and all his 4. And as touching Lydia we still say 't is uncertain whether she was a Maid Widow or Wife but if she was married and had Children 't is very unlikely if Babes that they were at that time with her because she was far from her proper Dwelling nay many Miles from it for she was of the City Thyatira vers 14. but when Paul preached to her she was at Philippi where she was merchandizing being a seller of Purple Can we suppose she carried her little Babes so far to Market Besides those of her House were called Brethren who were baptized with her therefore sure Children cannot be here meant vers 40. Will you Sir build your practice of baptizing of little Babes from such uncertain Conclusions when 't is uncertain whether she had Children or no or if she had whether they were with her at that time or not Our denying of it is as good as your affirming it yet 't is plain she had Servants or some who are called her Houshold therefore that is impertinent you mention in p. 28. And thus it appears to all impartial Persons that there is nothing in your second Proof touching the Practice of the Gospel-Church here 's no mention made of one Infant baptized nor the least Colour of Reason to conclude there were in those Families But you in the next place put us upon searching the Scripture to prove a Negative i. e. that there were none baptized in Infancy you might as well bid us search and see if we can find there were not one Infant who broke Bread or were not ordained an Elder or Pastor of a Church How can we prove they did not make use of Honey
Token of it but this he hath not done and 't is not in your Power to do it 1. But you say they have hereby Interest in all the Prayers put up in and by the Church Answ If you so pray for them viz. as Members of the visible Church what ground have you to believe God will hear you since he never made them Members thereof Besides the Church prays for all her Members and for the Children of them who are Members that they in due time may become Members and have equal Right in all the Blessings of God's Church if it be his Will to bring them in But what ground have you to deny any who are true Members of the Church the Eucharist or Lord's Supper or any other Priviledge whatsoerver 2. You say by virtue of this Admission they have an Interest in that special Providential Care which Christ exercises over his Church Answ No doubt but Christ exercises his Care over poor Infants but not the more assure your self for your baptizing them without his Authority 3. You say hereby the Church stands nearer to them than to the rest of Mankind c. mentioning that Text in Isa 54.13 Thy Children shall be all taught of God c. Answ You cannot bring Infants to stand nearer to God nor his People by any Act done by you without a Rule left by Christ Besides that Text in Isa 54.13 does not refer to Infants not to our Children as such but to those godly Christians who being born in Sion are indeed truly her Children 4. ' You say it is an Act of Dedication c. Answ Who commanded you this way to dedicate your Children to the Lord Will you teach him Wisdom or are you wiser than he doth he require you so to do 5. You say 't is greatly advantagious to them as 't is an Act of Restipulation that is say you a Child at Baptism enters into Covenant with God Answ Poor Babes 't is without their Knowledg or Consent or God's Appointment which is worst of all or being able to perform it then nor many of them ever after God never giving them his Grace so to do But wo to them if they do not perform this Covenant if you and Mr. Daniel Williams say true he says in his Catechism as followeth That those Children who perform not their Baptismal Covenant do 1. Reject Christ 2. They renounce the Blessings of Gospel 3. That 't is Rebellion against their Maker 4. That 't is Ingratitude and Perjury to their Redeemer 5. Gross Injustice to their Parents 6. That 't is self-killing Cruelty to their own Souls 7. He saith 't is a damning Sin nay it 's the damning Sin and Heart of all Sin Is this indeed the Love you Pedo-baptists have to your poor Infants What bring them into such a Covenant without their Knowledg or Consent or God's Appointment and then threaten them if they break it with Hell and Damnation and what not Do you know they are all Elect Persons and so such that God will in time call give Grace to and so change their evil and depraved Natures If not do you not heap up a Multitude of Evils upon them and hereby make their Condition worse or aggravate their Sin and Misery for ever I know not whether you be of this Pedo-Baptist's Mind or not but I think this Doctrine does not fit a Christian Catechism if God had required Infants to enter into such a Covenant some reason he might have thus to speak But since he nor you either can prove it this to me seems a daring boldness in a Minister of the Gospel to assert who I hope is a good Man God I grant expects that all true Believers should perform their Baptismal Covenant but then know they are required of God actually to enter into it they freely of their own choice enter into it they are such God hath given habitual Grace to perform it And he hath promised them also a further supply of Grace to enable them so to do but nothing of this you can prove in Infants covenanting in their Baptism but more of this by and by nor will their Sureties help the matter for if they cannot perform those things they promise for themselves how should they be able to do it for others besides 't is an humane Invention and not appointed of God as Mr. Perkins himself confesseth But truly Mr. Williams's Doctrin afflicts my Mind Strange is this Sin the damning Sin I thought the damning Sin by way of eminency had been the Sin of Unbelief Suppose your own Child should not believe he is bound by virtue of that baptismal Covenant you brought him into but when grown up disowns that you call Baptism c. not believing it is a Truth of Christ must he be damned But to proceed You having shewed the Advantages of Infant-Baptism without giving one Scripture-Text to prove what you say is true you in pag. 38. come to shew that Baptism is more useful and beneficial to a Child in Infancy than to omit it till riper Age Because no Infant-membership is capable of Hypocrisy which Persons grown up are Answ 1. Then give them the Lord's Supper also for doubtless if they receive it they will not eat and drink their own Damnation as may be some that have it given to them do I tremble at what you dare to say and write in which you seem to arraign the Wisdom of the ever-blessed Jesus Hath he appointed Believers or Adult Persons who are gracious to be baptized and none else and do you say the Ordinance better suits with ignorant Babes Should you dictate to your earthly Prince would he allow it much less to contradict and correct him as if your Wisdom was more than his 2. You say 'T is more advantagious to Infants than those of riper Years as it is a pre-engagement upon them to resist Temptations Answ You may after this rate bring them under an hundred Engagements and Covenants nay may be more plausible ones too may you not When they know what they do make them take a solemn Oath or enter into Bonds upon pain of severe Punishment that they shall not yield to Temptations and pretend 't is God's Law they should do so and if you can deceive their Judgments they will dread as much nay may be more the breaking those Oaths and Covenants than this you bring them into without any Authority from Jesus Christ 3. You say Baptism in Infancy is more advantagious than at riper Years as it is an early Remedy against the Malady of Original Sin Answ Speak Doth Baptism take away Original Sin or free them of that Malady or not You know some of the Ancient Fathers were carried away with such a Dream how comes it to pass then that that Contagion appears so soon and to be as strong in your Children as in ours who never were baptized at all But does not St. Peter tell you 1. Pet. 3.20 Baptism
Righteousness the Shield of Faith and for an Helmet the Hope of Salvation and the Word of God like a Sword in his Hand to cut down all his Enemies Thus by the help of these Sacred Graces of the Spirit he is enabled to fight against Sin the World the Flesh and the Devil But alas you list your poor Babes into this War and make them covenant and vow to forsake the Devil and all his Works the Pomps and Vanities of this Wicked World and all the sinful Lusts of the Flesh but arm them not Did Baptism confer Grace and arm their Souls it was something but who dares assert that or if he does who will or can believe him 6. God hath also promised to assist stand by help and enable all Believers baptized with further supplies of Grace nay they being actually united to Christ have his blessed Influences flowing to them besides the Promises of God the Death Resurrection and Intercession of Christ and the everlasting Covenant of Grace which is ordered in all things and sure firmly secures all their Souls But thus it is not with those poor Babes you bring into this Covenant you are like Pharaoh's Task-masters command the making of Brick but allow them no Straw 4. Again consider how hereby great part of the Nations are perjured I will appeal to the Consciences of all thinking and understanding People whether according to your Principle and Practice it is not so Mourn O England and lament sad is thy Case If these Men speak right or truly what a Multitude in thee have been made to enter into this Covenant who never performed it O Perjured Nation Perjured People and Perjured Pastors for so are all thy debauched drunken swearing and unclean Teachers Are not these perjured also Have they kept their Vow and Covenant Alas Sir instead of mourning for this Sin we may conclude they never thought of it But let them break off their Sins by Righteousness I mean repent and leave those gross Acts of Wickedness of which many both Priest and People are guilty and get renewing Grace and never let them fear this new devised Sin of Perjury For if God's Word convinces of all Sins and doth not convince of this sort of Perjury this is no Perjury I mean the simple breaking of that Covenant though those Sins by which they are said to break it are horrid Treason and Rebellion against the God of Heaven and provoke him to Wrath every Day But God's Word doth convince of all Sins and doth not convince of this sort of Perjury therefore it cannot be Perjury as is affirmed 'T is not this which is the Self-killing-Murder the damning Sin No no but 't is their Unbelief and Contempt of God's Grace or neglecting the great Salvation offered by Christ in the Gospel 5. Baptism administred in Infancy hath you say this singular Advantage above that which is administred at viper Age in that it gives the pious Parent a good ground of hope that his Children dying in Infancy are certainly saved it makes say you that Ordinance a Channel of Grace c. Answ 1. This is like the rest But Sir by what Authority do you assert all these things You know what wonderful Vertue the Papists say is in many of their Popish Rites Ceremonies and Relicks i. e. in their crossing themselves and in their Holy Water especially in their Agnus Dei but how do they prove it even as well as you do what you speak here upon this Account And we have the same reason to believe them as to believe you in what you speak without Proof or Authority from God's Word 2. Pious Parent But alas how few are there of that sort what hopes hath the impious prophane and ungodly Parent of the Salvation of his dying Children But Sir I thought all the pious and believing or godly Parents Children were born in Covenant with God and that the Parents Faith would have secured them whether baptized or not Were not the Jews Female Children saved they were not circumcised and were not their Male Infants saved who died before the eighth Day 3. From what Scripture is it these pious though ignorant and deceived Parents may have hope that their Children that die in their Infancy shall be saved and none but theirs who are baptized or rather rantized 4. Will you make Baptism their Saviour can Baptism save them And is it so indeed is it then in the Power of Parents to save or damn their Children And how came Baptism to have such Power in it or who made that a Channel of Grace to dying Infants Do you not place that Vertue in an external Rite that only belongs to the Blood of Christ and sanctifying Grace of God's Spirit Mr. Perkins saith That Baptism indeed saveth but saith he that is not the Baptism of Water but the Stipulation of a good Conscience by the Resurrection Again he saith The outward Baptism without the inward is no Mark of God's Child but the Mark of the Fool that makes a Vow and afterwards breaks it 5. May not this Doctrine of yours clearly tend to scare and afright poor Parents with fear that all their Babes that die in their Mother's Wombs or before baptized are damned And O in what a sad Condition are all the Children of ungodly and impious Persons whose little Babes you dare not cannot baptize if you are true to your own Principles But that Text may give us a better ground of hope a thousand times concerning the well-being of our dying Infants where our Saviour saith of such are the Kingdom of Heaven And that which you mention I shall go to him he shall not return to me together with the infinite Mercy of God through the Virtue of Christ's Blood who can convey Help and Healing to dying Infants and Idiots in ways we know not of nor are we to trouble our selves about such secret things that are not revealed 6. You say The Practice of Infant-Baptism appears most beneficial because it prevents such shameful and scandalous Neglects of Baptism to the Blemish of Christianity Answ Is it then a shameful Scandal to neglect a Tradition of Man for so I have proved Infant-Baptism to be Where is the Shame that ought to be in Christians that Christ's Laws and Precepts are neglected and his precious Ordinance of Baptism exposed to Contempt and Shame as it is by you and thousands more whilst the Statutes of Omri are zealously kept and observed as the Prophet of old complained I mean humane Rites and Traditions or Statutes like those of Omri instituted by him and Jeroboam which the Wisdom of your Church and many corrupt Churches have been zealous for to this Day And thus I have ran through and examined your fix Particulars which you bring to prove the Usefulness of Infant-Baptism above the Baptism of Believers which our blessed Saviour instituted And now shall shew you further that Infant-Baptism is so far from being more useful
rantized who are baptized afterwards when they believe are not rebaptized as you affirm nor do they renounce their Baptism though they do renounce the Practice and humane Tradition of Sprinkling 2. All you pious Parents bless God for Christ and the Gospel and for all those Priviledges he hath bestowed upon you and be sure make God's Word your Rule and tremble to do any thing in his Worship without lawful Authority from him I mean Precept or Example from his Word and do not adventure to baptize much less to rantize your Children whatever Mr. Burkit or any Man on Earth says unless you can find it written in your Bibles God hath not commanded you to bring them into a Baptismal Covenant not made any Promise of Blessing to assist them to perform it If you do so consider what I have said in this Treatise about that devised and unwarrantable Covenant by which you may heap up Guilt upon your selves and lay such a Load and Burden on your Children that you are not aware of and frighten them with the Thoughts of Perjury c. sufficient to drive them into Despair when indeed God never will charge them with Perjury since he never commanded them to enter into any such Covenant Can any Body think when your Children are grown up and they by Light received from God's Word should be convinced they were never baptized at all and so renounce their Infants Rantism that they thereby become guilty of Perjury and must be damned Do not these Men teach such a kind of Doctrine as that is 2 dly Train up your Children in the Fear of God and set them a good Example and pray for them and over them and give them good Instruction or godly Counsel and Admonitions but dread to sprinkle them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost because 't is not done by his Authority nor Appointment Know 't is not in the Power of Man by any external Rite to make your Children Members of Christ or visible Members of his Body Baptism is not Bread for Infants but for Christ's new-born Babes not for your Children as such but such who are the Children of God who are born of his Spirit 3 dly Don't deceive your poor Children and make them believe they are in a good Condition by reason they are the Seed of believing Parents and baptized as these Men call it and so look out for no further Work of Grace nor Regeneration but think they by that pretended Baptism were made Christians even Children of God Members of Christ and Inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven when in Truth 't is no such thing Nor have you any Cause to doubt but that your Infants who die though not baptized are happy as it appears from what we have said Neither be ye so ignorant to believe Baptism can save your Infants or the Adult either nor let poor Children cry out against their ungodly Parents as Mr. Burkit intimates they may do in pag. 62. Take a Taste of his strange Doctrine thus he says Before your Children are born 1. Make sure as much as in you lieth that they may be born within the Covenant and under the Promise by your being in Covenant with God your selves See that the Lord be your God â— God in Covenant with you and then you may comfortably hope he will be the God of your Seed in their Generations Answ This is a way to bring poor Souls into Covenant that God speaks nothing of in his Word You may be in Covenant and your Children never in it whilst they live nay die out of the Covenant as doubtless many godly Peopleâ— Children do Nor hath God made such a Covenant with every Christian Man and their Seed as he made with Abraham who was the Father of all that Believe but so are not you nor I though we are in Covenant with God and walk in Abraham's steps Those who are in the Election of Grace of your Seed never fear God will interest in his due time with all Covenant-Blessings and Privileges but if any of them are not comprehended in that Election of Grace they being born of your Loins will not cannot bring them into Covenant with God Your Business and your Childrens too is to make your and their Election sure by special and effectual Calling 'T is not the first Birth but the Second that brings either you or your Children into the Gospel Covenant that God may be your God and their God But mark Mr. Burkit's next words p. 62. O! were but Infants capable of Knowledg how much would they dread being born of wicked Parents Make it your Endeavour before your Children are born to sanctify your Children this is done by Prayer c. Answ 1. This is enough to set Children against their ungodly Parents nay to 〈◊〉 them in their Hearts Alas the Children of wicked Parents I see not but they may be iâ— as good a Condition as the Children of Believers for doubtless God will not destroy poor children for the Fâ—â—â—t and Sins of their Parents 〈◊〉 by your begetting them though gracious you cannot live them so you by begetting them though wicked cannot damn or destroy them There is no reason saith Mr. Perkins that the wickedness of the Parents should prejudice the Child in things pertaining to Eternal Life 2. But if it be aâ— you say that when you are in Covenant your Children are in Covenant doubtless they are in a safe Condition and Baptism to them is 〈…〉 cannot bring them into the Covenant becaâ—â—â— they were in it beâ—â—â—e and therefore 〈◊〉 enough 3. But may not thâ—â— Doctrine puâ—â— just Rebuke â—â—on Unbelievers or Ungodly Persons for once attempting to Marry and beget Children that are in such a sad Condition by reason their Pareâ—â—s were not â—n Covenant wâ—â—â— God! Ought 〈◊〉 nay may they lawfully Mâ—rry this being considered and such dreaâ—â—ul 〈◊〉 following â—â—â—sider how far doth thâ— Covenant Blessing exâ—end If my Grand father in Covâ—â—â—nt â—ho my Fathe◠〈…〉 bâ— very wicâ—ed and ungodly Persons am I not still in Covenâ—â—t and are not my Children iâ— Covenant too Nay if 〈◊〉 was by my Great-Grandfather will not that do as well as if my moâ—◠〈◊〉 Father was in Covenant with God Sir The Opposers of Pedo-â—â—ptism do not creep out of Darkness and 〈…〉 as you scandalously affirm but God hath graciously brought us out of the Darkness you are in and hath given us blessed be his Name the Knowledg and Light of his Word and what his Good-will and Pleasure is in this Matter and mercifully vouchsafed to us a gracious Freedom and Liberty to worship him â—â—cording to our Light and Consciences which â—ou seem troubled at and we are not ashamed to shew our Heads on the House-top nor do we scandalously dip our deluded Proselytes as you with Envy and Prejudice enough say but do at Noon-day to the Honour of God aâ—â— in justification of his Wisdom
and Holy Institution Baptize or Dip such who believe and are discipled by the Word which is a joyful Spectacle no doubt to the Holy Angels and all enlightned good Men who see this reproached and contemned Ordinance in its Primitive Purity And as touching your Reflections in p. 66. on â—â—y Faithful and worthy Brother Mr. Tredwell whom you pretend to pity as one misled by prejudice of Education undertaking an Office to get Bread and as if he was no ways qualified to preach the Gospel because he understands not the Original Tongues I answer On my Knowledg he had a good and warrantable Call to go and preach the Gospel where he is and was sent down also as being approved as one able to teach to the Profit and Edification of the People And truly you and those of your Brethren have the least reason of any Men to talk as you do about Preaching for Bread for that will not serve your turn you must have Fat Benefices God hath ordained that they that preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel and the Workman is worthy of his Meat and would you not have him have Bread to eat I doubt not 't is the Honour of God and the bringing of Souls to Christ my Brother Tredwill 〈◊〉 aâ— and had you no more for Preaching than he has you might be the more justified in something I am informed you have done or are about to do And as for the Knowledg of the Tongues I hope you do not make that an Essential Qualification of a true Minister I am sure God's Word doth it not the Spirit 's â—â—â—aching is above all Hâ—â—ane Learning And now Sir by this time I hope you will see more cause of blushing than he hath at your Attempt and rash Censuring and Condemning and in a bad manner reproaching of Christ's 〈◊〉 Ordinance and Sacred Institution and his poor and despised People who wish you and all Men well and did not nor do intend any Evil against you nor had troubled our selves with you had not you begun with us The Lord give you Repentance to the acknowledgment of the Truth and grant more Love and Charity one to another For who art thou that judgest â—â—â—ther Man's Servant AN APPENDIX Containing several Queries and Arguments for Mr. Burkit to answer since the Athenian Society have not done it SIR I Having wrote a few Queries and Arguments lately about Infant-Baptism for your Brethren the Athenian Society to answer upon their bold Challenge and since they are too hard for them to do it having said nothing at all to the purpose I shall expect to see them answered by you when you answer this Reply to your Book I shall not trouble you with all but only with a few of them Query 1. Whether the being the male Children of Abraham as such gave them a right to Circumcision or not rather the mere positive Command of God to Abraham To this they give no Answer Query 2. Whether Circumcision could be said to be a Seal of any Man's Faith save Abraham's only seeing it is only called the Seal of the Righteousness of his Faith and also of that Faith which he had being yet uncircumcised To this they say Amongst the ancient Hereticks they never met with such a strange Position as this viz. That the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith was the Privilege of Abraham only Is this an Answer Besides they mistake 't is noâ— a Position but a Question Furthermore 't is said â—â—braham recâ—â—ved the Sign of Circumcision not only as a Seal of the Righteousness of that Faith he had being yet uncircumcised but also mark that he might be the Father of all that believe Was this the Privilege of any save Abraham only Query 3. What do you conceive Circumcisiâ—â— did or Baptism doth seal or make sure to â—â—fants since a Seal usually makes firm all the Blessings and Privileges contained in that Covenant 't is affix'd to They answer It seals and did seal to all that belong to Christ Life and Salvation but to such as do not it seals nothing at all To which I reply How dare any Man to seal the Covenant of Salvation to such who have not that Faith Abraham had before he received that Seal It was not a Seal of that Faith he might have oâ— might not have afterwards but of that Faith he had before he received it 3. I affirm Baptism is no Seal at all of Salvation for if it was and of God's Appointment all so sealed would be saved but many who are baptized may perish eternally and do no doubt Query 4. I demand to know what those external Privileges are Infants partake of by Baptism seeing they are denied the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and all other external Rites whatsoever If you say When they believe they shall partake of those Privileges and Blessings so say I shall the Children of Unbelievers Turks and Pagans as well as they They answer We insist not upon external Privileges 't is foreign to the Matter if you say when they believe so say I shall the Children of Unbelievers Reply If you insist not on internal Privileges nor on external Privileges that are sealed to Infants that are baptized what does their Baptism signify just nothing but which is worse 't is a Prophanation of Christ's holy significant Ordinance of Baptism and that is worst of all Query 5. If the fleshly Seed or Children of believing Gentiles as such are to be accounted the Seed of Abraham I query Whether they are his Spiritual Seed or his Natural Seed If not his Spiritual Seed nor his Natural Seed what right can they have to Baptism or Church-membership from any Covenant-Transaction God made with Abraham They answer They are his Spiritual Seed visible for so far only belongs to us to judg and therefore they have a right to the Seal of that Covenant Reply What they say cannot be true because the Scripture positively saith that such who are the spiritual Seed of Abraham have the Faith of Abraham and walk in the steps of Abraham and are Christ's Gal. 3. ult But Infants of Believers as such cannot be said to have the Faith of Abraham nor to walk in Abraham's steps c. 2. Such who are Abraham's spiritual Seed are in the Election of Grace and are always his Seed not for so long c. but for ever 3. We can judg none to be Abraham's spiritual Seed but such only in whom these Signs appear before-mentioned but none of those Signs appear nor can appear in Infants therefore we cannot judg they are his spiritual Seed to whom the Seal of the Covenant of Grace of right does belong Query 6. Whether the Children of Belieâ—â—rs are in the Covenant of Grace absolutely or but conditionally If only conditionally 〈◊〉 â—â—ther Privilege have they then 〈◊〉 the Children of Unbelievers Query 7. Whether those different 〈…〉 upon which the Right of Infant-baptism iâ—
Honour and Faithfulness of Christ since the Apostles to whom he delivered his Commission were Jews and since at the same time it was a continual and setled Custom among the Jews to baptize Men Women and Children of proselyted Heathens and Infants being not exempted out of the Commission To which I have in this Treatise given a full Answer Arg. VIII If there be but one Baptism in Water left by Christ in the New Testament and but one way or manner of Right for all both Parents and Children to be admitted into the Church and that one Baptism in Water is that of the Adult who upon their Profession of Faith ought to be baptized and so admitted into the Church Then none either Parents or Children must be admitted either to Baptism or into the Church without such a Profession of Faith But the former is true There is no need the Scripture should particularly mention the Ends of Pedo-Baptism since there is but one Baptism for all though more Subjects to that one Baptism You run say they too fast and take it for granted that Baptism is only of the Adult Answ Since there is but one Baptism mentioned in Scripture and that is of the Adult and the End â—nd Design of Christ in it is expresly laid down as to that We say therefore there is Reason why the End of Infant-Baptism should be certain and we run not too fast We say the Subjects are but one since the Baptism is but one and manner of Right thereto being but one also Arg. IX If no Parents at any time or times have been by God the Father Jesus Christ or his Apostles either commended for baptizing their Children or reproved for not baptizing them then Infant-Baptism is no Ordinance of God but the former is true Ergo. Your Answer saith The Athenian Society is answered unless you will destroy Laying on of Hands one of the Principles of the Christian Religion none were ever commended 〈◊〉 reproved for ever being or not being subject to that c. Answ Do we â—â—t read in Acts 8.17 Acts 19.6 that those Men and Women who were baptized did subject to Laying on of Hands being Believers as such Sure what is said of their coming under it or submitting to it is spoken to their Commendation However as 't is called a Principle of Christ's Doctrine Heb. 6.1 2. so here are two Precedents of Persons that subjected to it Shew us the like as to Infant-Baptism Arg. X. Baptism is Dipping Infants are not dipped Ergo Infants are not baptized As to the other Arguments sent to the Athenian Society with their Answers I have spoken to several of them in this Treatise and I shall add no more new but â—eâ—ve all I have said to the Blessing of God hoping the time is near when this Truth I contend for will be cleared up to all which is now to enrich despised that Wisdom may be justified of her Children and God may be honoured to whom be Glory now and for ever-more Amen FINIS Faults escap'd the Press Page 10. line 13 14 15. blot out the double Comma's Page 25. line 22. for makes mention read makes no mention There are other Errata's and dispointing which the Reader is desired to correct Arg. 1. Arg. 2. * Exod. 12.3 4. They were to take to them a Lamb according to the number of Souls in the House See Mr. Tomb's Anti-Pedo-Baptism The Pedo-Baptists Argument Mr Tomb's Answer Milevit Conc. Joh. 1.25 * The Athenian Society detected in their 12 Numbers to their fifth Volume Here the Athenian Society may see their first Query fully answered of Infants being once in Covenant and never cast out are in still All Nations takes in Pagans c. and their Children 1 Thess 5.17 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arg. 2. He should have mentioned Circumcision in his Propositions Mr. Burkit's Syllogism not true in form The Covenant God made with Abraham proved to be a mix'd Covenant partly Gospel and partly Legal See Mr. Tombs Exercit. p. 2. Arg. 1. The Athenian Society confuted Arg. 2. Arg. 3. Covenant of Circumcision no Covenant of Grace Arg. 1. Being the Children of Abraham as such gave them no right to Circumcision Arg. 3. Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham belonged to the ungodly as well as the godly Arg. 4. All in the new Covenant need not be taught to know the Lord. A necessity that Infants be taught to know the Lord. Arg. 5. The Covenant of Circumcision a Covenant of Works Circumcision obliged Persons to keep the whole Law Arg. 6. Covenant of Circumcision of the same nature with the Sinai-Covenant Mr. Flavel answered in what he says in his Book p. 217. The Sinai Covenant called the Old or first Covenant in the Scripture See Mr. Tombs The New Covenant had divers Additions or Transcripts or divers Ministrations Arg. 7. Faith not reckoned to Abraham â—â— Circumcision Arg. 8. Covenant of Faith and that of Circumcision contradistinguished Arg. 9. Circumcision a Yoke of Bondage Infants saved by the Covenant of Redemption or by Christ's Vndertakings Circumcision a Priviledg on condition of keeping the Law Infants the Members once of the Jewish-Church yet not of the Gospel-Church Arg. 10. The Old Covenant and Old Covenant-Seed both cast out Heb. 10.9 The Old Church-state of the Jews is gone 1 Pet. 2.5 Infant Church-Membership came in with the Old Covenant and is gone with it I had this Simile once before but because it is so full I repeat it The Athenian Society's first Query more fully answered External Privileges under the Law greater than ours under the Gospel Mr. Ball 's Posit 3 4 p. 38. The old Covenant and Church of the Jews dissolved See Mr. Cary's Solemn Call Pedo-baptists Argument for Believers Seed c. of ill consequence Mr. Burkits first Argument to prove the Covenant of Circumcision a gospel-Gospel-Covenant All God's Covenanting Transactions since the Fall are by means of the Mediator The Sinai Covenant a Covenant of Works Mr. Burkits 2d Arg. Mr. Burkits 3d Arg. The happy State of all in the Covenant of Grace Mart. Luther on Gal. 3. p. 115. Perkins Vol. 2. cap. 3 on Galat. p. 242. Mr. Burkits third Argument to prove Infant Baptism Infants had the Lord's Supper formerly given to them Seed or Habit of Grace remains where infused and its Effects will appear * As if Christ passed through Regeneration or change of Nature Baptism makes no Persons Christians * These words be cites were wrote by Dr. Taylor Pool's Annotat. Athenian Society say Females were circumcised by some People formerly Infants may be capable to be saved and yet not capable Subjects of Baptism Baptism cannot save the Souls of Infants The Parents Baptism may serve for the Child as well as the Parents Faith Various thoughts among Pedo-Baptists what Faith Infants have See Mr. Danvers Perkins 2 vol. cap. 3. on Gal. p. 257. Baxter's Right of Baptism p. 149 150. Mr. Burkit's sense of the order of
erroneous Principles into the World as must be own'd 〈◊〉 acknowledged by all There 's more cause to â—earâ—tis your practice of â—â—â—tizing of Infants might lead them to disown Water-Baptism because they can find no mention of any such Practice in the Scripture May not they be miâ—â—ed to deny any Water-Baptism at all since they see such a multitude to assert that to be Christ's Ordinance which the Scripture is â—holly silent about But to proceed in Pag. 2. you say The great Controversy between you and us liâ— in your second Proposition which is this viz. Prop. 2. That not only those who do actually prosess Faith in Jesus Christ but the Infants of such Professors may and ought to be baptized Answ Reader observe that Mr. Burkitt does grant that such who do actually profess Faith may nay ought to be baptized It appears he â—wns our practice of baptizing Adult Person who actually profess-Faith in Jesus Christ But he says more i. e. Not only such Persons may and ought to be baptized but the Infants of such who profess Faith also And to prove this hold Assertion he lays down this Hypothâ—tical Syllogisâ— viz. If the Infants of the Jews were partakers of Ciâ—cumcision the Infants of Christians may and ought to partake of Baptism But the Jewish Infants were partakers of Circâ—mcision therefore Christian Infants may and ought to partake of Baptism Answ Sir must we believe it is so because you speak and write it You give no proof of your 〈◊〉 Proposition which is utterly denied Might not I state another Argument as good as yours nay may be better yet both prove nothing I argue thus 1. If the Jewish Infants had Right to the Possession of the Land of Canaan the Infants of Christiâ—â—s have a Right to the Possession of the Land of Canaan But the former is true Ergo. And if this were so let us make another holy War aâ—d take possession of it for our Children 2. Take a second Argument of the like nature with yours viz. If all the Sons of the Priests of God under the Law had an undeniable Right to the Priesthood and many other external Priviledges then the Sons of the Ministers of Christ have a Right to the Ministry under the Gospel and many other external Priviledges But the former is true Ergo. Ob. Your Logick will do you no good if you Argue no better I must tell you that which gave the Male Infants of the Jews a Right to Circumcision was not their bare being the Infants of the Jews not because their Infants weâ—â— in that legâ—l Coveâ—ant with their Parents but rather the express and positive Command of God to Abraham for evident it is no Godly Marâ—â— Children before 〈◊〉 days had any Right to be Circumcised And had Abraham or the Jews Circumcised their 〈◊〉 Infants without such a Commission or Command from God â—hey had no doubt been guilty of Will-worship 〈◊〉 and in like mâ—nner If God 〈…〉 required Christians to 〈…〉 Infants 〈…〉 be no Precept nor Exampâ—e 〈…〉 the Holy Biblâ— it must 〈…〉 worship in them so to 〈◊〉 But God 〈…〉 or required Christians to Baptize their Infants there is no 〈◊〉 nor Example for any such Practice 〈◊〉 all the Holy Bible Ergo it is Willâ—worship in them so to do I shall proceed to your second 〈◊〉 viz. If Baptism suceeds in the room of Câ—rcuâ—cision then as the Jewish Infants were Circumcised so the Infants of Christians may and ought to be Baptized But Baptism succeeds in the room of Circumcision therefore 〈◊〉 their Children were Circumcised 〈◊〉 so may 〈◊〉 be Baptized now Answ 1. I answer There is no necessity that a Gospel Ordinance must succeed in the 〈◊〉 of a Legal or Jewish Ordinance therefore I deny your Mâ—â—â—r What if 〈◊〉 that no Ordinance succeeds in the room of Circumcision Were there not many other Rites and Ordinances under the Law or Old Testament besides Circumcision And yet you cannot find or once imagine any Gospel-Rite or Ordinance to come in the room of them respectively for that then it would follow there would be as many Christian Riâ—es Precepts and Ordinances as there were Jewish Rites Precepts and Ordinances which as oâ—â— observes were more than three hundred 2. Besides as Dr. Taylor observes If Baptism came in the room of Circumcision you 〈◊〉 baptize your Children always on the eighth day and you must not baptize your Female Infants at all because none but Male Infants were then circumcised 3. And whereas you say Baptism signifies the same things that Circumcision did it is not true as will appear to all understanding Men if they consider these Particulars following which are so many Disparities viz. 1. Circumcision was a Shadow of Christ to come Baptism is a Sign he is already come was dead and buried 2. Circumcision was a Sign of the Covenant made with Abraham and his natural Seed Baptism is a Sign of the peculiar spiritual Priviledges made to Saints as such and no others 3. Circumcision was a Domestick Action i.e. to be done in the House Baptism an Ecclesiastick belonging to the Gospel-Church 4. Circumcision was to be done by the Parents in that respect Baptism is to be done only by Gospel-Ministers 5. Circumcision was the cutting off the Fore-skin of the Flesh which drew Blood Baptism is to be done by dipping the whole Body into the Water without drawing of any Blood 6. Circumcision belonged to Male Children only Baptism belongs to Males and Females also 7. Circumcision was to be done precisely on the eighth day Baptism is not limited to any precise day 8. Circumcision made a visible Impression on the Body which the Party might perceive when he came to Age of Understanding Baptism leaves no Impression on the Body 9. Circumcision belonged to Abraham's House to his Male Infants only or sucâ— who were bought with his Money and not the Male Infants of any other godly Men in his days unless they join themselves to his Family Baptism belongs to Believers in all Nationâ— 10. Circumcision bound those who came under that Rite to keep the whole Law of Moses Baptism signifies we are delivered from that Yoke of Bondage 11. If Circumcision signified the same things and consequently particularly the sealing the Covenant of Grace then those 〈◊〉 were circumcised needed not to be baptized because sealed before with the same seal of that which signified the same thing but Christ and all his Apostles and many others who were circumcised were nevertheless baptized 12. Circumcision signified the taking away the Sins of the Flesh or the Circumcision of the Heart but Baptism signifies the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ which Circumcision did not 13. Circumcision was to be a Partition-Wall betwixt Jew and Gentile but Baptism testifieth that Jew and Gentile Male and Female Barbarian and Scythian Bond and Frâ—e are all one in Christ Jesus Therefore there are invers Disparities and different Significations between Circumcision and Baptism â— And
Natural Seed of Abraham and Policy of Israel Ergo 'T is a mix'd Covenant To make this clear 't is evident that that Promise was Evangelical belonging to those the Gospel belongeth to Gen. 17.5 I have made thee a Father of many Nations And so is that Gen. 15.5 So shall thy Seed be In which it is promised that there shall be of the Nations many or a great Number that shall be Abraham's Spiritual Children by believing Rom. 4.17 18. Also it was Evangelical which we find in Gen. 12.3 And in thy Seed shall all the Kindreds of the Earth be blessed These 't is evident respect all Gospel-Believers who are the Spiritual Seed of Abraham see Gal. 3.8 And the Scripture foreseeing that God would justify the Heathen through Faith preached the Gospel unto Abraham saying In thee shall all the Nations of the Earth be blessed And more directly to Christ who is the Seed of Abraham as Gal. 3.16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the Promises made He saith not And to Seeds as of many but as of one And to thy Seed which is Christ that is to Christ as the Head and Surety of the Covenant of Grace and so primarily and directly to him and then in him to all who are his according to that in Gal. 3.29 And if ye be Christ's then are you Abraham 's Seed and Heirs according to the Promise See also Acts 3.25 2. Moreover that the Domestick and Civil Promises were many is plain As 1. Of multiplying the Seed of Abraham 2. The Birth of Isaac 3. Of the continuation of the Covenant with Isaac 4. Of the coming of Christ out of Isaac 5. The Bondage of the Israelites in Egypt and their deliverance out from thence and of their possessing the Land of Canaan Gen. 15.18 Gen. 17.8 And I will give unto thee and to thy Seed after thee the Land wherein thou art a Stranger all the Land of Canaan for an everlasting Possession and I will be their God So Gen. 15.18 In that same day God made a Covenant with Abram saying Vnto thy Seed have I given this Land from the River of Egypt unto the great River Euphrates Can you be so ignorant as to affirm this Covenant and Contract made with Abraham was made with the Natural Seed of believing Gentiles Nay or that it was made to Abraham's Spiritual Seed Compare these Scriptures with Acts 7.4 5 6 7 8. And thus it appears the Covenant made with Abraham is a mixt Covenant or a two-fold Covenant one made with â—â—s Natural Seed the other with his Spiritual Seed And this is fully signified by Sarah and Hagar the Free-Woman and the Bond-Woman and their Sons Isaac and Ishmael Gal. 4.22 Secondly The Seed of Abraham iâ— many ways so called 1. Christ is called the Seed of Abraham as I said before Gal. 3.16 by way of Eminency as he is the Head and Surety of the Gospel-Covenant 2. All the Elect Rom. 9.7 all Believers Rom. 4.11 12 16 17 18. Gal. 3.29 If ye be in Christ then are ye Abraham 's Seed and Heirs according to the Promise 3. There was a Natural Seed of Abraham to whom the Inheritance did accrue this was Isaac Gen. 21.22 4. We read of another Natural Seed of Abraham to whom the Inheritance it is positively said did not belong as Ishmael and the Sons of Keturah Gen. 15.5 But now can the Infant-Seed of Believers as such be said to be the Seed of Abraham in any of these four respects add if you can a fifth 1. As the Promise refers to Christ so they cannot be included who is Abraham's Seed in a special manner to whom God promised he would be a God to and impart all Blessings of the Covenant unto according to that glorious Compact or Covenant of Redemption made between him and the Father before the World began upon the account of his blessed Undertakings as our Mediator and Surety that so he might impart all those purchased Blessings and Priviledges to all who believe in him or where given to him by the Father 2. As â—â—e Promise refers to the Elect Seed or such who have the Faith of Abraham and walk in his steps it cannot include the Infant-Seed of Believing Gentiles as such 3. As the Promise refers to Isaac who was Abraham's own natural Son according to the Flesh as well as according to the Promise they are not the Seed of Abraham 4. As Ishmael and the Sons of Keturah were the Seed of Abraham so the Infant-Seed of believing Gentiles are not the Seed of Abraham If you can add a fifth sort of Abraham's Seed I mean such who are so called from the Scripture pray do when you write again And from hence I thus argue If the Children of believing Gentiles as such are not the Natural Seed nor the Spiritual Seed of Abraham then they can have no right to Baptism or Church-Membership by virtue of any Covenant-Transaction God made with Abraham But the Children of believing Gentiles as such are not the Natural nor Spiritual Seed of Abraham Ergo they can have no right to Baptism nor Church-Membership by virtue of any Covenant-Transaction God made with Abraham Your Brethren called the Athenian Society in p. 2. of their Athenian Gazette affirm The Children of Believers are the Spiritual Seed of Abraham till they by Actual Sin unrepented of are otherwise 1. To which I answer Then some of the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham may perish eternally and the Promise is not sure to all his Spiritual Seed which is directly contrary to what St. Paul affirms in Rom. 4.16 Therefore it is of Faith that it might be by Grace to the end the Promise might be sure to all the Seed not to that only which is of the Law but to that also which is of the Faith of Abraham who is the Father of us all From whence I argue All they that are in that Gospel-Covenant which God made with Abraham or who are his true Spiritual Seed have the Promise of everlasting Life made sure to them But all the Infant-Seed of Believers as such have not the Promise of everlasting Life made sure to them Ergo The Infant-Seed of Believers as such are not in that Gospel-Covenant God made with Abraham nor his true Spiritual Seed Take another If all the true Spiritual-Seed of Abraham have the Faith of Abraham and walk in the Steps of Abraham even that Faith Abraham had before he was Circumcised then the Infant-Seed of Believers as such are not the Spiritual Seed of Abraham But the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham have the Faith of Abraham and walk in the Steps of Abraham even that Faith Abraham had before he was Circumcised Ergo The Infant-Seed of Believers as such are not the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham As to the Major see Rom. 4.11 12. The Minor cannot be denied no Man in his right Wits will affirm the Infants of Believers as such have the Faith
new Covenant which God would make with the House of Israel which should not be according to the old he goes on and tells us what God would do in that Covenant-day that he would put his Law into their inward parts and write it in their Hearts And they shall teach no more every Man his Neighbour and every Man his Brother saying Know the Lord for they shall all know-me from the least of them unto the greatest of them saith the Lord c. And indeed in this very respect the Gospel-Covenant is not according to the old as the Lord said it should not be as well as in divers other cases for many of those who were in the old Covenant to which Circumcision did appertain were Infants tho all of them were not taken in by Circumcision for Female Infants were received into that old Covenant without it Now these Children who were taken into that Covenant did not know the Lord. Infants having no Understanding know not their right Hand from their left it is therefore impossible they should know the Lord and therefore also there was a necessity after they were in that Covenant that they should be taught to know the Lord First that God is and what a God he is and so to know him as to fear him and serve him in Sincerity But in the Gospel-Covenant God promised it should be otherwise all who were received into that Covenant should be Adult Persons or such who did know the Lord which plainly implies no ignorant Infant should be taken into that Covenant and be a Member of that Church-State for if so then it would follow such would have the like need to be taught to know the Lord as they had in the old Covenant Church-State And remakable it is that this Text doth clearly intimate that all who should be taken into the Gospel-Covenant or Gospel-Church should be discipled or taught first to know God for to be taught or discipled is all one and the same thing which agrees with Christ's great Commission Matth. 28.19 20. where he gave Directions who or what kind of Persons they were to be that he would have his Apostles receive into his Gospel-Church and that they should be all of them first taught or made Disciples and as such be baptized is clearly declared Now that this Text in Jer. 31. refers to the gospel-Gospel-Covenant is evident see Heb. 8.7 8 9 10. That Covenant that was a part or branch of the old Covenant or Covenant of Works was not a Covenant of Grace or gospel-Gospel-Covenant But the Covenant of Circumcision was a part or branch of the old Covenant or Covenant of Works Ergo The Covenant of Circumcision was not a Covenant of Grace or Gospel-Covenant The Major cannot be denied The Minor is easily proved That which bound or obliged all those who were under it or did it to keep the whole Law and was also abrogated or taken away by Christ with all the other Rites and Shadows of the old Covenant was a part or branch of the said old Covenant But Circumcision bound or obliged all who were circumcised to keep the whole Law and also the same Rite of Circumcision was abrogated with all other Rites and Shadows of the old Covenant by Christ Ergo Circumcision was a part or branch of the old Covenant See Gal. 5 〈◊〉 testify to every Man that is circumcised that he is a Debtor to keep the whole Law That Covenant which was in its nature and quality as much a Covenant of Works as the Covenant made with Adam or the sinai-Sinai-Covenant sinai- was not a Covenant of Grace or gospel-Gospel-Covenant whereof Christ is the Mediator But the Covenant of Circumcision was in its nature and quality as much a Covenant of Works as that Covenant made with Adam or the sinai-Sinai-Covenant Ergo The Covenant of Circumcision waâ— not a Covenant of Grace or Gospel-Covenant Read Reverend Mr. Philip Cary's Desence and Proof of the substance of this Argument in his just Reply to Mr. John Flavel p. 59 60. Thus he says and doubeless speaks the truth viz. That Adam's Covenant was a Covenant of Works cannot rationally be denied for as much as Life was implicitly promised unto him upon his Obedience and Death was explicitly threatn'd in case of his Disobedience upon these terms he was to stand or fall And that the Sinai-Covenant was of the same nature he hath in the said Treatise clearly proved both of them requiring perfect Obedience and neither of them admitting of Faith in a Redeemer the Sinai-Covenant commanded perfect Obedience under the pain of a Curse Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that is written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3. 10. It accepted as he shews of no short Endeavours nor gave any Strength and is called a Ministration of Death and of Condemnation 2 Cor. 3. And moreover 't is called in express terms the old Covenant which God made with the Children of Israel when he brought them up out of the Land of Egypt Heb. 8.9 Also the new Covenant is said to be directly contrary unto it or not according to it but opposed thereto and that there was no Righteousness by it nor Life for as the Apostle shews if there had Christ is dead in vain and besides the Apostle says 't is done away Now all these things being considered Mr. Flavel 't is evident doth but beat the Air and darken Counsel and all that he hath said in his last Book in answer to that worthy Gentleman Mr. Cary deserves no further Answer Now saith he that the Covenant of Circumcision is of the same stamp is evident for tho God promised to be a God to Abraham and to his Seed Gen. 17. 7 8. as he did also in the Sinai-Covenant to the same People in the Wilderness yet still it was upon condition of Obedience with an answerable threatning in case of Disobedince ver 9 10. Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy Seed after thee Every Man-Child shall be circumcised And ver 14. The uncircumcised Male-Child whose Flesh of his sore-Skin is not circumcised that Soul shall be cut off from his People he hath broken my Covenant The same terms saith he with the former Besides 't is evident that Circumcision indiâ—pensibly obliged all that were under it to a perfect universal Obedience to the whole revealed Will of God as I hinted before Gal. 5.3 And as the Terms were the same so were the Promises that which was the great Promise of the Covenant of Circumcision was the Land of Canaan and God to be their God in fulfilling that earthly Promise to Abraham's Natural Seed upon the Condition of the keeping that Covenant on their parts That which Mr. Flavel hath said in his last Reply in his Book called A succinct and seasonable
Discourse to Mr. Cary is mainly to prove that there is but one Covenant of Works pag. 217 218 c. To which I answer by way of Concession yet must say that Covenant had several Ministrations and Additions as had also the Covenant of Grace because the Covenant of Works was made with Adam by which he stood in the time of his Innocency justified and accepted by virtue thereof Could not God give forth a second Ministration or Transcript of his Righteous and Holy Law though not to Justification yet to aggravate his Sin and so to his just Condemnation And doth not St. Paul assert the same thing Rom. 3.19 20. compared with Rom. 7.13 That Sin by the Commandment or Law might become exceeding sinful So Gal. 3.19 Nay I will affirm always generally when the Scriptures of the New-Testament speak of the Old Covenant or first Covenant or Covenant of Works it passes by in silence the Covenant made with Adam and more immediately and directly applies it to the sinai-Sinai-Covenant and to the Covenant of Cirrumcision as all careful Readers who read the Epistles to the Romans Galathians and to the Hebrews may clearly find But to proceed Though we say there is but one Covenant of Grace yet it is evident there were several distinct Ministrations or Additions of it yet we say the Promise of the Gospel or Gospel-Covenant was the same in all Ages in respect of things promised with the Nature and Quality thereof which is a free and absolute Covenant without Works or any Conditions or foreseen Acts of Righteousness or any thing to be done by the Creature Rom. 4. 5. The Substance and essential Part of this Covenant is Christ Faith a new Heart Regeneration Remission of Sins Sanctification Perseverance and everlasting Life Yet this Evangelical Covenant had divers Forms or Transcripts of it which signified those things and various Sanctions by which it was given forth and confirmed To Adam the Promise was made under the name of the Seed of the Woman bruising the Head of the Serpent to Enoch Noah c. In other Forms to Abraham under the name of his Seed in whom all the Nations of the Earth should be blessed To Moses by the name of a great Prophet of his Brethren like unto him and it was also signified to him under dark Shadows and Sacrifices Unto David under the name of a Successor in his Kingdom In the New-Testament in plain words We all with open Face beholding as in a Glass the Glory of the Lord c. 2 Cor. 3.18 But now because there were so many Additions of the Gospel Promise and New-Covenant are there so many New Covenants this being so Mr. Flavel hath done nothing to remove Mr. Cary's Arguments but they stand as a Rock Take another of them That Covenant in which Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness could not be a Gospel-Covâ—â—â—nâ— or a Covenant of Grace But the Scripture is express that Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness when he was Circumcised but in Uncircumcision Rom. 4 9 10. Ergo The Covenant of Circumcision was not a gospel-Gospel-Covenant or a Covenant of Grace That Law or Covenant which is contradistinguished or opposed unto the Righteousness of Faith could not be a Covenant of Faith or a Gospel-Covenant But the Law or Covenant of Circumcision is by the Apostle plainly opposed to or contradistinguished unto the Righteousness of Faith Rom. â— 1â— Ergo The Law or Covenant of Circuâ—â—ision was not a Gospel-Covenant And from hence Mr. Cary argues thus By the way saith he let it be observed in reference to the two foregoing Arguments which I have already proved that that Covenant that is not of Faith must needs be a Covenant of Works there bâ—ing no Medium betwixt them and consequently must be the same for substance with that made with Adam and that on Mount Sinai with the Children of Israel That Covenant that is plainly represented to us in Scripture as a 〈◊〉 Covenant in and by which there was imposed such a Yoke upon the Necks of the Jews which neither those in the Apostles â—â—me nor their Fathers were able to bear could be no other than a Covenant of Works and not of Grace But the Scriptures do plainly represent such was the Nature of the Covenant of Circumcision Acts 15.10 Gal. 5.1 2 3. Ergo The Covenant of Circumcision was not a Gospel-Covenant but a Covenant of Works Thus Mr. Cary argues also And thus we have proved from God's Word and sound Arguments that the Covenant of Circumcision was not a Gospel-Covenant Object But lest any should think that we shut out all dying Infants from having any Benefit by Christ I answer I doubt not but God might comprehend them in that glorious Covenant or Compact made between him and our Surety in the Covenant of Redemption but as I said before Secret things belong to God But let me here add one word or two further i. e. Circumcision you say was a Priviledg so we say too but not such a Priviledg as you do imagine 1. It doth profit as a Priviledg because it was given as a Token or Sign to Abraham's natural Seed that they should have the Land of Canaan for an everlasting possession 2. As a Token or Sign to them of the giving forth of the Law on Mount Sinai He dealt his Laws and Statutes to Israel he did not do so to any other Nation This Rite therefore could not be a Gospel-Rite nor the Covenant it was a sign of a Gospel-Covenant in which the Gentile Christians are concerned And thus the Apostle argues Rom. 3. 1. What Advantage then hath thâ— Jew or what Profit is there in Circumcision ver 2. Much every way chiefly because unto them were committed the Oracles of God You may soon know the Nature of that Covenant made with Abraham's natural Seed and of Circumcision which was a Sign of it The chiefest Priviledg which attended it was the giving to them i. e. the People of Israel the Law of the Ten Commandements 3. Circumcision by the Doctrine of St. Paul was a Priviledg if they kept the Law 〈◊〉 for Circumcision verily profiteth if thou keep the Law but if thou break the Law thy Circumâ—ision is made Vncircumcision or a Nullity and profiteth thee nothing that is if thou keep not the Law perfectly And thus speak our late Annotators on the place If thou Jew keep the Law perfectly to which Circumcision obligeth Gal. 5.3 If otherwise thou transgressest the Law thy Circumcision avails thee nothing it gives thee no Priviledg above the Uncircumcised What is now become this being so of that mighty Priviledg Abraham's Infant 〈◊〉 as such had by Circumcision if the chief Profit or Priviledg was because unto them the Law should be given which could not give Life but was a Covenant of Works then the chiefest Profit lay not in it as it was an Ordinance of Initiation
declared all things plainly from the Father and was faithful as a Son over his own House 2. That which is not contained in his last Will and Testament in this and other matters is sufficient to declare his Mind and Will in the Negative And so you know 't is in all last Wills and Testaments among Men if it be not expressed in the Affirmative it needs not be expressed in the Negative and if not because 't is not forbidden it may be done so may a hundred things more nay many Jewish Rites and Popish Innovations too for where are they forbid The sum therefore of our Answer to all you say upon this account is this The Privileges which are Rites Ordinances or Sacraments are not so many as you would have or so many as the Jews of old had nor are they to be administred according as you fancy or approve of or according to your Reasonings but according to God's express Appointment Rightly doth Mr. Ball in his forementioned Book speak Posit 3 4. p. 38. But in whatsoever Circumcision and Baptism do agree or differ we must look to the Institution and neither stretch it wider nor draw it narrower than the Lord had made it for he is the Instituter of the Sacraments according to his good Pleasure and it is our part to learn of him both to whom how and to what end the Sacraments are to be administered how they agree and wherein they differ in all which we must affirm nothing but what God hath taught us and as he hath taught us Were it not thus how could we deny or oppose the Papists seven Sacraments or condemn Salt Oil Spittle to be used in Baptism which they use in it seeing these are not forbid But well saith Tertullian Is it lawful because it is not forbidden 't is therefore not lawful because 't is not commanded You say Pag. 10. before you end this Argument Let me suggest one thing more to your Considerations namely What a mighty Stumbling-Block this Doctrine of the Anabaptists lays in the way of the Jews Conversion to Christianity Will this say you encourage a Jew's Conversion to embrace the Religion of Jesus to tell him of the high and glorious Privileges that he shall be interested in himself upon his believing on him but for his Children they are cast out Answ Did this stumble them in the Apostolical Days who were told that Circumcision availed nothing nor Vncircumcision the truth is if Circumcision availed nothing but was a Yoke of Bondage then why should that stumble them It might be a greater Stumbling-block in their way to tell them their Church-State and all their Privileges are now gone and now they must not look upon themselves better than the Gentiles no more Scepter in Judah no Land of Canaan no Temple no High-Priest the Levites Sons as such now no more Ministers no Succession of Priest-hood What of all this when they hear of better Privileges for them And that their Infants who die may go to Heaven tho not circumcised nor baptized and if they live to be Men and Women and do believe or God doth please to call them the Promise of Pardon of Sin and of the holy Spirit is to them and that they shall be saved Acts 2. 39. Are not they and all others told that old things are passed away and all things are become new c. 2 Cor. 5.16 Wherefore henceforth we know no Man after the Flesh it seems then that heretofore there had been a knowledg of Persons after the Flesh and 't is plain there was that because the Jews were of the natural or fleshly Seed of Abraham and were therefore all of them admitted to the Privilege of external Church-Membership while others were exempted But we see the Apostle resolves henceforth to disclaim any such Value Esteem Preference or Knowledg of them or any others upon the account of meer fleshly Descent And to this very purpose immediately subjoins in the following Verse Therefore if any Man be in Christ he is a new Creature old things now are past away and all things are become new the old Church and old Church-membership Privileges Rites and Ordinances and a new Church-State new Ordinances new Rites a new Seed and a new way of Introduction unto the participation of Gospel-Priviledges and Church-membership and if this should stumble them who can help it We know they have stumbled upon as bad Rocks as this Moreover denying Infants any right to Gospel-Ordinances cannot fill the Mouths of Jewish Children with clamorours and passionate Complaints against Christianity because they could not see Jewish Children had such benefit by Circumcision as you intimate no no they must yield to the Soveraign Will of the great Lord and plead for no more Privileges nor any otherwise than he sees good to ordain and appoint I am sure if what you say was true it is enough to fill the Mouths of poor Unbelievers Children among us who are Gentiles with clamorous Complaints against their Parents if they did regard what you say and doubtless there are more of them I mean more Children born of Ungodly Parents than such born of Godly Parents And what may they say and how may they expostulate their own Condition Alas alas sad is our State our Parents were wicked and ungodly People and we are by that means left of God to us belongs no Covenant no Sacraments nor hopes of Mercy God hath taken none but the Children of Godly Persons into Covenant We were baptized alas but had no right to it our Condition is as bad as the State of the Children of Pagans and Turks Sir if People did consider well the Purport of your Doctrine they must needs have their Hearts rise against you Nay all or most Children may be in a doubt whether their Parents were truly godly and so in Covenant or not for if not you must fly to some other Argument to prove their Baptism and Church-Privileges than that of their Parents being in Covenant True the case under the Law was another thing for if their Parents were Jews or the natural Seed of Abraham whether godly or not yet they knew they had right to those external Privileges And so much to your Absurdities and they are returned on your own Head In pag. 11. you lay down your Arguments to prove the Covenant made with Abraham was a Covenant of Grace 1. From the Language and Expression of it 2. From the Duration of it 3. From the Blessings by it 1. Your first Note is this The Language and Expression of it Gen. 17. 7. I will be a God unto thee and to thy Seed after thee Now say you is not this a pure Gospel-Phrase and shews it to be a Covenant with Abraham in Christ I pray how comes the Almighty God who upon the Breach of the Covenant of Works made with us in Adam became our enraged Enemy to be a God unto fallen Man any
habitual Faith as well as the Infants of Believers Also may not Pagans especially those who may come where the Gospel is preached be potentially Believers and be baptized before they believe upon the same Argument 3. If they had the Habit of true Faith that Habit would appear afterwards and they would need no other Sacred Habits to be infused into them but we see in Infants baptized as you call it when grown up the Evil Habits of Sin but no Sacred Habits of Grace or Divine Faith or Seed of Regeneration sown into them at all What is in the Root will shew it self in the Branches and Fruit but we having fully answered this weak Assertion already shall say no more to it now You add That Infants born within the Bosom of the Church of believing Parents tho Faith of the Parents is to them at present instead of an outward Profession in their own Persons for say you though no Child is saveable by its Parents Faith yet the Child is baptizable by virtue of its Parents Faith because the Parent receives the Promise of God both for himself and his Seed Acts 2.39 1. I answer Let all Men judg of that Confusion which attends your Arguing and Arguments for Infant-Baptism One while the absolute Ground and Plea you bring to prove it is the Covenant made with Abraham Sir If that will do and be sufficient stand by it but alas you dare not trust the whole Structure on that crazy Foundation therefore now you go to the immediate Faith of the Parents and thus without any Ground or Authority from God's Word you build your childish Practice upon your own Dream Why not as your Church teaches upon the Faith and Profession of the Sureties why the Faith of the immediate Parents Those Texts you mention Acts 2.39 1 Cor. 7.14 as we shall hereafter shew prove not what you here affirm nor any thing like it 2. If the Parents Faith will serve for the Child why not the Parents Baptism serve for the Child as well Take again what the Bishop of Down hath wrote on this Argument of yours Some say saith he Infants have an Imputative Faith but then so let the Sacraments be too that is if they have the Parents Faith or the Churches then so let Baptism be imputed also by derivation from them and as in their Mother's Breast they live upon their Mother's Nourishment so they may upon the Baptism of their Parents or their Mother the Church for since Faith is necessary to the susception of Baptism and they themselves confess it by striving to find out new kinds of Faith to daub the Matter such as is the Faith such must be the Sacrament for there is no proportion between an actual Sacrament and an imputative Faith this being immediate and necessary in order to that ' Thus far Dr. Taylor 3. I wonder as I have formerly said what Faith 't is you suppose to be in Infants When will your Trumpet give a certain Sound Is it the Faith of the Church as Thomas Aquinas asserts which is intailed upon all who are within the Pale thereof or in her Bosom to use your words Or is it an imputative Faith from the Parents as Musculus you and others maintain Or is it the Faith of the Gossips or Sureties as your Church says i. e. others believe for them Wonder O Heavens and be astonished O Earth are these thy Teachers O England Have they a justifying Faith as Mr. Baxter intimates Or a dogmatical Faith only as in Mr. Blake's sense Some say 't is a Physical Faith some a Metaphysical and some a Hyperphysical Faith Some say they are born Believers others say they are made Believers by Baptism See what Confusion you Pedo-Baptists are in An actual Faith you dare not say they have because they have no Act of Understanding Besides how can any Man know they have Faith since he never saw any sign of it neither was he told it by any that could tell Object But then Pag. 19. you bring in our Objection Infants are not capable of Ministerial Teaching therefore not of Baptismal Washing because Teaching must go before Baptizing according to the order of the words in our Saviour's Commission Mat. 28.19 Go teach all Nations baptizing them c. Your Answer is That it is a mighty Weakness to infer from the order of the words the necessary order of things St. Matthew sets Teaching before Baptizing but St. Mark sets Baptizing before Teaching Mark 1.4 so that no conclusive Argument can be drawn from hence either way Answ I answer you discover a great Abuse of the sacred Scripture Sir doth St. Mark Chap. 1.4 set Baptizing before Teaching Pray good Reader observe the Text John did baptize in the Wilderness and teach the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of Sins 1. Doth this Text in the order of words say John taught Persons to be baptized and then to repent if what you say were true so the order of words must have been and then he had indeed taught contrary to our Saviour's Doctrine in the Commission in order of words as recorded by St. Mat. 28.19 'T is called saith our Annotators the Baptism of Repentance because Repentance was the great thing he taught nay and taught Repentance absolutely necessary in all who came to be baptized by him The order of words are very conclusive here and must not be inverted without palpable danger of God's Displeasure John called upon all who came to his Baptism to bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance and the order of words here do not contradict this for because Repentance was pre-requisite to Baptism it is called the Baptism of Repentance and so the order of the words if understood shews 〈◊〉 that Repentance went before baptizing which directly agrees with St. Mat. 28.19 Go teach all Nations baptizing them that is such who have been taught or discipled and this was according to Christ's own Practice Joh. 4.1 2. Jesus made and baptized more Disciples than John mark Reader they were all Disciples which John and our Saviour baptized Jesus made them first Disciples and so did John and then baptized them Had John Baptist our Saviour or his Apostles baptized one Infant or one Adult Person who made no Profession of Faith the order of words were not so conclusive and demonstrative but that they never did as we read of Where therefore the order of Words and order of Practice go together and exactly agree they ought not to be inverted and he that doth it is greatly culpable before God as I might shew in the Administration of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper the order of words are Christ first took the Bread and brake it and then the Cup Would any dare to invert this order of words and first take the Cup c. they may as well attempt so to do as to put Baptizing before Teaching Take what Mr. Perkins hath said concerning the order of words in
weak an Allusion or Similitude as ever was brought to illustrate a matter For first it supposes that Christ gave a very obscure dark and doubtful Commission for if all were to be sheared that the Shepherd was to mark the Shepherd could not err in refusing to mark the Lambs because not capable of shearing for so it is here all are by Christ's Commission to be first taught who are to be baptized 2. You suppose in Christ's Fold there are no Lambs if no Infants are admitted to be of his Church or Flock which is absurd Were they Infants that Christ commanded St. Peter to feed when he bad him feed his Lambs Joh. 21.15 Or were they Infants that Christ is said to carry in his Bosom Isa 40.11 The Scripture you cite He shall feed his Flock like a Shepherd he shall gather his Lambs with his Arms and carry them in his Bosom Do not all Expositors tell you by Lambs in these places are meant young Converts who are by St. Peter called new-born Babes 1 Pet. 2.1 2. and who denies but many such are in Christ's Fold and these Lambs we say may and ought to be baptized 3. Who told you Baptism is Christ's Ear-mark by which Christ's Sheep are distinguished from the Devils Goats I affirm this is no certain and distinguishing Mark to know the Sheep and Lambs of Christ from the Devil's Goats Was not Simon Magus baptized was that a Mark to know he was a Sheep of Christ Thousands may be baptized have that Ear-mark and yet be in the Gall of Bitterness and in the Bond of Iniquity and be the Goats of the Devil Christ himself in John 10. lays down divers distinguishing Marks of his Sheep but makes not the least mention of this True when a Believer is baptized and doth all other things Christ had commanded that is no doubt one mark that he is one of Christ's Sheep but the distinguishing Mark is Regeneration and that of having his Spirit in our Hearts and leading a godly Life Now if any Man have not the Spirit of Christ the same is none of his Nom. 8.9 As to Infants who die in their Infancy who doubts but they may be happy since Christ says of such are the Kingdom of Heaven i. e. Kingdom of Glory but this is no more ground for you to baptize them than as I have often said to give them the Lord's Supper Does it follow because some Infants may belong to the Kingdom of Glory they are Members therefore of the visible Church and so Lambs of Christ's Fold on Earth And this brings me to your next which is your fourth Argument viz. If Infants be capable of Christ's Blessing on Earth and of his Presence in Heaven if they be Subjects of his Kingdom of Grace and Heirs of his Kingdom of Glory then they have an undoubted right to the Priviledg of Subjects amongst which the Seal of the Covenant is not the least Answ 1. We answer and argue thus to the first part of your Proposition viz. If many of the Jews and others who were ungodly Persons were capable of Christ's Blessing i. e. of being healed of their bodily Diseases they were Subjects of Baptism Is this sound arguing What further Blessing Christ did vouchsafe to Infants when he laid his Hands upon them we know not for that was the way Christ took oft-times in the healing the Sick and so he blessed many Persons that never were baptized as we read of 2. We as I just now told you do deny Infants are Subjects of the visible Church therefore if by the Kingdom of Grace you intend not that you beat the Air you beg and prove not besides it doth not follow I say again tho Infants may be Heirs of the Kingdom of Glory therefore they have an undoubted right to the Privileges of the Subjects of God's Church for then it would follow they have right to one Privilege as well as another and are to have Fellowship with the Saints and Houshold of God as well as Baptism But say you or take the Argument thus viz. Those whom Christ invites to him and are received by him his Ministers may not refuse nor put from them But Infants are by Christ invited to him and were received by him therefore the Ministers of Christ may not ought not durst not refuse them into Communion with them p. 21. Answ Christ invited Multitudes to come unto him and he received them so far as to feed them with Barley-Loaves and Fishes and to the Blessing of healing them of their bodily Distempers May his Ministers therefore receive all such into their Communion 2. In the days of Christ when he was on Earth there were many who are said to come unto him whom he might receive into his Presence and Company yet his Ministers might not baptize them nor receive them into their spiritual Communion nor indeed so you dare not receive Infants I mean into your Communion of the Eucharist c. We read of some Pharisees and Lawyers that came to Christ and he received them into his Company who it appears came to tempt him Also the Sadduces are said to come unto him who said there was no Resurrection may Christ's Ministers baptize such and receive them into their Communion Therefore in opposition to what you say in Pag. 21. of your Book I affirm there was then other ordinary ways of coming to Christ than by Admission into his Church Christ invited the worst of Sinners to him who nevertheless did not receive him therefore there are some who must be excluded whom Jesus Christ graciously invited Your Appeal for Proof of this Argument to St. Mark 10.13 Suffer little Children to come unto me for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven doth not your business they do not belong to the Kingdom of Grace i. e. the Church for if they did belong to or were of the visible Church as such then you need not by Baptism make them belong unto it If Christ owns them Subjects or Members of his Visible Church you by Baptism have no need I say to add them to it for if as they are the Seed of Believers they are already fidem soederis not only in Covenant with God but also belong to his Kingdom or Church upon Earth All the World may see you go about but to give them that very Right or Privilege which they had before and without Baptism Doth Christ say you take Children into his Arms and shall his Church cast them out of her Imbraces Answ May I not argue thus i. e. Doth Christ receive all sorts of Persons into his Arms of Mercy to heal their bodily Distempers of which some were wicked and ungodly and shall the Church refuse to receive all such into her Imbraces Besides all those pretended Consequences make no more for Infants to be baptized than for their receiving the Lord's Supper and all other Privileges that belong as well as Baptism to Adult Persons who believe or are
Disciples Does Christ say you own them for Subjects of his Kingdom and shall we allow them no better standing than in the Devil's Kingdom Answ Does Christ own Infants to be Subjects of his Kingdom and yet did not baptize them for that he did not and shall we attempt to Baptize them as if we were wiser than he I must again turn the Eâ—g of the Sword against you If little Children were brought to Christ and he did not Baptize them then we must not But little Children were brought to Christ and he did not Baptize them therefore we must not Here is both Truth and Reason in this Argument as Dr. Taylor confesses but none of both in yours You your self confess Christ did not Baptize those Infants that came to him and whom he took in his Arms and blessed because with his own Hands he baptized none at all Joh. 4.1 2. Therefore since Christ who was God foresaw what Contention would arise about the Baptizing of Infants had it been his Will they should be Baptized would he not at this time put the Matter out of doubt have Baptized them or have given Command to his Disciples so to have done If therefore Infants be in so good a Condition as you say i. e. Subjects of Christ's Kingdom of Grace let us let them alone for we cannot by baptizing them put them in a better state than they are without any Warrant from Christ and by baptizing them not we cannot put them into any worser state or standing than they are in without it Well you are angry with us because we know not but that the Children of Turks and Infidels may be in a good condition as well as Children of Believers though we deny not but that the Children of Believers have greater Advantages than the Children of Infidels namely by the Prayers good Education and the good Examples of their Parents c. In pag. 22. you say Can any wise or good Man believe that our Saviour would speak such favourable Words of Infants and his outward Gesture manifest so much good-will towards them only with an intent to ensnare and deceive us doubtless it was to encourage his Ministers to perform all charitable Offices towards them Answ 1. You mistake our Saviour speaks very little concerning Infants and that which is said of them was accidentally spoken being occasioned by those who brought little Children to him which the Disciples forbad and from hence he spake what he did Moreover the Cause why our Saviour spoke those words might be more for the sake of Parents that they might not be afraid touching the Condition of their dying Babes than to shew any Ordinance belonged to them for had it been so doubtless the Disciples would not have forbad those People to bring little Children to Christ 'T is therefore an Argument against Infant-Baptism and not for it because the Disciples were appointed by their Master to be the Administrators of that Ordinance on such to whom it did of right belong and had Infants been the Subjects would they have forbid People to bring Infants to him 2. You therefore may rather conclude had they been the Subjects of Baptism Christ by not hinting any such thing in the least on this Occasion might rather have left us in a Snare in speaking nothing of it neither here nor at any other time 3. Therefore Christ speaking so favourably of Infants and yet baptized them not may teach us to judg favourably of them and do any charitable Office towards them but not to presume to give them holy Baptism without Christ's Warrant no more than any other Gospel-Ordinance 'T is no matter what Calvin spoke 't is no Sin to keep such out of Christ's Fold which he has given no Authority to take in nor have any People a more charitable Opinion of the state of dying Infants than those you call Anabaptists 4. Those who are capable of some kind of Blessings of Christ we have shewed are notwithstanding not capable of Baptism We read not the Disciples baptized these little Children nor none else Object To this you answer Perhaps they were Baptized before But say you it doth not follow that the Apostles did not baptize these Children because no mention of it the Scripture no where tells us that the Apostles themselves were baptized shall we conclude therefore that they were never baptized Answ 'T is no matter whether we read or read not that the Apostles were baptized since we find it was his Precept and Practice to baptize Disciples or such who did believe in him We read of multitudes of Disciples that were baptized and we know the way of Christ was one and the same that which was the Duty of one Disciple as a Disciple was the Duty of every Disciple We read but of two or three Churches who broke Bread and celebrated the Lord's Supper could you shew us but a Precept for Infant-Baptism or but one Example or Precedent where one Infant was baptized we would not doubt but those little Children might be also but this you cannot do And whereas in pag. 23. you say That there is not the same Reason why Infants should be admitted to eat the Lord's Supper as there is for them to be admitted to Baptism Answ We deny it utterly What though the one be a Sacrament of Initiation and the other of Confirmation Yet pray observe that Repentance and Faith is required of them that are to be baptized even actual Faith and Repentance as well as actual Grace and Examination c. to discern the Lord's Body in those who are to receive the Lord's Supper If all that were to be Circumcised had been required to repent and believe as in the Case of admission to Baptism you had said something but the contrary appears Male Infants as such had a Right to that but have no Right to this And thus I pass to your fifth Argument If the Infants of Christian Parents are sâ—dorally Holy then you say they are Subjects qualified for Baptism but the Scripture pronounces such Children federally Holy therefore they are qualified for Baptism and may be admitted You cite Rom. 11.16 If the Root be Holy the Branches are also Holy where by the Root you say we are to understand Abraham Isaac and Jacob and by the Branches their Posterity the People of the Jews Now forasmuch say you as the Jews the natural Branches are for Unbelief broken off and the believing Gentiles are grafted in their stead and succeed in their Privileges in the sense that they were Holy not with an internal and inherent Holiness passing by natural Generation from Parent to Child but with an external relative Covenant-Holiness grounded on the Promise made to the Faithful and their Seed Answ 1. I deny your Major and say If Children of Believers were federally Holy under the Gospel yet they are not qualified for Baptism because 't is not what you imagine gives them right thereto or
qualifies them for it but what Christ hath ordained and appointed as the alone proper and meet qualification which is not that external relative Covenant-Holiness you talk of which the New-Testament speaks nothing of as I shall shew by and by but actual Faith Regeneration or Inherent-Holiness which is the thing signified by Baptism therefore a thousand such Arguments will do you no good since Baptism is of meer positive Right 'T is Christ's own Law must decide the Controversy viz What Qualifications are required of such who by his Authority and Law ought to be baptized prove if you can such an external Federal-Holiness qualifies any Persons for Gospel-Baptism for if such federal or external Holiness qualifies Persons for Baptism then the Jews before cast off might have been admitted to Baptism since they had then such a kind of federal Holiness which kind of Holiness you cannot prove Believers Children are said to have under the Gospel but if it qualified them not for Baptism it cannot qualify our Children for Baptism And that is did not qualify them is evident see Mat. 3.9 where some of the Branches of this Root came to John Baptist to be baptized and he refused to admit them with these words i. e. Think not to say within your selves we have Abraham to our Father for I say God is able of these Stones to raise up Children to Abraham Ver. 10. And now also is the Ax laid to the Root of the Trees From whence it plainly appears that that external relative Covenant-Holiness which qualified under the Old-Testament Persons for Circumcision and Jewish Church-membership will not qualify Old nor Young under the New-Testament for Baptism and Gospel Church-membership 2. I also deny your Minor and say the Scripture of the New-Testament doth not pronounce the Children of believing Parents federally Holy The Text Rom. 11.16 speaks not one word of Infants nor one word of such a kind of federal Holiness Mr. Tho. Goodwin who was a very Learned Man urging that Text 1 Cor. 7.14 tho a Pedo Baptist saith in the New-Testament there is no other Holiness spoken of but Personal or Real by Regeneration about which he challenged all the World to shew to the contrary And Sir with your Favour if you cannot from any place of the New-Testament prove there is any such Holiness spoken of you are to be blamed for bringing in a private and an unwarrantable Interpretation of that Holy Text. I find there are various Interpretations of what is meant by the Root in that place 1. Some understand it of the Covenant 2. Some of Christ 3. Some of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. 4. Some of Abraham only What if I agree with the last and say Abraham is the Root but what Root Why the Root of all his true spiritual Seed And if so the Holiness of the Branches was real in word and spiritual for such Holiness as is in the Root is in the Branches And indeed for want of Faith or of that real and spiritual Holiness in many of his natural Branches for he was a two-fold Root or Father as I before have proved they were rejected or broken off for their Vnbelief and the Gentiles by Faith were grafted in they having obtained the Fatness of the Root or the Faith and Righteousness of their Father Abraham who was the Root or Father of all that believe The Truth is as Mr. Tombs observes the Holiness here meant is first in respect of God's Election Holiness personal and inherent in God's Intention Ephes 1.4 Secondly It is also Holiness derivative not from any Ancestors but Abraham not as a natural Father but as a spiritual Father or Father of the Faithful and so derived from the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham And thus it appears you have darkened this illustrious Scripture thinking to prove a Holiness that the New-Testament knows nothing of applying the Holiness and Insection to outward Dispensations only in the visible Church which is meant of saving Graceâ— into the invisible and make every believing Parent a like Root to his Posterity with Abraham to his Seed which we deny But let the Jews Covenant and standing before they were broken off be what it would I am sure no Gentile is grafted into Christ but by actual Faith nor can any be grafted into the Gospel-Church without the profession of such Faith therefore you do but beat the Air. The Jews 't is true were broken off by their Unbelief and were also no more a Church nor is there any such kind of Church constituted under the Gospel as theirs was viz. a National Church for they amongst the Jews who were the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham receiving Christ by Faith were planted into the Gospel-Church and between them and Gentile Believers Now there is no difference Jew and Gentile stand in the Church now by Faith not by external Covenant Privilege-Right or Holiness Thou standest by Faith O Believer mark not by Birth-Privilege but by Faith Thy standing is by Faith saith one yet not thy Seed by thy Faith but thou thy self by thine and they by their own Faith is that by which thou standing and not thy Seed hast right to stand in the Church and not they but if thy Seed have Faith and thou hast none then they have right in the Church and thou shalt be excluded And though under the Law we deny not but that the natural Seed or Progeny or Abraham were all Holy with an external Ceremonial or Typical Holiness and consequently they were then admitted to an external Participation of Church-Privileges Yet now 't is otherwise Old things are past away now we know no Man after the Flesh 2 Cor. 5.16 That Church-State is dissolved and manner of admission into it by external Birth-Privilege c. so that this Text doth not help you I shall further open this place of Scripture 1. 'T is evident the Apostle is in the 9th and 10th Chapters to the Romans a treating of the Election of Grace and of that Covenant of Grace and Election God made with Abraham these were his People which he had not cast away chap. 10.1 and of this sort God had 7000 in Elias's Days ver 4. Even so saith he at this present time also there is a Remnant according to the Election of Grace ver 5. Hence he says What then Israel hath not obtained c. But the Election hath c. ver 7. He further shews that abundance of the natural Seed of Abraham were broken off How were they broken off Why by their Unbelief they not receiving Christ but rejecting the Gospel and New-Church-State were broken off but that the Gentiles might not boast over them the Apostle shews there is ground left to believe all those that belong to the Election of Grace shall in God's due time be brought in and so partake of the Blessings of the gospel-Gospel-Covenant or Covenant of Grace made with Abraham And to prove this in ver
16. he lays down an Argument For if the first Fruit be Holy the Lump is also Holy and if the Root be Holy so are the Branches ver 16. By the Root I understand is meant Abraham Root and Father signifying here the same thing Abraham being the Root or Father as God represents him of all the Elect or of such who believe or the Root of all his true spiritual Seed 2. By the first Fruits may be meant Isaac Jacob and the holy and elect Patriarchs for they were given as the first Fruits to Abraham of that Covenant and free Promise of God and these were holy with a true spiritual and internal New-Covenant-Holiness 3. By the Lump he may mean the whole Body of the Elect or the spiritual Seed of Abraham from the time the first Fruits were given him until the Gospel-Days or whole Body of the true Israel of God who were holy as the Root and first Fruits were holy 4. By the Branches may be meant the true elect Seed that were living then in that present time as ver 5. and these were holy too even as all the rest both as the Root First-Fruits and whole Lump or Body were holy that is all the true spiritual Seed of Abraham were like himself viz. holy in a spiritual Sense And now observe he speaks of some Branches that were broken off these seemed to be Branches or the Children of Abraham and so they were according to the Flesh but were like those Branches in Christ who bear no Fruit and therefore taken away John 15.2 3 4. He alludes to the natural Seed of Abraham to whom he stood not as a spiritual Father or Root but as a natural and legal Father as they were a National Church and sprung from him and these Branches were all broken off viz. for rejecting Christ 1. Not broken off from the Election of Grace for to that they did not belong 2. Nor were they broken off of the Gospel-Church for they were never grafted into that But 3. broken off from being any more a Church or People in Covenant with God the whole old State and Constitution being gone and they not closing in with Christ in the Gospel-Dispensation Grace and Church-State are said to be broken off as a lost People because not replanted or implanted into Christ and the true Gospel-Covenant the old being gone quite removed and taken away they have now no Root to stand upon having lost their legal Priviledges as Abraham was their Father upon that foot of Account and they not appearing to be the true Branches or Seed of Abraham as he was the Father of all the elect Seed or of all that believe in Jesus Christ they must of necessity from hence be broken off from being the People of God or belonging to any Head or Root in a Covenant-Relation to God at all the Dispensation being changed old things being gone and all things being now become new But this new State Blessings Rites Church and Church-Priviledges they rejected and thus were some of the natural Branches broken off and the Gentiles who were wild by Nature that is never were in any visible Covenant-State with God nor in any Sense related to Abraham as a Root were grafted into the true Olive Jesus Christ and into the true Gospel-Church and so Partakers of the Sap and Fatness of the Root and of the Olive that is of the spiritual Blessings and Priviledges of Abraham and of the Covenant of Grace made with him and of the sweet Blessings and Priviledges of the Gospel-Church and this they receive and partake of as being first grafted by saving Faith in Christ and so united to his mystical Body But since there are a great Number of the old natural Branches that are beloved for their Father's sake that is for the sake of Abraham as the Root and Father of all the Elect Seed they shall in due time be grafted in again and so become a People visibly owned of God and in Covenant with him as all the true Seed now are and formerly were And if this be considered what doth this Text do to prove the natural Seed of Believers are in the Gospel-Covenant for if the natural Seed of Abraham can lay no claim nor have any Right to Gospel-Priviledges but are gone or broken off what ground is there for us to think that our natural Offspring as such should be taken in The Apostle speaks not of such Branches or of being Holy with an external federal Holiness but of such a Holiness as was in the Root viz. Abraham who believed in God and thus all his true spiritual Seed who are actually Branches and in Covenant being grafted into Christ by Faith are holy and also all the elect Seed of Abraham not yet called are decretively holy or in God's Sight so who calls things that are not as if they were they are all holy and beloved for their Father Abraham 's sake with whom the Covenant of Grace was made for himself and all his true spiritual Seed and 't is from this Argument the Apostle argues for the calling of the Jews and the grafting of them in again who belong to the Election of Grace They therefore who would make every believing Parent to be the Root to his natural Off-spring as Abraham was to his true spiritual Seed or Offspring or a common Head or Root of their natural Offspring as he was to his know not what they say or affirm for then there would be so many common Roots and Fathers like as Abraham was called a Root and Father and then also there would be a Knowledg still of Men after the Flesh which the Apostle Paul disclaims 2 Cor. 5.17 Moreover the Jews who were broken off are still the natural Seed of Abraham and if therefore this Holiness was an external relative federal Holiness they are still in that Sense holy as far forth as any Children of a believing Gentile can be said to be but this 't is evident is not that Holiness of which the Apostle speaks nor is there any such Holiness under the Gospel-Dispensation spoken of We shall come now to consider your other Proof for federal Holiness which is 1 Cor. 7.14 The unbelieving Wife is sanctified by the believing Husband c. else were your Children unclean but now are they holy Which Words say you are St. Paul's Answer to the Corinthians Scruple Whether such as had Heathen and Infidel Wives ought to put them away with their Children as in the Days of Ezra The Apostle resolves them that they ought not for saith he The unbelieving Wife is sanctified to the believing Husband how sanctified not in her Nature but in her Use say you so as that they might lawfully cohabit and converse together And for your Children they are holy not with an inherent internal personal Holiness for the holiest Man-child is born in Sin and by Nature a Child of Wrath but with an external relative federal Holiness
they are not common and unclean like the Children of Infidels but fit to be Partakers of the Priviledges of the Church which the Children of Infidels are not 1. I answer you can't be ignorant but that you know well enough this Text hath been fully opened by divers Learned Men as well Pedo-Baptists as Anti-Pedobaptists who prove the Holiness here spoken of is no such external relative federal Holiness you dream of In the first Place you speak right it was about that very matter that the Corinthians wrote to St. Paul viz. whether the believing Husband might live or cohabit with the unbelieving Wife c. So that the Scope and Coherence of the Text opens the matter and shews what Holiness 't is the Apostle intends viz. only a matrimonial Holiness for should he make their Marriage void their Children would be unclean or illegitimate i. e. Bastards for though 't is true the Case was not as you say concerning Men and Whores but about Husbands and Wives yet you honestly say It was about the Lawfulness of their Marriage as in Ezra's time when some were commanded to put their Wives away because the Marriage was unlawful such say we as is the Sanctification or Holiness of the unbelieving Wife or Husband is the Sanctification or Holiness of the Child and that you grant to be a matrimonial Sanctification so as they might lawfully cohabit together as Man and Wife And indeed if the Children had from hence an external relative federal â—â—liness it would follow also that the unbelieving Husband and Wife had such an external relative federal Holiness likewise and that would open the same Door to baptize the unbelieving Husband or Wife for may not another Person argue thus The unbelieving Husband is holy or sanctified by the believing Wife and therefore by virtue of her Faith may and ought to be baptized you read to the believing Husband and indeed I find the Greek word else-where so renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us consider how the Apostle speaks viz. with respect to a thing present or past therefore he useth the Preterperfect Tense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath been sanctified yea in probability he speaks of a Sanctification even when both were Unbelievers or Infidels for he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twice in the Preterperfect Tense and he mentions the Unbeliever distinctly but the Believer without the Expression of his Faith under the Title of Husband or Wife and saith your Children in Discrimination without Difference as well those they had before one was a Believer as since and if so then the Children born to them whilst both were Unbelievers were as holy as such born after one became a Believer and what Holiness was in the Children then think you even no other than that which is in all Children born in lawful Wedlock whether their Parents are Believers or Unbelievers And this sense is the more confirmed in that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sanctification is the same with Chastity 1 Thess 4.7 so that the sense is the unbelieving Husband is sanctified to his Wife that is lawfully or chastly used as a Husband without Fornication in respect of his own Wife whether Believer or Unbeliever and therefore not to be refused And this sense only serves for the Apostle's purpose The words are a reason why they might lawfully live together the reason must be taken from that which was not contingent but certain Therefore let them live together for though one be an Unbeliever the other a Believer yet Marriage continues still they are Husband and Wife and sanctified to each others use in respect of their chast Ejoyment of each other and it is no Sin in them so to company together notwithstanding the Unbelief of one Party for Marriage is honourable among all even Unbelievers and the Bed undefiled Heb. 13.4 and Holiness and Honour are terms as one observes of like sense in this matter 1 Thess 4.7 Now this being granted which inddeed must of necessity then the Uncleanness must be understood of Bastardy and the Holiness of Legitimation as Mat. 2.15 for no other Holiness necessarily follows to their Children in that their Parents Marriage is lawful See the Apostle's Conclusion Else were your Children unclean you leave out Else for you mention Children as another Doubt which was in the Corinthians about them which cannot be gathered from the Text nor Scope of it but Else were your Children unclean is brought in as an Argument to prove that which he saith last as the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shews for the terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 else were are argumentative as much as quoniam tum becausâ— then used So 1 Cor. 15.14 29. Rom. 11.16 to prove that which went before That here the Argument is ab absurdo from an Absurdity which would follow if the thing to be proved were not granted and the Speech must needs be Elliptick and somewhat is to be repeated to make the Speech full as when it s said Rom. 11.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to make the sense you must add 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of work and so here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for if the unbelieving Husband hath not been sanctified to the Wife your Children c. so that this Argument of the Apostle is entire viz. If the unbelieving Husband were not sanctified by the Wife then were your Children unclean but they are not unclean but holy Ergo the unbelieving Husband is sanctified to the Wife Now the Major of the Syllogism is a Contradiction the Sequel of it were not true if this Proposition were not true All the Children of those Parents whereof the one is not sanctified to the other are unclean Now if the Sanctification be here meant of Matrimonial Sanctification as I have proved it must and the Uncleanness be meant of federal Uncleanness so as to exclude them out of the Covenant whether of saving Grace or Church-Priviledges the Proposition were most false sith the Children of Parents whereof one was not matrimonially sanctified to the other but came together unchastly as Pharez and Zarah of Judah and Tamar Jepthah of Gillead and many others were within the Covenant of saving Grace and Church-Priviledges therefore to make the Proposition true without which the Apostle speaks that which is most false it must be understood of Uncleanness by Bastardy for it 's true of no other Uncleanness that all Children of those Parents whereof the one is not sanctified to the other are unclean but now are they holy the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but now is not an Adverb of time here as Beza rightly speaks but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 else were So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but now is a Particle of reasoning used in the assumption of Arguments which shews it is the assumption of the Apostle's Argument and therefore it must be understood of Holiness opposite to the Uncleanness mentioned but that being no other than
washes not away the Filth of the Flesh Or is not Original Pollution a Filth of the Flesh what Stuff is this you would force upon us and the World We affirm Infants are no more capable of this Ordinance than any other Why do you say of no Rite but this We challenge all the World by God's Word to prove they are capable of Baptism any more than of the Lord's Supper 4. You say Baptism administred to Infants has this Advantage That it puts the Christian upon more bitter mourning for actual Sin from the consideration of that shameful Perjury and wilful Apostacy that is found in such Persons Sin Answ 1. I find you are one of Mr. Williams his Brethren i.e. you are of his Belief it seems but tremble at the thoughts of the Consequences of your Doctrine Have not your Children when grown up enough Sins to mourn for and bewail before Almighty God but you must bring them into a Covenant which you knew they would break when they come to riper Age and such is the pravity of human Nature there is no avoiding of it without a supernatural Work of Grace their Burden is heavy enough you need not add to it 2. Is it not sad that you should give cause to your Children to think they are guilty of Perjury when in truth they never were nor of Apostacy from God upon that account our first Apostacy was bad enough you need not go about to make them guilty of another Alas their pretended Baptism never brought them one step nearer to God than those Children are who never were baptized in their Infancy at all where then is the Apostacy you speak of 3. You hereby bring them under a necessity of committing of the Sin of Perjury and of Apostacy at leastwise in your own conceit and in theirs too if they can believe what you say and so to cause them to mourn for that or those Sins most which may be if all things were rightly considered are no Sins at all I do not mean that any of their actual Transgressions may not be Sin but that they are not guilty of Perjury and Apostacy by breaking that you call their Baptismal Covenant for if God brought them not into that Covenant nor into any Covenant-relation with himself thereby I cannot see how there should be such a Sting in the Tail of it as you affirm and imagine and indeed had they themselves of their one accord and consent entred into an unlawful or an unwarrantable Covenant which they were no ways able to perform it may be doubted whether it would be Perjury in them if they kept it not besides I hope they have not forsworn themselves how then is it Perjury 4. Moreover I desire all those Parents who baptize their Children and you also to consider in the fear of God the natural Tendency and Consequences of your bringing poor Babes into such a Covenant 1. That you force them to enter into this Covenant without any Authority or Command from God for I challenge you and all Pedo-Baptists in the World to prove God hath any-where directly or indirectly required any such thing at your Hands 2. Consider that 't is not only a Reformation of Life or a bare refraining from the gross Acts of Sin that you assert is comprehended in this Baptismal Covenant you cause Infants to enter into but it is Regeneration it self i. e. a change of Heart and savingly to believe in Christ this you oblige your poor Babes to perform Now what Arminianism is here fomented if once you say or think they are capable to perform this Obligation but if they do not do it woe be to them Moreover what guilt do you bring the poor Sureties under unless they stand obliged no longer then the Child abides in Infancy and if so what need of their Obligation at all if you intend no more 3. Consider you brought them into this Covenant without their Knowledg or Consent they never subscribed to it nor knew any thing of it nor were they capable so to do 4. Consider whatever you think that such is the pravity of their Natures by means of our first Apostacy from God or Original Sin that they do and must of necessity break it as I said before unless God should by supernatural Grace change their Hearts and Natures and remove the vicious Habits thereof which you had not the least ground to believe he would do or leastwise to all or the greatest part of them God having made no such promise and by woful experience we daily see many or most of those Children are never converted but from the Womb go astray and are guilty of almost of all manner of abominable Sins and so live and die As to the Adult 1. Consider as I said before 1. That all Believers God himself doth require or command in his Word to enter into this Baptismal Covenant 2. And they before they enter into it have a Principle of Divine Life infused into their Souls or Grace implanted in their Hearts having passed under the Work of Regeneration being dead to Sin of which Baptism is a lively Symbol or is as your Church says an outward Sign of an inward spiritual Grace Not as Mr. Baxter observes a Sign or Symbol of future but of present Regeneration which is confirmed by what St. Paul teaches Rom. 6.2 How shall we that are dead to Sin live any longer therein not may be dead but are dead and so are buried with Christ in Baptism vers 3 4. If you say all Adult Persons baptized are not converted c. I answer They appear so to be and as such voluntarily enter into this Covenant besides God does not require them without Faith to do it Baptism doth not only represent the Death and Burial of Christ but also signifies our Death to Sin or that blessed Work of Mortification of the Body of Sin and Death by which means Believers who enter into this Baptismal Covenant are put into a gracious and meet capacity to perform that sacred Obligation but so are not Infants 3. That every true Believer baptized considers ponders upon and weighs with all seriousness and deliberation imaginable the Nature of this Covenant before he signs it And 4. That he doth it freely voluntarily and with his full liking approbation and consent neither of which do nor can do those poor Infants you force to enter into this Covenant These things considered it appears as it is a sinful Act in you to bring them into this Covenant since 't is done without Command or Authority from God so 't is cruelty also towards your own Babes by making them to be come guilty of Perjury and thereby damning as Mr. Williams says their own Souls 5. Consider every true Believer that is listed under Christ's Banner by entring into this Baptismal Covenant is by Christ compleatly armed i. e. he hath the Christian Armor put upon him Ephes 6. he has the Breastplate of