dispensed to Abraham and his Family with respect to a visible-Church-Estate and by that Covenant so dispensed by God and received by them they became the Church of God 4. That the natural seed and Children of Abraham and the rest of the members of that Church in his House were externally and ecclesiastically within that Covenant of Grace I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Gen. 17.7 which is meant not only of his Spiritual Seed but also of his Church-Seed in their Generations v. 9. 5. That Circumcision was then by God's appointment the ordinary initiatory-Initiatory-Seal of that Covenant under that Ecclesiastical Dispensation 6. That the Male-Infants of those inchurched Parents were then signed and sealed with the Seal of Circumcision as well as their Fathers 7. That it is the same Covenant of Grace that was made with Abraham as to the substance of it that is now come upon us Gentiles 8. That there are Temporal Blessings included in the Covenant now as well as Spiritual 9. That now in these Gospel-days there is an External and Ecclesiastical Dispensation of this Covenant as well as there was heretofore to the Church in Abrahams Family whereby visible Gospel-Churches are constituted 10. That Children of an Inchurched-Parent are now within the External and Ecclesiastical-Dispensation of this Covenant mediate members by means of their Inchurched-Parents as well as heretofore the Church-Seed of Abraham 11. That Baptism is now by God's appointment the ordinary Initiatory Seal of the Covenant under that External and Ecclesiastical-Dispensation instead of Circumcision of old 12. That all the Legitimate-Infants of Inchurched-Parents being Disciples and mediate-Members ought to be baptized as well as Infants of Old were Circumcised God having now enlarged his Grace and given such a Seal as Females might partake of as well as Males and Infants as well as their Parents A friendly Answer to H. D. about Infant-Baptism CHAP. I. IN Page 105. of your Book you say we shall find both Example and Command for Women's receiving the Lords Supper and in Pag. 106. you say Let but as good Proof appear for Infants-Baptism and it shall suffice I shall now essay by the Lord's help to make as good Proof appear if not better that is clearer 1. The Example you bring is out of Act. 1.14 we read say you That Mary and other Women were gathered together and that these Women with the rest of the Disciples were alltogether in one Place and continued stedfastly in the Apostles-Doctrine and fellowship and breaking of Bread and Prayers Acts 2.42 44. It being expresly said that all that Believed were together You take this to be an evident Example that Women received the Lords Supper therefore that there is ground in Scripture to admit them but that there is not the like Example of any Infants that have been Baptized In Answer to which I shall first premise four Things in general and then Answer more particularly 1. I am not against inchurched-Women's-receiving the Lords Supper any more than against inchurched-Men but do believe they have an equal right unto it whil's they continue in a right estate in the Church But 2. This Example that you bring and the Command also as afterwards I shall shew is not express nor so clear as you make it to be 3. That there is as much room for Objections against it as there is for Objections against the Baptizing of Infants as I hope I shall make appear and that there is as much evidence and clearness for the latter as you judge to be for the former 4. All the evidence that your Example and Command will afford you for Womens receiving the Lords Supper you must deduce by way of consequence and that very darkly too from what you bring And if so I hope you will use the same candour integrity and right Reason in allowing what will rationally follow from the Scriptures that shall be produced for the Baptizing of inchurched-Infants Veniam dabimus petimusque Vicissim Now more particularly to your Example 1. It is not here expresly-said that these Women were Believers Act. 1.14 but you must gather it by consequence from this and other Scriptures compared together 2. That this Assembly was not the same that is not mentioned Acts 2.42.44 For this was to constitute a new Apostle in the room of Judas and wâ—â— somewhat before as appears Acts. 2.1 The other is spoken of the multitude of Jews and Gentiles converted afterwards when the day of Pentecost was fully-come and the Spirit given in that miraculous gift of Tongues 3. Here is no express-mention that those Women were in and of that great Assembly Acts 2.42 44. who continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of Bread and Prayers How do you know but that they might be dead or sick or upon some other occasion absent as Thomas was before John 20.24 As here is nothing exprest to the contrary so nor any thing expresly affirmed that they were present 4. Nor is there any express-mention of any other Women in that great Assembly Acts. 2.42 44. though afterwards there is Chap. 5.14 when the number was increased If it be objected that Sapphyra is afterwards mentioned Acts. 5.1 2. I Answer neither doth that expresly and directly prove your Assertion For 1. It is not expresly said that she was a Member of the Church though by consequence we may gather she was 2. If she were It is not said that she received the Lords Supper for she might be dead before she received it 3. You cannot say she was one of those that are spoken of Act 2.42 44. for she might be one of those that were afterwards converted to the Christian Religion Cap. 3. and Cap. 4. when the number was much increased Chap. 4.4 to five thousand Men. 5. The words upon which you lay the stress of Womens receiving the Lords Supper here are in express-terms against you though you take them expresly for you your words to prove that those Women did receive the Lord's Supper Acts 1.14 with Acts 2.42.44 are these It being expresly said say you that all that believed that all that believed were together Let us now fairly-examine the Greek Phrase and we shall find it expresly of Men and not of Women I doubt not but you know the Gender of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth expresly limit it to men and not to Women As if he had said all the Men that believed were together continued in the Apostles Doctrine c. and in breaking of Bread And if you examine the rest of the Chapter Acts 2. You shall find it spoken expresly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of and to men and not women yea some of them the same men that are said to believe and to continue in the Apostles Doctrine and breaking of Bread In v. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every Man heard them speak not woman In v. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
and to Baptism ought to Answer that Rule and Order which you mention in Chap. 1. of your first part But there is another Rule and Order for the Infants of Inchurched-Parents which will also come under Christ's Commission as hath been already proved Such Infants being Disciples and mediate members of the visible Church and so to be Baptized as well as their Parents are Disciples and Immediate Members and so to be Baptized if they were not Baptized before we therefore need no other Commission nor Institution for them than what Christ hath in general already given which I desire may be seriously considered CHAP. III. To Chapter four where you Treat of the Spiritual End and Vses of Baptism which you say Infants are not capable of I Answer 1. IN general that divers of those you mention are peculiar to grown persons which I shall grant but do not at present concern Infants and Children in minority Some others of them I wholly except against as shall appear in the particulars 2. In particular 1. To your first End That the Baptized might have that represented in a signe or figure ☞ According to this no Hypocrite should ever be Baptized any more than an Infant which I have often occasion to mind you of and preacht to his Eye which had been preacht to his Ear and heart by the Word Spirit of God a sign of the whole Mistery of the Gospel which Infants wanting understanding and judgment are no more capable of than a Stock or a Stone This is the sum of what you say To which I reply That it is indeed requisite that grown-persons to be Baptized should first be instructed in the Mysteries of the Gospel as the Eunuch was Acts 8.34 35. But it is not so with Infants but they are afterwards to be instructed in them and to be taught when they grow up Deut. 6.7 and be instructed in the meaning and signification of the Sacraments as of old they were and Children should when grown ask as they were to do Exod. 12.26 What mean you by this service See v. 27. and Exod 13.8 and should improve it as an Argument to stir them up to cry to God for Regenerating-Grace Besides it is of Use to the Parents and to the Church also as shall be shewed who have the use of Reason The want of the use of Reason in an Infant is no essential defect as to the External susception of Baptism The Child is meerly-Passive in admitting it and so is the Soul in Regeneration which is in a special manner signified in that Ordinance And we should adore the wonderful Wisdom and Goodness of God that hath so suited the sign to the thing signified which the Child should afterwards labour for 2. To your second that the party Baptized might thereby witness his Repentance I conceive it a mistake For those Scriptures Mat. 3.11.3.6 and Acts 2.38 do declare that those Adult persons were first to witness their Repentance which is set forth by confessing their sins and then to be Baptized Else John Baptist must have acted blindfold and might have Baptized the Pharisees among the rest which he did not Luke 7.30 Because they did not testifie their Repentance though they came to his Baptism Math. 21.31 32. And as for them Acts 2.38 It 's expresly said Repent and be Baptized Repentance must be manifested by them yea and also enter into the Gospel-Church which they did by gladly receiving the Word viz. of the Covenant held forth afresh unto them v. 39. before they were Baptized v. 41. So that Baptism was not to witness the Repentance of the Adult person to be Baptized but he was to witness it before that he might be Baptized 3. To the 3. I Answer That the End of Baptism is not to evidence present Regeneration If you mean it of Adult-persons that was to be evidenced before to the judgment of the Rational-Charity of the Church And in reference to Infants it is not requisite that Regeneration should precede or be at that present when they are Baptized Yet who can say peremptorily of this or that Infant that it is not regenerated Doubtless God doth Regenerate Elect-Infants that die in Infancy though in a way and time unknown to us But more particularly 1. I suppose you will not hold that all that you Baptize are certainly at present Regenerated Sad experience shew's you the contrary The most you can say is that to the best of your judgment they are And how then can your Position and Practice stand together 2. There ought to be and regularly is in an orderly Gospel-Church visible-present-Regeneration in one of the Parents at least to the Rational judgment of the Church unto which such a parent is a Member and in a right estate And this is enough to entitle the Child to Baptism by virtue of that everlasting-Covenant under an Ecclesiastical dispensation Gen. 17.7 I will be thy God and the God of thy Seed Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore v. 9. that is Circumcise every Male v. 10. 3. God's Covenant to in-churched-Parents in reference to their Seed is to Regenerate them Deut. 30.6 The Lord thy God will Circumcise the heart of thy Seed And for that end to give them means of Grace And this Promise such Parents should improve for their Children and so should the Children themselves when they come to years of discretion 4. Baptism now as Circumcision of old is a seal of God's Covenant as Ecclesiastically dispensed that is in a visible-Church way and accordingly so closed with and accepted It is not Immediately the Seal of Regeneration but indefinitely of God's Covenant of Grace Externally and Ecclesiastically-dispensed and received within which inchurched-Parents-Children are I will be thy God and the God of thy Seed therefore Circumcise all thy Males Gen. 17.7.10 11. from all which it follow 's that Baptism is not immediately to evidence present Regeneration but to be a Seal of God's Covenant in which future Regeneration is conditionally implied as no inconsiderable thing held forth by it Your self have granted that both Circumcision and Baptism do signify heart-Circumcision 5. According to your Assertion no Insant should have been Circumcised for your self do afterwards grant which I heartily congratulate that there is a parity between Baptism and Circumcision both of them serving to the same end If so then Circumcision signified and sealed spiritual things in the Covenant to Infants-circumcised Not that they were at present Regenerated but God was before-hand with them leaving them a conditional-Promise under Seal to Regenerate and Circumcise their hearts which was no small encouragement to them when grown and to their Parents at present to pray for regenerating-Regenerating-Grace for them Yet according to what you hold this they should have been deprived of because Circumcision as well as Baptism should be a sign and an evidence of present Regeneration and not of future by your Assertion 6. A Parent entring into a Church-Estate engages
AN ESSAY Tending to Issue the Controversie ABOUT Infant Baptism From the Parity at least of Scripture-Light concerning Infant-Baptim With that of Womens being admitted to the Lords Supper SHEWING That there is as good Grounds out of Scripture for the one as for the other Occasioned by a Tender made by H. D. in his late Book against Infant-Baptism Who is willing to put the whole Controversie concerning it upon this Issue TOGETHER With an Answer to the most material things in that Book By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 LONDON Printed for Rich. Chiswel at the Rose and Crown in Pauls Church-Yard 1674. TO HIS Unacquainted-Friend H. D. Author of a late Treatise against Infants-Baptism SIR HEaring of some things in the Preface of your Book relating to a noted-Person who not long before had printed some passages the noise of which by the coming abroad of your Book and as represented by you filled the minds of many with admiration astonishment One of which and a gross one was from your leaving out the word no◠mentioned in the Printers Errata with an Asterisk prefixed to it I could not rest till I had gotten a sight of them This occasioned me at first to read your Preface and afterwards your Treatise And not being satisfied with your Arguments having had some serious thoughts of that Point some Months before I resolved to attempt a friendly Answer And if I be not much mistaken to the praise of God be it spoken I found his presence going along with me in that work And because you were willing to be satisfied if as good proof were brought for Infants-Baptism as for Womens receiving the Lords Supper I thought good to begin with that and therefore could not follow you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same method you use in your Book I much wondered when I saw in your Preface and afterwards in your Book more at large the Ancient Waldenses produced as faithful impugners of Infant-Baptism as a humane and Anti-Christian Tradition and Invention which in the space of an hour or two I found plainly and expresly in four or five places contradicted out of the History of the Waldenses and Albigenses written by John Paul Perin and translated out of French by Sampson Leonard Printed Anno 1624. A particular account of which you will afterwards see which gives just cause to suspect that you may have failed in some others of your humane Authorities aswell as in that And a learned and judicious friend of mine who hath examined your other Quotations assured me that he finds the Testimonies much abused He having the opportunity of a Library which I wanted and having already taken-pains therein unknown to me even as mine was to him I suppose you will have it from himself But as you well say it is the Holy Scripture must be our Rule and that alone can satisfie Conscience and to that I stick He that knowes my Heart knowes that I desire only that the Truth may appear and be received Let the Truth stand though we should fall I hope you will find no unbrotherly Language or Bitterness though sometimes a little sharpness in what I have written I have done my Preface to you and commend the whole I have done to him alone who is able to accept it in Christ and to make it accepted by your self and any others that shall reade it Your Friend 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Author TO THE READER Courteous Reader THough many Judicious and Godly men have done worthily in vindicating the Interest of the Infants of Inchurched-Parents in the External and Church-Dispensation of the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham and his Seed in their Generations and consequently their Title to Baptism which is now under the Gospel the initiatory-Initiatory-Seal of that Covenant So that it may be thought needless to write any more to clear that point yet because our Brethren of the adverse party do continue to set forth something in opposition thereunto and in particular a Book lately set forth by H. D. much admired by some and cryed-up as un-answerable unto which no particular Answer that I know hath as yet been returned I have taken some pains to compose a brief and plain Answer to the most material things in it which I hope will be understood by mean capacities A thing if I mis-judg not rather to be desired than found in the writings of some able men of profound learning and judgment which renders their labours therein not so useful as otherwise they might be to the weaker sort who are most easily drawn into the contrary perswasion I must confess I have been forced to use divers Greek words and Phrases especially near the beginning because the force of my Argument lies in the Gender and proper signification of them But I hope they are so plainly interpreted that the meanest Reader whose information and good I aim at will not be at a loss as to the sence of them Many mischiefs Absurdities and Contradictions are charged by H. D. upon Infant-Baptism and those that hold it but with what Absurdity they are so charged will appear to those that impartially read the ensuing Essay Those mischiefs and Absurdities will not at all follow from the nature of the thing it self as I have stated it but are indeed fathered upon it by the ignorance or corruption of Men who are prepossest and prejudiced against it and pre-ingaged in the contrary-perswasion Sure we are that the Contrary-Opinion hath had many mischiefs attending it and many gross-Absurdities do still attend it naturally flowing out of the bowels of it It lays a foundation of denying Women's partaking in the Lords Supper and of the Christian-Sabbath and I wonder that such as deny Infant-Baptism which hath as clear a foundation in the Holy Scripture do not also deny the others And whereas Infant-Baptism is also charged to be a bone of Contention even among those that hold it whose grounds and opinions concerning it are different and therefore should be utterly relinquish't This is an Argument fitter to prevail with envassalled-Papists than with those that love the Truth and make Conscience of Contending for the least grain of that Faith which was once delivered to the Saints If this Argument were valid it might easily be shewn That our opposite Brethren are not all of one mind in all things pertaining to the case under debate But it is not my design to stir the persons of Men but to make the Truth of God and the riches of his Grace appear that the God of Truth and Grace may have the glory and the Reader may have some real benefit Farewel These ensuing Positions you will find asserted and cleared in this Essay dispersed here and there as opportunity served to treat of them 1. THat the Covenant which God made with Abraham and his Seed Gen. 17. was the Covenant of Grace 2. That this Covenant comprehended not only Temporal Blessings but Spiritual also 3. That it was
Children of the Church of the Jews were some of those that were to be circumcised after the manner of Moses then some of those on whom they laid the yoke of Circumcision after the manner of Moses must be Children of Inchurched-Parents But Children of the Church of the Jews were some of those that were to be Circumcised after the manner of Moses Gen. 17.12 Therefore some of those on whom they laid that Yoke must be Children of Inchurched-Parents to wit Children of eight days old Hence it is plain â primo ad ultimum that Children of Inchurched-Parents one of them at least are Disciples and by our Lord's Commission should be Baptized The true order then is this 1. That Gentile Parents should attend to the preaching of the Gospel and be converted by it 2. That then they should enter into a Gospel-Church-Estate that is be Discipled 3. And upon that should be Baptized themselves 4. And that their Infants also being by the Lord's appointment received in with and by means of their Parents or Parent at least as mediate-Members and by the Lord called Disciples they also as well as their Parents should by his Commission be Baptized they being as truly and compleatly mediate-Members in their kind as their Parents are immediate Members in their kind I shall give one Argument more for the Disciple-ship of the Infants of Inchurched-Parents If to be one of Christ's Externally and Ecclesiastically as Matth. 26.73 Mar. 14.69 70. Luke 22.58 And to be with Christ Externally as Matth. 26.69 71. Mar. 14.67 Luke 22.56.59 be the same thing with being one of Christ's Disciples as appears John 18.17.25 Then Children of Inchurched-Parents being Externally and Ecclesiastically related to Christ and Externally with Christ and of his Kingdom the Church as Matth. 19.13 14 15.13 14 15.16 must of necessity be Disciples Dr. Worth To clear this distinction of Church-Members take what followes Church-Members called by the name Disciples are of two kinds or species 1. Immediate that do actually in their own persons having first approved themselves to the Church receive and lay hold of the Covenant of Grace held forth to them in a Church-way for themselves and their Seed and giving up themselves and their Seed to the Lord and to his Church Gen. 17.7 by the will of God This they do for their Seed as middle-persons by God's appointment and not as publick persons 2. Mediate by means of their Parent or Parents one or both And hence ariseth the Distinction of Immediate and mediate Church-Members distinct from each other in kind which may thus be proved Prop. Such as is the confederation of little Children such is their Church-Membership Assump But their confederation is Mediate Conclus Therefore their Church-Membership is mediate also This is the Argument of that reverend and accomplished servant of God Mr. John Davenport The Proposition is evident because Church-Confederation is the proper and formal-cause and reason of Church-Membership Et cui forma tribuitur vol adimitur eidem formatum The Assumption is also clear for it is plain that all such Childrens confederation is in and by their Parent or Parent 's confederating for them Mediante Parente And this makes their Membership Mediat Were this distinction generally held by them that hold Paedobaptism our dissenting Brethren that are against Infant-Membership and Infant-Baptism would be freed from a great Temptation For they see that if Children be Church-Members of the same kind and species equally with their Parents then when they are grown up they may by virtue of that Member-ship Relata enim non suscipiunt magis minus challenge a right to all other Church-Ordinances because they are Church-Members as their Parents were and stand in a right Estate in the Church having never been cast out I must confess that by such a succession of Members as this is the Church would be sadly corrupted But if this Distinction of Immediate and Mediate Members were held then might our Brethren easily see that the Membership of Children which is mediate would not entitle them to full Communion with the Church in all Ordinances proper to the Adult but they must become Immediate-Members by their own credible profession of Faith and Repentance to the satisfaction of the Church and laying hold of the Covenant solemnly themselves as their Parents have done before them And this would be a way according to God to maintain a succession of Infant-Members to whom there are divers Priviledges belonging tending to their Conversion and yet to keep the Church pure See Mr. Baxter's Book of Confirmation wherein he hath solidly proved the substance of what I here assert And now it will be requisite to recollect what hath been more largely discoursed and to apply it to the scope intended I have shewed that there are as many and as probable objections against both the Example and command that have been produced by H. D. for Womens receiving the Lord's Supper as are against the Baptism of Children of Inchurched-Parents And that there are if not clearer yet as clear Arguments out of Scripture for the latter as for the former and therefore as little reason to object against the latter as against the former My intent is not to quarrel but rather to compose this difference if the Lord see it good CHAP. II. AS to to the Baptism of Believers I know none that are for Infant-Baptism do oppose it provided 1. That they be Believers in a Gospel-Church-Estate 2. That they be such Believers as have not before been Baptized in their minority But the former part of your book tending to prove that only Actual Believers should be Baptized I cannot perceive that your proofs do confirm it either from Scripture or humane Testimonies The generality of them if I apprehend them rightly speak only of Adult persons and therein we agree with you that Adult persons ought to testifie their Faith and Repentance to the judgment of Rational Charity of the Church guided in judging by the Rules of God's Word before they are admitted to be Members and to Baptism And I believe you cannot but judge that the Testimonies you bring from Mr. Perkins Mr. Baxter Dr. Owen and some others were so intended and not at all against Infants I shall leave that to them that are concerned and are yet alive to explain and vindicate their own sence But as for some others who as you render them speak more punctually to your purpose which I have neither time nor Books to examine I look upon the case of Infant-Baptism as little concerned in them the sacred Scripture alone as you confess being the only Rule that can satisfie Conscience Yet were it not too tedious a task I could shew you many mistakes in your apprehensions of divers of them And you may see Answers to sundry of them in Dr. Homes and some others which yet you take no notice of I grant that all Adult Persons to be admitted to the Church
himself and his Seed to God to walk according to his Covenant of Grace to which the initiatory Seal of the Covenant is annexed And God hath engaged himself in that Covenant to be his God and the God of his Seed Deut. 17.7 And both the Parent and his Seed also when come to years of discretion should improve this Covenant and the Seal of it not only for forgiveness of sins by Christ's Blood but more immediately that God would be a God unto them to give and continue means of Grace and Conversion and give his Spirit along with those means to convert and bring them to Christ and then by his Blood to wash them from their sins and make them Heirs of Eternal Life And thus when one Baptized in Infancy is afterwards truly Converted he hath then the spiritual good and virtue of his Baptism and may by the help of the Spirit of Grace look back upon his Baptism with comfort and have that Answer or rather demand and Interogation of a good Conscience 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pleading with God for forgiveness of sins and Salvation by the merit of the Sufferings Obedience and Resurrection of Jesus Christ who hath purchased them for him and signified and sealed them by his Baptism whensoever he should truly believe in Christ And this may serve for an Answer to your fourth and fifth End also in part you shall find more when we come to speak of dipping upon which your reasoning is built in your fourth End 4. To the sixth End you mention which is to represent the Vnion betwixt Christ and a Believer c. p. 25. I would first ask you whether all such grown-persons as you Baptize be true Believers in Christ and so have indeed a spiritual and saving-Union with Christ for that 's your scope and to that purpose speaks your testimony out of Dr. Taylor But this is so contrary to Truth and to your own experience that I think you will not dare to maintain it 2. I answer Christ may be considered Personally or mystically again either Spiritually or Ecclesiastically Eph. 1.22 23. 1 Cor. 12.12 So is Christ Now Umon with Christ is suitable to this distinction All true Believers in Christ are Spiritually united to him 1 Cor. 6.17 and shall be certainly saved by him Others that make a profession of true faith in Christ but have not indeed a true faith may be united to Christ as Ecclesiastically-considered that is they may be visible Members of Christ's visible Church See John 15.1.2 3 4 c. Christ is the Vine and Believers both Real and feigned are the Branches in a different respect True Believers are Living-Branches and bring forth fruit in Christ unto Eternal Salvation false and feigned Believers are dead Branches that are for the fire even for everlasting fire If then these dead Branches be in Christ Ecclesiastically to wit Members of him as head of the Church visible why then should the Infants of Inchurched-Parents be excluded from such an External Union with Christ because they do not at present truely Believe but are dead branches at present Though it is more than you or any man can peremptorily say that this or that Infant hath no work of Grace begun in him nor is spiritually-united to Christ 3. Suppose an Infant hath a secret work of Grace begun in him which undoubtedly God doth work in Elect-dying Infants then according to your Doctrine such an Infant should be Baptized because he hath Union with Christ and yet he can make no profession of Faith and so you cannot know it 5. To your seventh End I answer that the End of Baptism I conceive is not that the Baptized Person may orderly thereby have an entrance into the visible Church Nor was Circumcision of old the visible door of Entrance into the Old-Testament-Church For Baptism presupposeth the person to be a Member of the visible Church and so did Circumcision And though some of those that are for Infant-Baptism use such expressions yet I suppose by their discourse in other places they mean that it was only a solemn establishment and sealing of that Covenant in which they were before In Gen. 17. God comes to Inchurch Abraham and his Family whom Abraham had prepared by his instructing them before Gen. 18.19 And so some expound Gen. 14.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 His Catechised servants And this he doth by making his Covenant with him in a Church-way Intimated more generally v. 2. repeated and something expressed peculiarly belonging to Abraham v. 4. Then more clearly and fully in v. 7. I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy Seed after thee in their Generations for an everlasting Covenant to be a God unto thee and to thy Seed after thee Then he presseth it again v. 9. and verse 10. brings in Circumcision the Seal of it Rom. 4.11 the token of the Covenant between me and you saith the Lord v. 11. which he also calls the Covenant because it was not only an Adjunct to the Covenant as every Seal is but also being instituted of God to be annexed to the Covenant and required of them it was a part of the Covenant it self which they might not neglect And hence the careless omission and neglect thereof was a breaking of God's Covenant v. 14. By what hath been said appear's that the End of Circumcision was not to give entrance into the old Testament-Church for they were entred by the Covenant and that the End of Baptism which answers to Circumcision is not to give entrance into the New-Testament-Church for they were entred before by their interest in the Covenant of which Baptism is a token and a Seal To put an end to this Chapter we hold with you that none ought to be admitted to the Lord's Supper that have not been before baptized from the Analogy between these and the two Sacraments of old No uncircumcised person shall eat thereof Exod. 12.48 And hence I cannot see how some that are against Infant-Baptism and hold it a Nullity can admit them to the Lord's Supper who in their judgments have never been Baptized And here I cannot but take notice of your partiality you make use of Analogy in this case but will not allow of it in the case of Baptizing of Infants from Infants being Circumcised of old CHAP. IV. I shall here take the occasion to shew distinctly the Ends and Vse of the Baptism of Infants 1. TO the Infants themselves when grown up God's Covenant and Baptism the seal of it will be of use to the Child afterwards to encourage him to seek the Lord for converting Grace I will be thy God and the God of thy Seed hath no small argument in it David knew it when he said Thou Solomon my Son know thou the God of thy Father 1 Chron. 28.9 My God and my Fathers God Exod. 15. Thus were the Jews to make use of their Circumcision Deut. 30.4 with Jer. 4.4 The Lord
thy God will Circumcise the heart of thy Seed Circumcise your selves to the Lord and take away the foreskins of your heart They should seek to the Lord to do it for them And you hold the End and Use of Baptism and Circumcision the same in some of the main things they signifie 2. To the Parents Baptism now as Circumcision of old is a comfort and encouragement to the Parents to stir them up and encourage their Faith to pray and wrestle with God for the Conversion of their Children and to train them up in the way that they should go I bless God I have experienced this to be a Truth and still do and would not leave this Priviledge in the behalf of my Children for all the World 3. To the Church also They have a present Use of the Baptism of Inchurched-Children for thereby they may reflect upon the rich Grace and Goodness of God to them and their Seed and be put in mind of their Duty to their Children to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Hereby also they are minded of their duty of watchfulness over the Parents of such Children to see that they train them up in the ways of the Lord A duty too much neglected And also to mind them of their engagement to such Children in case their Parents should die or be impoverished they having been solemnly consecrated to God in the presence of the Church and owned by them Lastly That it is the duty of the Church as well as of the Ministers of it to pray for converting Grace for such Children whom they have seen solemnly consecrated to God See the judgment and practice of the Waldenses afterwards and under the Seal of the promise of Regeneration CHAP. V. In your fifth Chapter p. 35. you would prove Believers-Baptism to be the only Baptism from the New-Testament-Dispensation so differing from that of the Old Testament-Church which you say was national consisting of the natural and fleshly Seed of Abraham TO which I Reply If by Old-Testament-Church in this place you mean the Church as it was first constituted in Abraham's Family Gen. 17. I must deny it to be National for it became not National till the Lord brought them out of Egypt and set up a National-worship amongst them at Mount-Sinai And this is expresly called the Old-Covenant in reference to the New-Covenant under the Gospel see Heb. 8.8 9. I will make a New-Covenant not according to the Covenant that I made with their Fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the Land of Egypt And to this that of the Prophet Ezekiel hath relation Chapter 16.8 I entred into a Covenant with thee and thou becamest mine Therefore the Covenant made with Abraham when God put him and his Family into a Church-Estate is not that National-Covenant which the Apostle calls the Old-Covenant Heb. 8.8 9. and now gives way to the New but is that blessing of Abraham which for the substance of it still remains and is come upon the Gentiles Gal. 3.14 But by the Old Covenant which is now out of doors is meant as the Lord himself explains it Heb. 8.9 That National-Covenant that he made with their Fathers when he led them out of Egypt unto Sinai the Moral Law being then given with Terrour and the Ceremonial Law annext unto it as their Schoolmaster to lead them to Christ then to come who by his death fulfilled it and put an end to it nailing it to his Cross Col. 2.14 And this is called the Old Covenant in reference to the New one made now in the Gospel-days which is the Covenant made with Abraham revived and freed from those loads of Ceremonies wherewith it was once burdened Now it is not new in respect of the main substance and essence of the Covenant for they are both the Covenant of Grace see Haggai 2.5 Gods Spirit was among them then see also Isa 6.3.11 but in respect of the new manner of Dispensation of it the Articles of Grace being now more express promises instead of precepts and the Seals of it more clear easy significant and suitable to a Covenant of Grace As the Commandment of Love is called an Old Commandment and a New-Commandment in a different respect only 1 John 2.7 8. so may one and the same Covenant of Grace be called old and new in a different respect Hence follows 1. That the Nationality of the Church of Israel did not consist in this that they were the natural and fleshly Seed of Abraham but by virtue of the Covenant dispensed in a national way after they came out of Egypt For God's promise to Abraham to wit I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy Seed after thee in their Generations for an everlasting Covenant to be a God to thee and thy Seed after thee was long before that Church became National 2. That worldly Sanctuary Carnal Ordinances a Temporary Levitical Priest-hood and multitude of Ceremonies did not belong unto the Church in Abrahams Family but were peculiar to the Church as National which began near about 400 years after Gal. 3.17 viz. when God brought them out of Egypt If by spiritual Seed of Abraham p. 36. you mean those that did truly and savingly Believe as you seem to take it for you do not at all distinguish between Spiritual and Ecclesiastical then it is apparently untrue For in the New-Testament-Church there was an Ananias and Sapphyra and a Simon Magus who yet were regularly admitted to the Church though they were not true Believers And here I must again return you to your own experience and practice Therefore upon that change John Baptist did not discharge that Priviledge of the Church-Seed of Abraham as you say he did I mean of the Infants of Inchurched-Parents from any such right in the New-Testament as you affirm But he speaks to the grown-persons that rested in that Priviledge and boasted of their being the natural Children of Abraham though they continued impenitent unregenerate slighting and rejecting Christ on whom John directed them to believe compare Math. 3.7 8 9 11. with Acts 4.19 not at all persorming their Covenant-duty In like manner we may now safely say to Children of Inchurched-Parents that are grown up and please themselves that they were the Children of such Parents and harden themselves in impenitency and unbelief as John did then Think not to say we are the Children of Godly-Inchurched-Parents This will neither free you from unquenchable fire nor bring you to Heaven nor admit you as Adult-Members into a Gospel-Church and into full Communion with the Saints therein in all Church-Ordinances but you must bring forth fruits meet for Repentance at least to the judgment of Rational-Charity or else you cannot be admitted thereunto This therefore doth not exclude the Infant-seed of a Parent admitted into a Gospel-Church and continuing in a right Estate therein If the Church-Priviledges of the
yet the same Promise given as a Motive why they should repent and be Baptized I must acknowledge I cannot apprehend how they can consist Let him reconcile them that hath a larger reach than I have Hitherto I have been shewing what that Promise held forth to those prick't-hearted Jews was not rather than what it was I now come to give you by the assistance of Christ what I conceive to be the mind of God in it By Promise in Gal. 3 17. is clearly meant the Covenant of Grace And that it is so to be taken here is evident by this because it hath Baptism the Seal of the Covenant now in Gospel-days annext unto it and also holds forth Remission of Sins Repent and be Baptized for the Remission of Sins for the Promise is to you and to your Children This Promise or Covenant of Grace unto which they had External and visible Right is here urged upon these Jews to move them to Repent and in that I agree with you and not as a Condition if they did Repent It 's urged as a Motive not as a Condition Repent for the Promise is to you See the like Acts 3.25 Ye are the Children of the Covenant God made with our Fathers Repent therefore and be Converted v. 19. For to you first God hath raised up his Son Jesus to bless you in turning you a way from your iniquities v. ult And why first but because they were the Children of the Covenant that God made with their Fathers This sence and scope of the Text is plain and rational and suitable to the scope of the Apostle And whereas you say that by Children there is meant Posterity my Child is my Child say you though he be forty or fifty years old Yet let me tell you that such Adult-Children are by Gods Ordinance if not Baptized already to be Baptized upon their own profession and not upon the account of their Parents as you your self do grant and therefore it must be meant of Children in Minority However I hope you will not exclude little Children from being a part of Posterity and so will grant them their share in it at least By these afar-off is plainly-meant the Gentiles Eph. 2.11 12. And perhaps also the ten Tribes who were long before divorced and as to their present Condition not then actually in External-Covenant with God The Promise to them afar-off doth not presuppose them to be already-called but it is to them at present as by the Lord they might be called afterwards Here was now a way opened by Christ to preach and tender the Gospel to them which before was not though as yet it was not actually-tendred to them unless to some few untill the Jews should actually reject it and God reject them for rejecting it Acts 13.46 47. Rom. 11.12 15 19 20 21 22. Here therefore we may observe a difference between these Jews and their Children and those that were yet afar-off and their Children for though the Promise were then to them all as the Word Is doth intimate yet not them all in every respect alike It was now at present to those Jews and their Children Actually Visibly and Externally before Men. But to them afar off Intentionally and before God and should be Actually to them and to their Children as now it was to the Jews and their Children when God should Actually call them These Jews and their Children were not yet discovenanted and Unchurched though they had deserved it See Acts 2.22 23 23 36. And this was after Christ's Death Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven that these words are spoken to them and that by the Holy Ghost in the mouth of the Apostle They were not afar-off as the Gentiles and probably the ten Tribes were at that time who were then Strangers from Actual-External Interest in the Covenants of Promise until such time as God should Actually-call them But these Jews were nigh as to their External-Covenant-Station the External-Adoption the Covenants and Promises Rom. 9.4 though Really in themselves Children of wrath and bad enough v. 1 2 3. But how can it be said that it is now to them that are afar-off when it had not yet reach ed them Answ It was then so 1. In God's Intention and purpose It was then so in foro Dei before God 2. It was so then because Christ had opened the way broken down the partition wall Eph. 2.14 15. which before stood between Jews and Gentiles The way was shut before but now opened that Christ might be made known unto them And Thirdly It should not be long before Christ would send out his Ambassadors to call them in and then they should Actually-enjoy this priviledge both for themselves and their Children as those Jews then did For what reason is there that their Children should be left out any more than the Children of these Jews when they were brought into the fellowship of the same Covenant for the Substance where there is no difference between Jew and Gentile Scythian Barbarian Bond and Free This Call then hath Reference to the Gentiles who were yet Actually afar-off Strangers from the Covenants of Promise and not to these Jews who were Externally within it and their Children also To prove this yet a little more take notice that in the Scripture God makes over External covenant-Covenant-Grace as in the present to them that are not yet in Being Deut. 29.14 15. Neither with you saith the Lord do I make this Covenant but with him that standeth here this day that is the Jew and Proselyte and the little ones see the Text that were present and also with him that is not here with us this day to wit those that are yet unborn as well as those that might be absent With both saith the Lord do I at present make my Covenant In the Parents of such unborn-Children it was done at present Actually before Men Vide Mr. Cobbet but as to those unborn Children themselves Intentially before God The Sum of all is briefly comprized in this Paraphrase The Promise or Covenant of Grace Externally-administred is now Actually to the Jews to your Children on whom you wished the Curse of the Blood of Christ and it is also at present Intentionally before God also preparatively before men Christ having now opened the way it is I say at present to them that are afar off to wit the Gentiles and probably also the ten Tribes even as many who are yet Externally Strangers from the Covenant as the Lord our God shall call When God's time is come to call them the Gospel shall be then sent among them to call them in and to all such as obey that call the Covenant shall at least Externally Actually be unto them and their Children as it is now unto these Jews and their Children And here let me also shew you the Inconsistency of your Conditional sence of this Promise which you mention before thus the Promise is to you
Jews if you Repent and Believe and to your Children if they Repent and Believe and to those that are afar off even as many as the Lord our God shall call to wit if they Repent and Believe For those words As many as the Lord our God shall call being according to this Interpretation the exegesis exposition and limitation of all that went before and in your sence taken for effectual Calling only it must necessarily be added And then this must needs follow that one may be effectually called and yet not Repent and Believe whereas Repentance and Faith are infallible fruits of effectual Calling Besides here is another absurdity will also follow that the Promise and Covenant of Grace as we have shewed it is doth not belong unto them until they were also Baptized for that also is mentioned together with Repent And then it will follow that one must be Baptized before he hath any Way Right and Interest in the Covenant of Grace which indeed is according to the Proverb to put the Cart before the Horse Having thus opened and cleared that Scripture Acts 2.38 39. I shall now argue from it Prop. That part of Mankind which was once by God's appointment Externally in the Covenant of Abraham and sealed with the ordinary Initiatory Seal of that Covenant and were not cast out by Christ at his coming but on the contrary confirmed therein have still by God's appointment an External-Interest both in the Covenant of Abraham and in the ordinary Initiatory-Seal thereof now in these Gospel-days Assump But Children of Inchurched-Parents are a part of Mankind which was once by God's appointment Externally in the Covenant of Abraham and sealed with the ordinary Initiatory Seal of that Covenant and were not east out by Christ at his coming but on the contrary confirmed therein Conclusion Therefore Children of Inchurched-Parents have still by God's appointment an External Interest both in the Covenant of Abraham and in the ordinary Initiatory Seal thereof now in these Gospel-days The Assumption is apparent as hath been already shewed And if you deny it we require of you in the name of the Lord to shew us out of the Holy Scripture when or where Christ by his coming cast them out either by himself in person or by any otherimployed by him I have already shewed that he did it not by John Baptist nor by his Apostles For by them in Acts 2.39 he hath confirmed it And that he did it not in his own person appears by his courteous Reception of Infants brought unto him and rebuking his Disciples for hindering them to be brought That they were once Externally in Abraham's Covenant by God's appointment is plain I will be thy God and the God of thy Seed Gen. 17.7 That they were Sealed you your self instance in Esau pag. 206. who you say was not in the Covenant and yet Sealed viz. with Circumcision See your Margin there with that in the line We shall add more in replying to the fourth Question The Proposition is plain and clear If they were once interessed Externally by God's appointment in Abraham's Covenant the Seal of it not cast out by Christ but by him Confirmed therein they must still have an Interest in them Thus much to your third Question and your Answers to it Now to your fourth Question and your sence of it Quest 4. Whether Circumcision was a Seal of the New Covenant to the Children under the Law so pag. 205. But in pag. 216 you use other terms viz. To the Believers and their Seed You roundly deny it to be a Seal to the Children and much less a Seal to them of the New-Covenant It was only say you a sign put into the flesh of the Infant but a Sign and Seal only to Abraham c. And in p. 218. Your humane Testimony which you approve of saith It was a sign to the rest of the Jews that they were Abraham's Seed That is only that they were Abraham's Seed must be your meaning or else you speak fallaciously To which I Reply 1. Of what was it a sign to Abraham's Seed was it indeed only that they were Abraham's natural Seed was it not a sign unto them of the Circumcision of their heart to love their Covenant-God with all the heart and all the Soul which God promised Deut. 30.6 and called for from them Jer. 4.4 that they might improve it by seeking to God to do it for them And were not their Parents to make the same use of it in reference to their Children How can you evade this Nay do not you your self afterwards grant p. 223. that Circumcision signified Heart-Circumcision 2. And why not a Seal unto them also Not that they did already Actually-Believe as Abraham did before he was Circumcised But 1. That God was their God Externally in that Covenant Gen. 17.7 and would continue to be so if they did not afterwards reject him 2 Chron. 15.2 2. And that in particular God would be found of them if they sought him 2 Chron. 15.2 and would not only Communicate the outward and Temporary Blessings of the Covenant to them but also means of Grace and not only so but Converting-Grace by those means 1 Chron. 28.9 Thou Solomon my Son know thou the God of thy Father and serve him with a perfect heart and a willing mind If thou seek him he will be found of thee but if thou forsake him he will cast thee off for ever You grant pag. 217. that Circumcision was a Seal or Confirmation of that Faith which Abraham had before and to assure him of those special Promises made to him and his Seed both Carnal and Spiritual It seem's then you made not a full enumeration of all the particulars of which Circumcision was a Seal to Abraham in pag. 216. I would here ask you Were not those Spiritual Seed Carnal before they were Spiritual If so as you cannot deny was not Converting-Grace for them promised and Sealed to Abraham in his Circumcision according to this your Assertion And seeing Abraham could not know the particular persons that should be so made his Spiritual-Seed nor any Man else in after-Ages did not God therefore make the Promise of their Conversion Externally in general and Indefinitely Deut. 30.6 and Sealed it to Abraham and his Seed that so those that were in Gods Eternal purpose to be converted and saved might through Grace lay hold of it and others that wickedly slighted it might be left without Excuse If this were Sealed to Abraham and the same Promise came along to his Seed and they also had the same Seal that Abraham had how then comes it to pass that it should not be a Seal to them also who were so deeply-concerned in it to assure them that God would Circumcise their hearts if they sought him in his own way for he saith He will yet be inquired of by the House of Israel to do it for them Ezek. 36.37 with v. 26 27.
Blessed be God I have heard a Child upon his dying-Bed plead this Covenant with God for his Grace to the great satisfaction of my Soul To come now to the Second part of your Answer that as Circumcision was not a Seal to Children under the Law so much less a Seal to them of the New-Covenant say you pag. 216. In stead of which in pag. 218. you say New-Testament Answ I like not the changing of your Phrases as you have done in this Question and your Answer to it You cannot but know that there lies a fallacy in this Phrase as you have applied it here and changed it Pardon my boldness I have before distinguished of the new-New-Covenant It may either be taken for the Covenant of Grace in opposition to the Covenant of Works or for the Covenant of Grace under the New-Testament-Dispensation as opposed to that same Covenant under a more legal-Dispensation So it is called New Heb. 8.7 8 13. It being the Covenant made with Abraham revived Gen. 17. freed from all those legal Ceremonies wherewith it was burdened before which have had their accomplishment in Christ and having only a few plain and simple Ordinances annexed to it 2 Cor. 11.3 suiting with a pure Gospel administration even as that Covenant made with Abraham had suitable to that Dispensation before the Law was given This being premised I Answer That Circumcision Gen. 17. was a Seal of the new-New-Covenant to wit the Covenant of Grace as it was opposed to the Covenant of Works made with Adam before his fall and also as it was opposed to the same Covenant for the substance of it under that Legal Administration at Sinai and afterwards And though there be a difference between the Administration of it in Abraham's Family and the Administration of it now under the New-Testament in some few circumstances of New Ordinances yet the Ordinances then were but few and suitable to that Administration of the Covenant of Grace then made with Abraham and his Family Circumcision then being one of the ordinary Seals of that Covenant in a Church-way dispensed and the Passeover the other For it 's useful for us to observe that Circumcision began not with the Ceremonial Law at Sinai but was long before a Sign and Seal to Abraham and the Church in his Family which was more correspondent to a New-Testament Church in Gospel-times than the national Church of the Jews was And hence saith Christ Moses gave unto you Circumcision not because it is of Moses but of the Fathers John 7.22 that is of Abraham Isaac and Jacob that were long before Moses To conclude this Circumcision we see was both a Seal to Children under the Law and a Seal of the Covenant of Grace Externally and Ecclesiastically dispensed beginning in the Church in Abraham's Family and continued all along in the Church of the Jews until Christ put an End unto it by his death I had almost slipt-over that Expression of yours pag. 218. That nothing is a Seal of the New-Testament but the Holy Spirit Eph. 1.13 and 4.30 I confess it 's a strange Paradox to me Is Believers Baptism no Seal with you Nor the Lord's Supper no Seal Alas poor Believers How have you been deluded Have you so often come to have the pardon of your sins sealed and God's love in Christ fealed unto you in the Lord's Supper and now you are told it is no Seal Ther 's none else if you will believe it but the Holy Spirit I thought it had been an External-Seal appointed by our Lord himself Surely such Assertions as these are do tend to destroy all outward Ordinances of Christ though I hope you never intended it This is like to that of some others there is no word of God but Christ and so do destroy the Authority of the Holy Scripture And like that 1 Cor. 1.12 I am of Christ and care not for Paul nor Apollos nor any Ministers whatsoever Again you say neither is Baptism more than Circumcision called a Seal it is called a Figure say you 1 Pet. 3.21 and a Sign proper only to Men of understanding c. And not as Circumcision which was a Sign not improper for Infants because it left a signal impression in their flesh to be remembred all their days but so cannot Baptism be to any Infants say you p. 218 For Answer That Circumcision was a Seal and that also to Infants hath been proved and your self have acknowledged it to be a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to Abraham though you deny it to be so to all others And though Baptism be no more a Seal than Circumcision was yet I hope you will allow it to be as much a Seal as that was The Gracious Lord hath made a Covenant of Grace and is willing his people should be confirmed of the Truth of it And hath he put no Seals to it to confirm it Certainly this is a new and strange Doctrine which the Faithful knew not in former Ages You say Baptism is called a Figure and a Sign c. 1 Pet. 3.21 I Answer The Apostle there speaking of the Souls saved by water in Noah's Ark tells us that Baptism was a Figure or Type 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 like to that Type Cui nunc respondens exemplar vel Typus Baptismi saith Beza The Ark born up by the Water wherein Noah and his Family were was first a Physical and Instrumental-cause and means of their Temporal preservation of the saving of their lives Secondly God appointed it to be a Type and Sacrament to them to signify and Seal Eternal Salvation to them through Believing in Christ without whom no Salvation is to be had Now saith the Apostle Baptism is a Type Answering that Type signifying and sealing Externally Salvation to all those and only those that are or shall be in Christ by Faith But say you it is a Sign and Figure proper only to Men of Understanding representing Spiritual things and not as Circumcision c. I Answer first The want of the Use of Reason and Understanding in an Infant is no Essential Defect or Impediment as to the External Susception of Baptism no more than it was heretofore of Circumcision which was a Seal of God's Covenant as hath been proved and signified the same things as to the main and substance of them that Baptism now doth By your Argument therefore no Infant should ever have been Circumcised 2. The God of Grace in the External administration of the Covenant of Grace to the Infants of Inchurched-Parents is before hand with them I will be the God of thy Seed Gen. 17.7 and will Circumcise the heart of thy Seed Deut. 30.6 put 's his Seal to it for their assurance and encouragement to seek God for Converting-Grace And they are to be instructed in it when they come to understanding 3. Hence the Infants of Inchurched-Parents are engaged to the Lord and Circumcision of old and Baptism now doth Seal that engagement
I shall acknowledge that Circumcision whiles it lasted as Gods Ordinance did testifie that the partition-Wall still stood between Jew and Gentile and Baptism after the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ testified that it was broken down but not so when it was first instituted and Administred by John Baptist nor by Christs Apostles before his Death For the Partition-Wall stood then Math. 10.5 6. They might not go into the way of the Gentiles c. Secondly But how do you prove that Baptism testified that Barbarian Scythian Jew and Gentile were all one in Christ Baptism indeed after the death of Christ was a Seal of the new-New-Covenant under the New-Testament-Dispensation wherein the God of Grace extended it not only to the Jews but the Gentiles also giving a free offer of it to the unconverted-Gentiles to bring them in and an assurance of the enjoyment of the blessings of the Covenant to those that were brought in as well as to the Jews But this is accidental to Baptism to signifie or testifie that they were all one in Christ it was Christs Commission enlarged to which Baptism was annexed which properly and immediately testified that the difference between Jew and Gentile was removed And by this Dispensation of the Covenant they were all one in Christ though Baptism had never been annexed to it Thirdly But suppose it were as you assert must not Baptism succeed into the place of Circumcision because it hath more Ends and Uses than Circumcision had Or because it hath some Ends and Uses that Circumcision had not Will you deny the Soveraign Lord God the Liberty to enlarge his Grace in these Gospel-days Both Circumcision and Baptism are Seals of God's Covenant and each of them suitable to that manner of Dispensation of it unto which they are appropriated Your reasoning therefore is ex falso supposito to wit That that cannot succeed into the Room and Place of another thing whose Ends and Uses differ in some circumstances though for the main substance they signifie the same When you have proved it solidly you may expect it may be Embraced and not before This general Answer will reach the rest of your Ends and Uses wherein you say they differ Now to the third This is as if one should say the Ammonites did not succeed the Zanzummims and dwell in their stead because they were not Gyants as they were Contrary to Deur 2.20 21. 3. Circumcision say you Initiated the Carnal Seed into the Carnal Church and gave them right to the Carnal Ordinances but Baptism was to give the Spiritual Seed an orderly entrance into the Spiritual-Church and a right to partake of spiritual-Ordinances To which I Answer 1. They were initiated Externally by the Covenant into the Church before they were Circumcised and thereby they had a right to Circumcision as hath been proved before which was the Sign Seal of their Initiation 2. It seems to be a carnal Expression to call the Church in Abraham's Family a carnal Church The Church of the Jews indeed when they became National had a worldly Sanctuary Heb. 9.1 and carnal Ordinances v 10. but that it was a Carnal Church is an Expression that I find not in the Holy Scripture and I dare not call it so By Worldly Sanctuary he means the Tabernacle and all the External glory of the Levitical Service only as it was the Earthly-Representation of Heavenly things by which Earthly shadows they were by Faith to look at Heavenly things which were the substance And Carnal Ordinances Either because the Levitical Ceremonies were severed from the things they signified as the Carnal Jews took them and rested in them Or because carnal things were used in those Ordinances to represent Spiritual But as they were joyned with their significations so See Mr. Dick. son on Heb. 9. there were Promises of Atonement made and annexed to them which True Believers did enjoy If it were a Carnal Church and no Spirituality in it how then could any be saved in it The faithful then no doubt did look at Christ in those Carnal Ordinances to wit the Bulls and Goats and other things that were offered in Sacrifice and Christs Spirit was among them Hag. 2.5 Isa 63.11 3. Baptism was not to give the Spiritual Seed an orderly entrance into the Spiritual Church as hath been proved before but was to signifie and Seal the Entrance they had by God's Covenant before they were Baptized even as Circumcision was by your own Confession p. 223. 4. You do not here plainly tell us who those Spiritual Seed are but by the Current of your discourse it appear's you mean only True Believers in Christ and then what makes an Hypocrite in any of your Congregations Why was he Baptized 5 Nor do you here tell us what you mean by Spiritual Church and Spiritual Ordinances I conceive you mean a visible Gospel-Church and Gospel-Ordinances which if opposed to Carnal-Ordinances must signifie the plain and simple Ordinances of the Gospel representing Christ as in a Looking-Glass 2. Cor. 3. ult and not under the Veil of Ceremonies where the Blood of Bulls and Goats and other Carnal things were used by God's appointment to signifie and set forth Christ unto them Let us now gather up the sum of your Argument If Circumcision Initiated the Carnal Seed into the Carnal Church and gave them right to the Carnal-Ordinances But Baptism the Spiritual Seed into the Spiritual Church and gave them a right to Spiritual Ordinances then the End and Use of both is not the same and so Baptism doth not succeed into the Room of Circumcision At Ergo Besides the flaws in the Antecedent I deny the consequence of the Proposition For 3. By your own arguing the End and Use of Both is to enter them as you say into the Church and the Church in Abraham's Family where Circumcision began was the Church of God a Spiritual and not a Carnal Church as you term it and their Ordinances then were few and fit to represent Spiritual things unto them suitable to that time And as for Circumcision it was not one of those Legal Ceremonies but a Seal annexed to God's Covenant in Abraham's Family long before the Ceremonial Law consisting of Carnal Ordinances was given Yea afterwards when the Ceremonial Law was brought in whose Ordinances in some sence are called Carnal yet it appears they had a Spiritual signification led to Christ Gal. 3.24 therefore in a right sence Spiritual Ornances as to their signification and tendency Hence the End and Use of both as to the main substance is the same and therefore Baptism may well succeed into the Room of Circumcision by your own Argument And so I come to your fourth Use 4. Circumcision say you was to be a Bond and Obligation to keep the whole Law of Moses but Baptism witnessed that Moses Law was made void and that only Christ's Law was to be kept I Answer Your Assertion is doubtful for want
when to meet with a right Subject for you do not hold an Hypocrite to be in the Covenant of Grace at all Spiritually and Savingly he is not in the Covenant of Grace for he is an Hypocrite Externally and Ecclesiastically he is not as you hold for you will not own an External and Ecclesiastical Dispensation of the Covenant of Grace now in the days of the Gospel Yet Baptize him you do upon this conjecture that he is a true-Believer but afterwards he appears to be otherwise Now I beseech you deal ingenuously and see who is at an utter uncertainty when to have a right Subject of Baptism if you be not But as for our Subject we know where to find him We can know whether he be Externally and Ecclesiastically within the Covenant or no but cannot say infallibly he is a a true Believer or Elect unto Salvation which is out of our reach to understand and shall leave it to those that are resolved to go upon such uncertain Grounds So much to your second Reason 3. You say neither can the Child when grown up have any certain knowledg that such a Ceremony viz. as Baptism hath past upon him in Infancy he having no Infallible mark thereof as the Circumcised-Infant had This hath been punctually answered to before I shall therefore conclude against all your Demonstrations as you call them that Inchurched-Parents would lose a great and inestimable Priviledge under the Gospel if their Infants were not Externally and Ecclesiastically interessed in the Covenant and in Baptism the Seal of it and so would the Infants too and in this respect their Priviledges under the Gospel would be less than theirs under the Law I shall add further to what hath been objected 1. That our Ministry is not successive as theirs of old was to the first-born and afterwards in the Family of Levi and more particularly of Aaron We own no such thing in owning the Birth-Priviledge of Infants 2. A Gospel-Church-Estate in reference to Adult and Immediate Members is not successive For 1. It 's requisit that such persons should make a personal credible profession of Faith and Repentance and lay hold of the Covenant themselves Isa 56.4 5 6. as the Eunuch which might be the Child of a Jew must do now in these Gospel-times 2. It 's apparent that many Children of Inchurched-Parents who in their Infancy were Mediate-Members do never when grown make such a profession and lay hold of the Covenant themselves and so do never become regularly Immediate Members but some do draw back and of such God hath said His Soul shall have no pleasure in them Heb. 10.38 And thus in respect of Adult-Children of Inchurched-Parents the Church now is not successive But 3. A Gospel-Church-Estate in reference to the Infants of Inchurched-Parents is successive as it was in the Church in Abrahams Family and afterwards among the Jews as to the substance of it The Infants of Inchurched-Parents were then Mediate Members I will be thy God and the God of thy Seed Gen. 17.7 And so they are now in these Gospel-days The Promise is to you and your Children Acts 2.39 4. Hence it will clearly follow that the Church under the Gospel would be less priviledged and blssed than that in the Family of Abraham and afterwards among the Jews if it were not thus successive in reference to the Children of Inchurched-Parents For both Parents in reference to their Children and Children in respect of themselves would be deprived of a Church-priviledge and Blessing which both Parents and Children of old did enjoy Which is most unsuitable and contrary to the Grace of the Gospel which is enlarged and not straitned and contrary to the whole current of Gospel-Prophecies to Inchurched-Parents and their Children For Inchurched-Believers could not in the due latitude and extent of it be Heirs according to the Promise as Gal. 3.29 If their Children should be Externally excluded from the Promise For the Childrens-right to the Promise in it's External and Ecclesiastical Dispensation is a part of the Fathers Inheritance I will be first thy God and then the God of thy Seed And it is worth our notice that those very Gospel-Promises concerning the Seed and Children do run first to the Parents and are made Immediately to them in reference to their Children Their Children shall be as afore-time and their Congregation shall be established before me Jer. 30.20 They are the Seed of the blessed of the Lord and their off-spring with them Isa 65.23 All thy Children shall be taught of God Isa 54.13 eminently to be fulfilled when Gods time shall come that all Israel shall be saved Rom. 11.26 more Psal 102. last Ezek. 37.25 26. And hence it must needs stick with us and be a Cordolium and heart-breaking to us to lose so great a part of our inheritance from our selves and our Children If Inchurched-Parents should not be a means to convey unto their Infants an External Interest in the Covenant of Grace and a Right to Baptism now the Initiatory Seal of it then surely there must be a breach and a Rupture in the Covenant of Grace to God's people and their Seed which we can by no means admit of For we and our Gospel-Church-Estate and our Children would exceedingly suffer by it we having lost a priviledge which they of old enjoyed and nothing in the stead of it CHAP. V. The Ceremony of Baptism whether it be by dipping or Sprinkling THe Ceremony of Baptism say you is by Dipping p. 232. not by sprinkling You would prove it first by the proper and genuine signification of the Word c. For which End you produce divers Learned Authors that Baptizo properly signifies to Dip Plunge Overwhelm put Under Cover-over to die Colour which is done by plunging Yet p. 248. you grant it signifies washing Acts 22.16 Tit. 3. and Heb. 10. But say you it is such washing as is by Diping To which I Answer That the Use of the Word in Scripture which is the authentick expositour of it self gives us ground to interpret it washing by way of Sprinkling or pouring on of Water and not by Dipping What the Apostle terms divers Washings or Baptisms so the Greek Heb. 9.10 he afterwards calls sprinkling sprinkling the unclean v. 13. and v. 19. He sprinkled both the Book and the People and v. 21. He sprinkled both the Tabernacle and the Vessels of the Ministry And this is more than all humane Authorities Add to this 1 Cor. 10.1 2. Our Fathers were all Baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea I wonder you should bring this place to prove Dipping How were they Baptized in the Cloud but by the bedewings of it They were aspersed with the Atoms of the moisture that was in it And how were they Baptized in the Sea Were they plunged in it as Pharach and his Egyptians were I cannot think you will say so But they were sprinkled by the Waters as they passed by Where by the way observe
judg the Baptism a Nullity dispensed by the Papists notwithstanding it were clogged with divers humane Inventions and therefore they require not a Renouncing their Baptism as Null but Repentance for what hath been amiss therein To your seventh They Baptize the Children of Inchurched-Believers because they are Externally and Ecclesiastically in the Covenant of Grace and not because they have true sanctifying Grace in them from which alone they hold that a man cannot fall from the other he may fall and be rejected and yet their Doctrine of not falling from Grace stand firm This Argument I must again return upon you for you Baptize a professing Believer because you count him Savingly in the Covenant of Grace but afterwards he appears not to be so and you reject him It is you therefore that hold a falling from Grace and not we For we Baptize because they are Externally in the Covenant and that we can know but you Baptize because they are Spiritually and Savingly in the Covenant else you would not Baptize them and afterwards you come to see they are not so Therefore you Baptize upon uncertainties and your Tenet holds falling from Grace Nor doth the Baptizing of Inchurched-Infants make the Traditions of Men of equal Authority with the Law of God In this we are accounted down-right Pharisees Nor doth it overthrow the Covenant deriving a Title by Natural-Generation but on the Contrary it is according to the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17.7 9. Thee and thy Seed after Thee in their Generations that is Abraham and his Church-Seed as well as his Spiritual-Seed now in these Gospel-days The blessing of Abraham being come upon us Gentiles Gal. 3.14 And that Blessing of Abraham must of necessity be a Covenant-Blessing Nor doth it make Religion to lie in the deed done This is for Formalists and Papists who rest in opere operato and doth not of it self follow from Paedo-Baptism Did Circumcision of Infants of old of its own Nature and per se make Religion to lie in the deed done It is the personal sin of formal Parents and Children when grown to abuse their Baptism and take occasion thence to place their Religion in the deed done Suppose some that are Baptized in your way take occasion thence to place their Religion in the deed done as some have Reason to suspect too many do you will not I presume lay the blame upon the Ordinance it self but upon them for abusing it You will say It is accidental to the Ordinance and would no doubt blame them that would destroy the Baptizing of professing-Believers upon that Ground And why then should the Baptizing of Infants be cried down upon the same Ground I suppose you have seen that people seriously-Godly do not through Grace rest in the deed done what-ever Hypocrites may do but do ply the Throne of Grace with Prayers and Tears that God would Baptize their Children with the Holy-Ghost and are careful to train them up in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord. And do not Children themselves to whom God begins to bless instructions seek him for the Grace of the Covenant and of the Seal of it I have known it I bless the Lord. And how then must it needs be a placing Religion in the deed done Again it doth not revive Judaism and Ceremonial Typical-Holiness of the natural Seed which you have so much spoken-of which did end at Christ's coming No but it keeps alive that Ancient-Covenant-Interest of the Inchurched Seed of Abraham promised to him Gen. 17. and such Judaism we shall not be ashamed to own It 's said Gal. 3.9 They that are of Faith are blessed with faithful Abraham And the great Blessing of Abraham was that God would be his God and the God of his Seed to wit not only of his Spiritual Seed Savingly but of his Church-Seed Ecclesiastically Those then that are of Faith are thus blessed with faithful Abraham God is the God of them and of their Seed in both senses respectively as he was to Abraham and his Seed then Again in v. 16. when he saith To Abraham and his Seed were the Promises made by Seed there is meant Christ as considered not personally but Mystically Christ with his Body the Church Beza in Loc. The name Christ being the proper name of that whole collected-Body whose head and Life Christ is and the Members of it are the faithful gathered together partly of the Jews and partly of the Gentiles And Christ being the bond of the Members of that Body it 's no wonder that he calls it Christ himself by which name he denoteth not only the Head but also the Members conjoined with the Head Now Christ being the Head not only of his Church considered as Invisible but also as Visible in which there be some only Externally and that are not true Believers indeed Hence Hypocrites and also the Children of Inchurched-Parents are Abraham's Church-Seed to whom there are Promises made So that here is not one word to prove that the Natural-Seed of Inchurched-Believers which indeed are the Church-Seed of Abraham were excluded at Christ's coming or afterwards or that the Holiness of the Natural-Church-Seed of Abraham was Typical or that Paedo-Baptism revives Judaism If it be said that Christ is there taken for the Church of Jews and Gentiles considered only as Invisible consider then where you will rank your Inchurched-Hypocrite who made a new External performance of the consent and was Married to Christ in his Visible-Church for base Ends. I suppose you held his Marriage good or else you would not have Baptized him Yet he failed both in the Manner for he professed the consent of his Will to Marry Christ but did lie and in the End also for he had no Sanctifying and saving Grace neither before nor in that Ordinance of Baptism And as for Acts 10.28 and Eph. 2.14 15. They indeed shew that the Ceremonial Law was now abolished and way made for the Gospel and Salvation thereby to come among the Gentiles which plainly proves an enlargement of the Grace of God and not a straitning and therefore that the natural Seed of Inchurched-Parents are not excluded by Christs coming Neither doth the Baptism of Infants destroy separation keep us upon the Old bottom or make us symbolize with the Church of Rome Let the experience we have of reformed Congregational Churches that keep close to their Rule speak for us whether Infant-Baptism destroys such a separation as the Gospel requires Children are Mediate Members of a distinct kind and species from their Inchurched-Parents And this Membership though it intitle them to Baptism which is the Seal of their ingrafting into the Visible Body and Church of Christ yet it cannot entitle them to those Church-Ordinances and Priviledges which are peculiar to Adult and Immediat Members If therefore they would enjoy them they must profess their Faith and Repentance to the Church and come and Marry the Church by their Solemn entring personally
natural Seed of Inchurched-Parents be now ceased in these Gospel-days what then mean's that Scripture Rom. 11.28 spoken of the Israelites to be called in these latter days That they are beloved for the Fathers sakes It would be sad and lamentable if believing-Parents now under the Gospel should have no such Priviledge left them in reference to the eternal Estates of their poor Children Heretofore Church-Members had a promise that God would be the God of their Seed and Circumcise the hearts of their Seed to love the Lord with all the Heart and all the Soul Gen. 17.7 Deut. 30.6 but now by the coming of Christ it is ceased This is sad indeed What visible grounds of hope of any saving Grace or Mercy have Inchurched-Christians now in reference to their Children more than Turks and Pagans have Durus Sermo yet some have been so bold as in plain terms to say so But are they ceased indeed when and where hath God repealed them Not by John the Baptist as we have made appear Nor could I yet ever see that he hath done it by any other hand Hence therefore they must be in force still Hath God given his people promises of food and raiment and other temporal things for their encouragement and comfort 1 Tim. 4.8 and left them no promise at all now in Gospel times to help their faith concerning their poor Childrens eternal Estate whose souls they prize more than their own lives The Apostle saw something in it when he said we that are Jews by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles Gal. 2.15 And why not also in a safe sence Christians by nature and not sinners of the Turks or Pagans who are yet strangers from the Covenants of promise Eph. 2.12 as the Gentiles generally then were You will say we are all by nature Children of wrath Eph. 2.3 And was not Paul and those Jews so too and yet the Apostle makes that distinction between them And whence was it but from God's Covenants in which they externally were even before their Coversion And why there should not be the like Priviledge of Children of Inchurched-Parents I never yet could see And hence such a child may go to God and plead Lord thou art my Fathers God Exod. 15.2 and hast promised to be my God And a Parent may go and plead Lord thou hast promised to be my God and the God of my Seed and to circumcise their hearts to Love thee Deut. 30.6 with Gen. 17.7 O! let it be so according to thy promise Thou hast said I will pour my Spirit upon thy Seed and my blessing upon thine offspring Isa 44.3 and then one should say I am the Lord 's c. see v. 5. they should engage themselves to the Lord and to his Church by the strongest bonds And this is a Gospel-promise and belonging to Gospel-times and a great part of that blessing of Abraham that is come upon the Gentiles Gal. 3.14 Why then should any contradict it Is not the second Commandment still in force to parents in Church-Covenant with God in reference to their Children whom they have given over to God in his Covenant Hath he not there said He will have mercy on thousands of them that love him and keep his Commandements That is on such Parents as give up themselves to God in the Commands of his Instituted Worship in reference to their Children Psal 112.1 2. even to a thousand Generations Deut. 7.9 But repayeth them that hate him to wit in a sinful neglecting or rejecting his instituted Worship to their face v. 10. And this is one way whereby God doth testifie it even by rejecting their Children so as not to vouchsafe them the External Priviledge of his Covenant and means of Grace See an eminent instance of it in Esau and his posterity who sold his birth-right Heb. 12.6 which was then a Church-Priviledge and is therefore called a profane person and so lost the blessing from himself and his see the like in Ishmael and his Generations I conclude then that John Baptist did not upon that change discharge the Church-Seed of Abraham which I shall yet a little further explain by opening the Children of the Flesh and the Children of the Promise which are accounted for the seed Rom. 9.6 7 8. 1. Negatively 1. By Children of the flesh cannot be meant the natural Children of believers as their natural Children Nor 2. Their Children that have only sin and corruption in them for then Isaac must have been a Child of the flesh For he was the natural Son of Abraham and by nature sinful 3. By Children of the promise cannot be meant only such as are really-converted For many that were of Isaac's Posterity and so Children of the Promise were not so and some in Gospel-Churches are not so now 2. Affirmatively First by Children of the Flesh are meant 1. Of old Ishmael and his Posterity begotten by strength of nature which was the Type 2. Now in Gospel-times all such as look for righteousness and life by their own personal performances or abilities whether in whole or in part and that not only invisibly but visibly and Ecclesiastically also as the Apostle said of Jerusalem in his time Gal. 4.25 Jerusalem that now is the Antitype of the other in bondage with her Children Secondly by Children of the Promise are meant 1. Of old Isaac and his Posterity in the line of Jacob which was the Type 2. Now in Gospel-times all such as look for righteousness and life alone by faith in Christ his righteousness only according to the Covenant of Grace And these again are either 1. All such as are true believers indeed who look by a true and lively-Faith to Christ and his Righteousness only 2. Or such as profess only and pretend to do so but indeed do not These latter seem and appear to be Believers to Men to the visible-Church but are not really-such before God Yet even these are Children of the Promise in the genuine sence of the Scripture and not Children of the Flesh in the Apostles sence Gal. 4.21 22 23 c. God doth and will indeed distinguish between the spiritual seed and those that are meerly the Church-seed of Abraham but Men cannot unless by some miscarriages they discover themselves and appear to be what they are as Simon Magus did Acts. 8.23 And thus under one we have an exposition of that Eâdem fideliâ duos parietes Gal. 3.7 They which are of Faith the same are the Children of Abraham they which are of Faith to wit true Believers indeed as Abraham was are Spiritually and savingly the Children of Abraham And they which are of Faith to wit Believers in appearance only before the Church only they are only Ecclesiastically the Children of Abraham And this is sufficient to entitle them to Church-Ordinances and their Children to Baptism the initiatory Seal of the Covenant And this also helps us to expound Gal. 3.29 If ye be Christ's then are
of the Apostles as an undoubted-Truth If you would see more how Ancient Authors brought by some against Infant-Baptism do indeed either not speak against it or else do speak for it read Mr. Cobbet's vindication of the Covenant and Church-Estate of Children c. From pag. 213. to the end of the Book by which you will discern how Men have at least misapprehended and mistaken them and brought them to witness what was never in their thoughts nor the import of their words See the like in Doctor Homes to whose answers you should have replied and not have brought in the same things as if nothing had ever been said against them CHAP. III. In Answer to your Chapter third AS for the Arguments drawn from humane Tradition for Baptizing Infants I leave them to those that are willing to build their Faith upon humane Tradition But as for consequential Arguments deduced from Scriptures to justifie the Baptizing of Infants those I must stick unto as knowing that nothing can naturally and per se of it self flow out of the Scriptures of Truth but Truth And every grain of Truth is to be prized above the World And you have no more but Consequences to prove that Women should partake of the Lord's Supper and those also much entangled and obscured with difficulties I must profess if consequences be not valid that naturally flow from Scriptures rightly understood I know not what to make of much of the Holy Scripture neither will you As to that Math. 19.13 14. Calvin will tell you how Baptism comes to be concerned in it Institut lib. 4. Chap. 16. Artic. 7. This is not lightly saith he to be passed by that Christ commandeth Infants to be brought unto him adding a reason to wit because of such is the Kingdom of Heaven and afterwards he declareth his will by his deed when having embraced them he commends them to his Father by his praying for them and blessing of them If it be meet that Infants should be brought to Christ why not also that they should be received to Baptism which is the badge of our Communion fellowship with Christ If theirs be the Kingdom of Heaven why should the sign be denyed them c. See more there As to that of John 3.5 Let them plead for the Baptism of Infants from that Text that see more than I do in it I shall not side with them nor conclude as they do that there is no other way to Regenerate and save Infants though I dare not exclude Baptism if God please then to work Nor shall I deduce the Baptism of Infants from Mark 16.16 upon this ground that they are Believers or upon any other inspired habit of Grace within them which is wholly hidden from man having a clearer surer more solid and visible ground to build upon not only from Christ's Commission as hath been proved but also from the Covenant made with Abraham and his Seed externally in a Church-way Gen. 17.7 and repeated Acts 2.39 together with the Analogie of Baptism with Circumcision than the initiatory Seal of Gods Covenant and dispensed to Infants and also from that federal holiness mentioned 1 Cor. 7.14 which you deny and make it to be only a Legitimacy of such Children What if others saw it not in ages past that Holiness there is taken for federal Holiness Neither did you your self see formerly many Truths that now you do and yet they were in the Scriptures then as well as now We have cause therefore to bless God that hath given to any of his Servants to discern the Truths that lay hid from the former Ages and in particular this among others of the federal Holiness of Children of Inchurched-Parents I confess my self not so much an Antiquary as to say who was the first founder of this Interpretation nor have I ancient Commentators at hand to examine but if Zuinglius were the first as you affirm we have cause to honour him and to bless God that revealed it to him And now I come to answer to your reasons given against it 1. It doth not contradict the Gospel-Dispensation but well suits with it the Lord not having straitned but enlarged his Grace now in Gospel-times and the visible tokens of it 2. This federal Holiness of Infants of Inchurched-Parents is not an entayling Grace to Nature nor Regeneration to Generation but is an entayling of God's Covenant in it's External and Ecclesiastical dispensation to the natural-Seed of Inchurched-Parents which they should improve also for their Regeneration It is therefore your mistake to take Grace absolutely and only for Regenerating Grace as if we held this Holiness to consist in Regeneration and Inherent Sanctification For we acknowledge that we and our Children are all by Nature Children of wrath as well as others Eph. 2.3 But we and our Seed being at least Externally in god's-God's-Covenant have an advantage left us by our Gracious God to press him for regenerating Grace for our Children which he hath indefinitely and conditionally promised And our Children when they come to discretion for themselves This priviledge and advantage they want who are strangers from the Covenants of promise as being without Christ without hope and without God in the World Eph. 2.12 but being under the Covenant they have a visible ground for their hope which they should improve for converting-converting-Grace leaving secret things to God If then you ask what Holiness this federal Holiness is It is a Relative Holiness by way of separation and Consecration God hath Externally-Consecrated Inchurched-Parents and their Seed to be his people comprehending them within the External and Ecclesiastical-dispensation of his Covenant and thereby hath entitled them to the Initiatory Seal thereof the susception of which even infants are capable of And here again I must mind you that your Assertion doth necessarily imply that whosoever is Baptized must be truly-regenerated and sanctified which hath been often confuted before 3. Hence this federal Holiness of Infants doth not at all contradict the experience of former and latter times as you say it doth Had not Abraham an Ishmael and Isaac an Esau And yet both of them when Children were federally Holy What I pray did Esau sell when he sold his Birth-right for which he is called a profane person Heb. 12.14 And what if Parent 's now Inchurched neglect their Duty and have Children that when grown up do slight their Priviledge and walk wickedly neglecting their Duty required of God as indispensably-necessary to the establishment of Covenant-Relation and transgressing those Commands they were obliged to observe Is it not an aggravation of their Sin that they were once Children that were devoted and consecrated to God You will easily grant that it was a great Sin to turn any consecrated thing to a common and profane Use And is it not so here for Children that were externally consecrated and related to God in his Covenant to turn from him in stead of seeking him and to give up
to the other that believes Believers as to all lawful things have a lawful use of them as they are Men but they have also this more than any Unbelievers have to wit a Sanctified Use of them as they are Believers To the pure all things are pure Tit. 1.15 that is not only lawful for so Meat Drink Physick Plowing Marriage c. are even to Heathens but they are also holy in and for the use of Believers But to the impure and Unbelieving Meat Drink Apparel Marriage Plowing c. though in themselves lawful yet nothing is pure and Sanctified to them but even their Mind and Conscience is defiled The Plowing of the wicked is Sin Prov. 21.4 2. Though this Sanctified Use and Enjoyment is necessarily implied in that phrase Sanctified in the Believing Husband and in the believing Wife yet that is not all but there is somewhat more intimated which is more to our purpose and to the scope of the place and why we should lose a grain of it I see no reason Mr. T. For both the Parents being as it were the common root of the Child if both are unholy and unbelieving the Child is unclean in the Apostl's sence But saith the Apostle If either the Father or the Mother be a Believer the Child is not unclean but holy notwithstanding one of the Parents be an Unbeliever For that Parent which is an Unbeliever is sanctified in that Parent which is a Believer I say sanctified in him so that by vertue of that Parent who is a Believer the other that is an Unbeliever becomes with the Believing Parent the root of an holy Child as if he or she were a Believer too the Blessing following the Believing party The Vnbelieving Parent is Sanctified In the Believing one and so with the Believing one is the root of an holy Seed Hence we see that there is no reason why we should change the signification of In into To but great reason why we should give it it 's proper signification As to that of Ezra 10. It was an Obligation peculiar to the Nation of the Jews before Christ came in the flesh and before the Partition-Wall was broken down between Jews and Gentiles And that it respected the Jews only and also for that space of time is apparent thus An Infidel-Husband turning Proselite was not bound to put away his Wife though she still continued an Infidel And thus much to that phrase Sanctified in the Believing-Husband and Sanctified in the Believing-Wife Now of the Childrens being Unclean and Holy I assert 1. Negatively By Vnclean here is not meant Illegitimate or Bastards nor such only as have Sin in them for so those Children the Apostles calls Holy have Nor by Holy is meant Legitimate Nor do the Scriptures you alledge make it good From what I pray was the Bastard who was Illegitimate excluded Deut. 23.2 not from Legitimacy only but from the Congregation of the Lord. He was accounted unclean and unholy in reference to that and might not partake of the priviledges of the Covenant as other Children might He was not to be accounted federally-Holy as other Children of the Jewish Church were which your self doth grant p. 190. And as to that of 1 Thes 4.3 4 5. It doth not prove Legitimacy to be Holiness but there is something more in it For the Apostle speaks not here to the Gentiles that knew not God v. 6. but to visible Saints-Inchurched who were visibly at least and in the judgment of Charity in God the Father and in Jesus Christ Chap. 1.1 And it was the Will of God that they should walk not only in a Civil and sober manner for so many Gentiles did that knew not God but also in a Sanctified manner that every one of them should possess his Vessel in Sanctification and Honour even in their married-estate and not in the lust of Concupiscence God expects that his people even in a married-estate should not only be honest but also Holy That they should consecrate themselves whole to God And again that by honesty and purity the Saints might be discerned from them that know not God Beza in loc And as to that of Malachy 2.15 it doth not at all oppose what we hold The words are not a Holy Seed as you render them pag. 199. but a Seed of God that is God instituted Marriage between but one Man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and one Woman he created and joined but one Woman to one Man though he might have made many more but one I say that their Children might be a Seed of God And Legitimate Children may be called a Seed of God because born in Marriage which was instituted of God for all Mankind But this Seed of God common to all Children born of Parents in lawful Marriage is not equivalent unto those Children which the Apostle calls Holy 1 Cor. 7.14 for their Holiness depends not only upon that lawful-Marriage of the Parents but principally and properly upon one of them as a Believer Denominatio sumiâ—ur â potiori in whom as a joint-root of the Child the Unbeliever is said to be Sanctified ut supra Again neither by Holy is meant such as they might make a holy use of For so a repenting and Believing Parent might of a Bastard or of other Children of Infidels Nor is it meant the same with the Infidels being Sanctified in the Believer 2. Affirmatively and Positively 1. By Vnclean is meant such Children one of whose Parents was not at least a visible-Believer who never consecrated himself and his Children to God in his Covenant 2. By Holy is meant such Children one of whose Parents at least was a visible-Believer and Member of the Church of Christ who had given up himself and his Children to God in his Covenant Such were Holy with a Covenant and Church-holiness Mr. Cobbet Antiochus destroyed the holy people or people of the Holy ones Dan. 8.24 among which were Children destroyed as well as Parents And how were they Holy Even by vertue of the Holy-Covenant Dan. 11.28.30 32. in which all the Jews Externally and Ecclesiastically were together with their little Ones Deut. 29.11 12. Against which Holy Covenant the Enemies had indignation Dan. 11.30 The Children were a part of that body of people redeemed from Egypt which were called Holy Deut 14.2 and Deut. 26.18 19. and cap. 28.9 Take the sum of the words in this ensuing Paraphrase Unless your Interest in the Covenant of Grace and your Faith therein which in a Church-way ye profess have so much influence on your Infidel Yoke-fellows as to Sanctifie them not only to your Conjugal Use but also to Sanctifie them in you both of you being together one Common-root of your Children it cannot be of force to your Children to render and denominate them Holy but they must be unclean as if ye had been both Infidels But this latter ye do not question to wit whether your Children are Holy And
therefore why should ye question the other to wit whether you may conscionably abide and have Conjugal Communion with your Unbelieving-Yokefellow This sence of the Text is plain and clear and suitable to the Apostles scope And hence as long as this Covenant-Interest holds in force neither rejected by the Parents as Rom. 11.20 nor they suspended nor cut off by a just Church-Censure as 1 Cor. 5.4 5. nor by God's just hand as Rom. 11.15 17. even so long as the Covenant is Ecclesiastically of force to the Childrens federal and Church-Estate see Ezek. 16.8.20.21 23. And thus I hope I have cleared this much controverted Text of Scripture wherein I suppose are answered the main things that are brought against it but yet I shall answer as briefly as I can to some particulars that such as are not so well able to discern them under other heads might see them here To pag. 194. Argument second It seem's to me an unweighed and inconsiderate Assertion to say that the Holiness of the Children 2 Cor. 7.14 is of no other nature than that spoken of the unbelieving Parent in the Text and therefore that if one will entitle to the Ordinance so will the other This is neither consistent with the Truth as may be seen before nor with your self for you tell us pag. 192. that the unbelieving-Husband's being Sanctified to his Believing Wife is that she might freely-converse with him in the Conjugal-Estate c. and the Holiness of the Child was his Legitimacy Judge impartially whether these are the same To your third Arg. p. 194 195. That this Text is not to be limited to Infants c. I Answer it is to be limited to Infants and Children in minority For if they be 30 40 or 50. years old as you speak they are to profess personally their Faith and Repentance and to lay hold of the Covenant themselves before they can regularly be Baptized To your fourth Argument p. 195. Why this federal Holiness of Children that we speak of cannot be a New-Covenant-Holiness that must qualifie and entitle to Baptism first because it cannot be known say you for the Parent professing may be a Hypocrite and then you Baptize a wrong Subject In Answer to which 1. Though I am heartily sorry in some respect yet in another I am glad to hear you speak so plainly In other places you are more dark and silent but here you plainly express your mind It seem's then you Baptize no Hypocrites and I heartily wish you did not Do you certainly and infallibly know that all that are Baptized in your way are true real Christians and not Hypocrites Surely that cannot be known by you And why then are they Baptized It 's too apparent that divers such persons are Baptized in your way I pray consider how this your principle and practice can consist and stand together As for us we know that such Parents are Church-Members whose Infants we Baptize but when you Baptize a Hypocrite you Baptize a wrong Subject Ex ore tuo c. 2. We do not Baptize a wrong Subject when we Baptize the Infant of an Inchurched-Parent that is an Hypocrite He appears a Saint to the Church and as such they received him his Hypocrisie is hid from them as Judas's was from his fellow-Disciples A Member of the Church he is and hath as good a right in foro Ecclesiae before the Church to all Church-Ordinances as the most sincere Christian in the Church hath both for himself and his Child 3. That this federal-Holiness is a New-Covenant-Holiness and sufficient to entitle the Child to Baptism Is there not an External and Ecclesiastical Dispensation of the New-Covenant now as well as an Internal and Spiritual And is there not an Ecclesiastical and Church-Holiness which Hypocrites may have as well as true Saints which is also a New-Covenant-Holiness Whereby they have an external-right to New-Covenant-Ordinances Hath not the Hypocrite Baptized in your way a New-Covenant-Holiness Is he not Externally in the New-Covenant and therefore you admit him to be Baptized you think also that he is spiritually and savingly in the new-New-Covenant but afterwards it appears you were mistaken And so it is your Opinion that tends to Baptize a wrong Subject and not ours We go upon more sure and certain grounds and such as may be known and through Grace we know Consider good Sir of these things which in Love to the Truth I present to your self and to others You add a second Reason thus If this federal-Holiness be a New-Covenant-Holiness that must qualifie and entitle to Baptism then no Unbelievers Child is in Covenant or Elect I must profess this is strange Arguing and wants a deal of Rational Glue to joyn the Consequent to the Antecedent When we speak of federal-Holiness we speak of what is Visible External and Ecclesiastical and if you have not taken notice of it formerly I beseech you observe it now for I perceive and have long observed that the want of a right apprehension of this is one great cause of difference about Infant-Membership and Baptism But to your Argument If you repeat the whole Syllogism you will find four terms in it The Antecedent of the Proposition speaks of an External Right to Baptism and the Consequent is of a saving-Interest in the Covenant and of Election which is yet higher We easily grant that an Unbelievers or Pagans Child may be Elected from Eternity and may be if God please savingly in the Covenant of Grace and a true work of Grace in his Soul in a way and time unknown to Man and yet we can truly say that such an Infant his Parents being Infidels hath not that federal-Holiness which the Children of Inchurched-Parents have and so hath not an Immediate Right to Baptism For 1. He hath no Right by means of of his Parents for they are both Infidels Secondly nor by his own profession for he is not capable of making any and so the Church can have no knowledge of it I grant he hath fundamentally a Right but not formally Jus ad rem but not jus in re A remote Right not an Immediate It seem's to me by your expression and what I have heard from some others of your perswasion That you make on 's being in the Covenant and Election to run parallel without distinguishing of the one or the other which I have observed to be a cause of great mistakes especially to many honest and simple-hearted-Christians who are not able to see their way through it I shall therefore speak something to it Election falls under a two-fold consideration in respect of the Object unto which persons may be said to be Elected 1. To Eternal Life and happiness and the Graces of the Spirit preceding it as means certainly tending thereunto 2 Thes 2.13 1 Pet. 1.1 2 3 4. Eph. 1.3 4. 2. To External Church-Ordinances and Priviledges Deut. 7.6 7. Psal 65.4 likewise the Covenant is considered as Internally and savingly Dispensed
or as Externally and Ecclesiastically Dispensed Now if you take both of these together in sensu composito in a compound sence then I grant that the Covenant is no larger than the Vein of Election but they run parallel But if they be taken in sensu diviso in a divided sence for Election only unto Eternal Life and Salvation and saving-Saving-Graces then I deny them to be equal For there is also an Election of some unto External Church-Covenant-Ordinances and Priviledges who are not Elected unto Salvation A Church-Member living and dying in Hypocrisie was within the Covenant Externally and Ecclesiastically dispensed Else how came he to be a Member of the Church which consists by the Covenant which is as the Cement that joyn's them together Yet such a One was never in the Vein of Election unto Eternal-Life which is absolute and not conditional as some Blasphemously hold Hence when it is said the Covenant is no larger than Believing that is It belongs to none but true Believers It is thus to be understood to wit as to the enjoyment of the saving benefits of it it belongs as Immediately to none but true Believers but as to the External proposal and tender of them and Ecclesiastical and Temporary Priviledges of the Covenant so it may and doth belong not only to true Believers but also to such as make a credible profession of true Faith in a visible congregation though they be not true Believers indeed to their Children also To conclude this If the Covenant be no larger than the Vein of Election unto Salvation and no larger than true Believing then some of these absurdities must needs follow 1. Either there must be no Hypocrite in any visible Church for he is not in the Vein of Election to Eternal Salvation and therefore Matth. 13.37 38 39 c. 47 48 49 50. not within the Covenant and this is flatly-contrary to the Scripture and to known experience see also Rom. 9.1 2 3 4. 2. Or if there be any Hypocrites in the visible-Church they must be certinaly-Elected to Salvation For Being in the Visible Church they are within the Covenant as hath been proved and the Covenant being no larger than Election they must of necessity be Elected 3. Hypocrites in the visible-Church must be Damned or Saved Damned they cannot be because they are within the Covenant as I have proved And the Covenant being of the same Latitude with Election they are Elected to Salvation and must not be Damned or if they be God must change his Decree which is Blasphemy even to think Again Saved they cannot be for God never Elected any unto Salvation that lived and died Hypocrites and he will not change his mind And hence according to that Tenet Hypocrites can neither be Damned nor Saved 4. If the Covenant be no larger than Election unto Eternal Life and Salvation and no Infants are in the Covenant then all Infants-dying must be damned For according to this Opinion they being not in the Covenant are not Elected and not being Elected cannot be saved unless the unchangeable God change his Decree that is change himself Hence we see that what we hold is free from that absurdity which you would fasten upon it and the absurdity lies at your own Door But it seem's all my labour is in vain that I have spent in proving this Holiness of Children 1 Cor. 7.14 to be a federal-Holiness because say you Be the Holinese here what it will it is neither here nor else-where assigned to be a ground of Baptizing Children upon c. To which I Answer 1. That if this Holiness be federal which you acknowledge all Children under the Law had yea I shall also add as the Children Inchurched in Abraham's Family had which was long before the Law then if those Children were by God's appointment sealed with the Initiatory Seal Circumcision the same Covenant that God made with Abraham and his Seed being come upon us Gentiles Gal. 3.14 with Acts 2.39 Our Inchurched Children also are to be Sealed with the Initiatory Seal of the Covenant now under the Gospel Especially considering this that God hath never revoked it but hath brought Baptism into the place of Circumcision Col. 2.11 12. And you your self grant so much implicitely in saying that Circumcision and Baptism serve to the same end and that there is an Analogy in some things betwixt the one and the other Pag. 223. But 2. I have already proved out of Christs Commission that Inchurched-Parents Children are Disciples and so federally Holy and by the same Commission to be Baptized And the reason why Women and Females under the Law were not Circumcised nor commanded to be Circumcised was because of an Incapacity in Nature they having no Praeputium or Foreskin as the Males had and what other Reason there might be is hid from us With Reverence I may say It could not suit with the Wisdom and goodness of God dealing with his people in the way of a Covenant of Grace to command a thing impossible I pray what was there in the first Institution of Baptism in John the Baptists time concerning the Baptizing of Women We hear nothing of them expresly till a long while after Acts 8.12 And as for their right to and receiving of the Lord's Supper I suppose we have shewn you as much obscurity in it as you can object to us concerning the Baptism of Inchurched Infants CHAP. IV. Answer to your Arguments of Circumcision examined p. 204. and to the Questions you make and Answers seven in all Quest 1. WHether Circumcision called the Gospel-Seal did belong of old to all in Gospel-Covenant First you deny Circumcision to be the Seal of the Gospel-Covenant to all Believers and so do I there were many Believers before Circumcision was instituted and so they could not be Sealed by it Be it so that Circumcision was tied to the Church in Abraham's Family and afterwards to Jacob and his posterity Might not God do with his own what he would What if God denyed it to others out of the Church in Abraham's Family and afterwards in Jacob's posterity that people might joyn themselves to them as Proselytes which is most probable Are not many Believers without the Seals of the Covenant now because they do not or cannot joyn themselves to a Gospel-Congregation Will you therefore deny Baptism and the Lord's Supper to be the Seals of the Gospel-Covenant to all Believers Are they not instituted of God to be Seals unto them if they come in a right way to enjoy them Again you say there were some to whom the Covenant did not belong who received that called the Seal of Circumcision as Ishmael You indeed Answer this your self in the next words when you say This Covenant was not to be Established with him but with Isaac Gen. 17.20 21 25. It was not to be Established with him to be made to stand and abide with him He doth not say that the Covenant in
true Believers For Answer to which The Temporal-Promises included in that Covenant of Grace which was dispensed to Abraham in a Church-way respected his Natural Seed no otherwise as I conceive than as they were and should continue his Church-Seed For though Ishmael the Son of Abraham by Hagar were at present within the Covenant in a Church-way dispensed and also Circumcised yet God would not establish his Covenant with him but with Isaac Gen. 17.19 21. Nevertheless God gives this as an overplus and by the By in Answer to Abraham's request I have blessed him viz. with outward things which are often called Blessings and they are materially so and will make him fruitful and will multiply him exceedingly c. v. 20. So likewise to Esau the blessing that God gave him was not the Blessing of that Covenant for Jacob had all that before Gen. 27.27 28 29. in allusion to which seems that Speech of Jacob to Esau I have all * So the Hebrew Gen. 33.11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But another by-the By v. 39.40 The Temporal Promises of the Covenant therefore respected not the Natural-Seed of Abraham any further than they were and continued to be his Church-Seed Nor did they respect his Natural Seed only in opposition to his Spiritual to use your terms for the Spiritual Seed were Abraham's Church-Seed also had those Promises of Temporal things as well as the others had See both proved Psal 111.5 He hath given Meat unto them that fear him he will ever be mindful of his Covenant Spoken of the Body of the Israelites who did not all of them savingly fear him as some of them did but they did at least Externally serve him and worship him in his own Institutions which is usually called fearing him Both to the one and the other of them he gave Meat out of Covenant as he also did give them Canaan the Heritage of the Heathen v. 6. And hence when they fell to Idolatry or neglected God's pure worship And Externally brake God's Covenant he brought Temporal-Judgments upon them 2. Chron. 15.2 3 4 5 6 7. Dan. 9.10 to 15. with Deut. 28.15 to the end and Levit. 26. See also Judg. Chap. 3 4 c. Again though it be true that only the Spiritual Seed true Believers had the saving good of those Spiritual and Heavenly Promises of the Covenant Yet in the Tender and outward Proposal of them they were held forth to the whole Church and their Sins were the more aggravated Ezek. 20.16.24 that they despised them Even as they are now also in Gospel-days and their Damnation the greater John 3.18 19 20. The sum then is briefly this Both the Temporal Spiritual Promises of the Covenant belong unto the Church Indefinitely but none of them do savingly-partake of the Spiritual and Heavenly ones but those that truly-Believe as Abraham did Promises are either tending to Conversion and Union or there are Promises of Communion The former belong to the Unconverted the latter to the Converted only as to the enjoyment of the Spiritual and Heavenly Benefits held forth in them 5. That these Spiritual and Eternal Promises or rather Promises of Spiritual and Eternal Blessings do in special manner belong to the New-Covenant to wit now in these Gospel-days I judge this to be your meaning And I can grant the Words in a safe sence if I may be my own Expositor But your scope is to prove the Promises of the New-Covenant now to be only Spiritual and Heavenly belonging only to true Believers and not to others thereby to thrust out Infants out of the Gospel-Covenant and from Baptism the Seal of it Now though I have already said what I hope may satisfie impartial-persons and such as are not prepossest yet doth not this your scope really cut off Hypocrites as well as Infants To conclude this I shall add a word to your Inference and Conclusion That much of the mistake and error lies not in this as you affirm by applying that to the one which belongs to the other for want of distinguishing the Promises as you would have them distinguished but for want of distinguishing between the Spiritual-Saving Dispensation of the Covenant of Grace and the Ecclesiastical only Or as some others word it Between the Covenant of Grace considered absolutely in it self or cloathed with Church-Covenant that is considered in reference to a Visible-Church-Estate And thus besides what hath been said to it before you have also an Answer to your third Question to wit Whether the Seed mentioned Gen. 17.7 were Abraham's Natural or Spiritual Seed only I shall add a word to your evil and dismal Consequences as you term them pag. 211 212 213. If God made his Covenant of Grace with the Posterity of Believers as this Doctrine say you asserts then all the Posterity of Believers should have Grace bestowed upon them that is as your after-words and the scope of your discourse implies Spiritual Saving-Grace opposite to Children of wrath by Nature To which I reply It doth not follow that hence all the posteity of Believers should have Inward Spiritual Saving-Grace bestowed upon them but External Covenant-Grace See Malachy 1.2 I have loved you saith the Lord to the body of the people of Israel the posterity of Jacob. Yet ye say wherein hast thou loved us was not Esau Jacobs Brother saith the Lord yet I loved Jacob and I hated Esau and laid his Mountains and his Heritage wast for the Dragons of the Wilderness v. 3. What was this Love as to the Body of the people of Israel many of which had no Saving-Grace within them but External Covenant-Grace He shewed his words unto Jacob and his Judgments unto Israel he hath not dealt so with any Nation c. Psal 147.19 20. with Deut. 4.5 6 7 8. And doth not Jacob thankfully acknowledge this great favour of God to his Posterity in saying to Joseph The blessings of thy Father have prevailed above the blessings of my Progenitors Gen. 49.26 For this Covenant-Grace was bestowed on all Jacob's Sons and to run along in their Posterity and none of them rejected as Ishmael and Esau and their Posterities were even from this External-Covenant-Grace until by their neglect of performing their Duty they deprived themselves and their Children of it You cannot but know this to be the sence of those that plead for Infant-Baptism that have searched so much into their Writings and I cannot but wonder that you harp still upon the wrong String Nor do those words you mention out of Mr. Blake to wit that the Child of a Christian is a Christian if taken in a right sence and as he intends it at all contradict either the Scripture that saith We are Children of wrath by Nature or former and latter experience Paul was a Child of wrath by Nature and yet Paul being a Jew by Nature and not a Sinner of the Gentiles and Heathens Gal. 2.15 was under this External-Covenant-Grace which the Gentiles
then were not who were Strangers from the Covenants of Promise and Aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel in the 12th verse of the very same Chapter Overthrow this Truth if you can Again another of your Inferences is If God made his Covenant of Grace with the Posterity of Believers then say you would Grace be a Birth-priviledge and Regeneration tied to Generation contrary to John 3.3 and John 1.12 13. This hath been fully Answered to before This External-Covenant-Grace we hold is a Birth-priviledge of the Children of Inchurched-Parents and is an advantage to Parents to cry to God for Converting-Grace for their Children and a strong engagement to them to train them up in the way of the Lord and to Children when grown to cry to God for Converting-Grace for themselves The Lord thy God will circumcise the heart of thy Seed to love the Lord thy God c. Deut. 30.6 Again you infer Then must all the Posterity of Believers be saved unless you will hold falling from Grace To which I reply that what hath been already said will easily Answer this It doth not at all yield such an Inference But this we may safely say and hold that the Posterity of Inchurched-Believers have an advantage tending to Conversion and Salvation that other Children have not it will be their great sin greater Condemnation if they improve it not Nor do we hereby necessitate the Doctrine to be true that Men may fall from Grace that is from inward sanctifying Grace They may indeed fall from that outward Covenant-Grace as Ishmael and Esau did But as we do not hold this to be Inward Sanctifying Grace so we cannot necessitate the Doctrine to be true that Men may fall from it for then they must fall from what they never had Another of your Inferences is Then must we tie up and confine the Grace of God's Covenant to the Children of Believers only and then what hope say you for the Children of Unbelievers Contrary to the Experience of all Ages c. To which I return which also hath been mentioned before 1. Grace is either External Covenant-Grace or Internal Spiritual and Saving Grace We do not tie up by our Tenet the Internal Spiritual and Saving-Grace to the Children of Believers only but leave unto the Soveraign Lord his Prerogative-Royal to bestow his Grace upon whom he will Rom. 9.15 18. 2. But this I must affirm that Infidel-Parents and their Children want that priviledge that Christian Inchurched-Parents and their Children have I pray what Visible help have you that deny this to encourage your Faith to Believe and put you on to pray for the Conversion and Salvation of your Children What no Promise from God concerning them in which you may wrestle with him in their behalf and no Promise left for them to further them in it any more than Children of Heathens This were sad indeed I bless the God of all Grace I have experienced the contrary and do daily I knew a Godly Parent of your perswasion who was sadly perplext about the Eternal Estate of a dying-Infant What visible ground of hope have we for dying Infants if there be nothing left us in gods-Gods-Covenant Your last Inference is Then is the Covenant of Grace overthrown concluding an Interest without Faith Rom. 4.14 derivng a Title by natural Generation To which I reply that hath been Answered already The Covenant of Grace is not thereby overthrown but established For 1. The Faith of one Inchurched-Parent at least hath been visibly professed and the Covenant visiby-accepted which hath given an Interest to the Child And 2. Hence the Natural Legitimate Child of such a Parent hath thereby a visible Title which is that we plead for Then you come pag. 213. to that Scripture Acts 2.38 39. which you grant if rightly-understood to be Parallel with that Gen. 17.7 But I cannot agree with you in your sence of it For first what you say agrees not with the Truth Secondly nor with your self 1. Not with the Truth For the Promise there seems not the Promise of the Spirit in those extraordinary gifts of it wherewith God adorned the Church then mentioned out of Joel 2.28 For first that Promise of Extraordinary gifts of the Spirit doth not belong to all Believers and Inchurched-Parents in all Ages as that other doth Acts 2.38 39. Secondly nor is effectual-Calling the only condition of obtaining those Extraordinary Gifts For many that were and are effectually-called had them not and some might then have them that were not effectually called as is apparent in Matth. 7.22 23. Thirdly Remission of sins is here Promised to all these Jews and is here held forth to them as Externally belonging to them to urge them to Repent and Believe which is not so much as named in Joel 2. Fourthly it is apparent that the Guilt of that cursed wish Matth. 27.25 His Blood be upon us and our Children did stagger them and occasioned the Apostle in express-Terms to mention that promise to them to their Children which the Promise of those Extraordinary Gifts could not cure They were prict in their heart v. 37. For that great Sin especially and needed remission of sins and wounded for that curse they had wished upon their Children and the holding forth of this Promise was to oure them both which thing the other of Extraordinary Gifts could not do Fifthly though Sons and Daughters might fall under the notion of their Children yet Old men mentioned as distinct from them could not so which yet are mentioned in Joel 2. These two Scriptures then speak not to the same thing and so are not the same Promise Yet if any do still suppose them to be the same let them read what Mr. Sydenham hath said upon that Text in his Book for Infant-Baptism Thus I have shewn why I conceive that your interpretation of that place in Joel doth not agree with the Truth in making it the same with Acts 2. 2. I shall now shew that it doth not agree with your self In pag. 213. You say that that Promise Acts 2.39 is the giving of the Spirit Joel 2.28 and doth follow the Receiving of Christ in the Gospel and the obeying his Commands Ephes 1.13 Gal 3.14 Acts 5.32 Therefore say you Acts 2.38 Peter exhorts them to Repentance and Faith in order to the receiving of it And afterwards you say therefore the Promise to wit in Acts 2.39 is not made but upon condition of Calling and Faith and Baptism And in pag. 214. The Promise is given as a Motive why they should Repent and be Baptized I must confess my weak understanding cannot reconcile them Review them more distinctly and judg of them The Promise Acts 2.39 is the giving of the Spirit prophesied Joel 2.28 The same Promise follows the receiving of Christ Peter Exhorts them to Repentance and Faith in order to the receiving of it The same Promise is not made but upon condition of Calling Faith and Baptism and
which I hold their Parents ought to do 4. But that Trees also were capable of Circumcision I suppose you will not be able to prove If you diligently examine the Text and consult judicious Commentators upon it you will find no such sence as you and some others put upon it Levit. 19.23 Hear what the Learned Buxtorfius that great Hebraician and Antiquary in the Jewish writings saith upon the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 First it signifies to hold or account one uncircumcised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Praeputiatum vel obthuratū habuit vel censuit Levit. 19.23 Et ob thurabitis obthurationem ejus juxta Rab. Solomonem i. e. arborem impuram fructus ejus pollutos abominabiles cenfesebitis sicut praeputium seu cutis obthurans membrum virile Interdum significat praeputium absculit quasi Depraeputiare dicas Depraeputiabitis i. e. auferetis praeputium ejus i. e. fructus ceu impuros decutietis ut Chaldaice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. removendo removebitis fructus ejus i. e. abjicietis tanquam immundos Buxtorf or closed up Hence Rabbi Solomon upon Levit. 19.23 Ye shall close up the closing thereof that is ye shall account the tree unclean and the fruits of it polluted and abominable even as the foreskin or skin that closes or stops up the member of a Man Secondly It signifies to take away the foreskin or Uncircumcision of any thing and then it is as much as if he said Ye shall shake down the fruits of it as unclean Or as the Chaldee by removing ye shall remove the fruits thereof that is ye shall cast them away as unclean For the first three years they might not eat any of the Fruits not put them to any profitable Use nor sell them to Infidels and if any did eat but so much as an Olive he was to be beaten by the Law saith Ainsw out of Maimony upon that Scripture It 's plain hence that the Uncircumcision and Circumcision here was in reference to the impurity of the Fruits of the Trees and not to the cutting or gashing of the Tree the Fruits were to be unclean and as uncircumcised unto them It will be time now to gather up your Argument that we may see the Validity of it If Strangers Servants c. all ignorant Children of eight days old yea and Trees also were capable of Circumcision then Circumcision was administred to all Abraham's natural Seed without any profession of Faith Repentance and Regeneration At Ergo. Let reasonable Men judge of the inconsequence of this Proposition having before read what I have Answered to the particulars in it I now come to your sixth proof 6. Circumcision was to be a Sign of Temporal Blessings and Benefits to be enjoyed in the Land of Canaan whereas Baptism was to be a Sign of many Spiritual Benefits viz. Remission of sins Justification Sanctification and Eternal Salvation To which I reply 1. And why was it not a Seal rather than a Sign or at least as well as a Sign to assure them of the Promise of that Land unto them was it not a Seal of God's Covenant to them as hath been shewed before And is not Baptism now the like Doth it not Seal outward Temporal Blessings and Benefits promised though implicitly in the Covenant as well as Circumcision did 2. And was Circumcision a Sign and a Seal only of Canaan unto them You by and by after grant that there are in some things an Analogy betwixt Circumcision and Baptism to wit both of them signifying Heart-Circumcision and an Initiating into the Church p. 223. And why did you not express them also when you said Circumcision was to be a Sign of Temporal Blessings and Benefits to be enjoyed in the Land of Canaan As if it had signified only those Temporal Benefits to them This Seem's not fair dealing but rather an imposing upon your inadvertent Reader And had you fairly granted this sooner it would have spared you a great deal of needless Labour Circumcision then by your own grant signifies Heart-Circumcision and Initiating into the Visible Church even as Baptism also doth which is that we plead for And if it did signifie so then both the Parents and Children-Circumcised had an advantage hereby to seek unto God to Circumcise their hearts who had signified and Sealed it to them in that Holy Ordinance 3. If Circumcision signified Heart-Circumcision to those that were Circumcised then it must also signifie Remission of sins and Justification by the Blood of Christ and Sanctification also and consequently Eternal Salvation following those Benefits which they were in that Order to look after of which Canaan was a Type unto them And then what substantial difference is there between Baptism and Circumcision This were to Seek a knot in a Bulrush as the Proverb is 4. To wave the force of your own grant you tell us though it were a Sign of Initiating into the Church yet it was a different-Church different Subjects and Church-Members upon different Grounds and to different Ends c. To which I return what if it were a different Church in some Circumstances Was it not a Church of God a Church of God's instituting and constituting Did it not consist of the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham and afterwards continued unto his Posterity into which the Christian Gentiles were ingrafted and into which the Jews and Israelites shall be again ingrafted in these latter days of the Gospel see Rom. 11.17 23 24 26 27 31. Were not their Children then Externally and Ecclesiastically in Covenant and Members of the Church as the Children of Inchurched Parents and did then partake of the Initiatory Sign and Seal of the Covenant and shall their Children then be left out when God shall again ingraft their Parents in Weigh the Promises made to these Gospel-times when God shall bring them in Their Children shall be as afore-time and their Congregation shall be established before me Jer. 30.20 with Deut. 29.10 11. to v. 16. They are the Seed of the blessed of the Lord and their off-spring with them Isa 65.23 The Children of thy Servants shall continue and their Seed shall be established before thee Psal 102. last See more Ezek. 37.25 26. The Promise is to you and to your Children Acts 2.39 The Grounds and Ends also that are of God's appointing are for the substance the same as hath been proved though in some Circumstances they may differ God having enlarged his Grace towards poor wretches now in these Gospel-days And that Analogy and proportion which you your self do grant in the main substantial things signified by Circumcision and Baptism together with what I have evidenced out of Coloss 2. do give us sufficient ground to conclude that Baptism is come into the room stead Use of Circumcision notwithstanding all that you have brought to the contrary which I hope doth appear by what hath been replyed to you before And whereas you say by
the same Argument we may as well conclude that it cometh in the Room and stead of the Ark Manna Rock c. It is a grand mistake for Circumcision was one of the two Ordinary Sacraments and Seals of God's Covenant given to Abraham and the Church in his Family about four hundred years before the Ark Manna or that Rock you speak of Gal. 3.17 There were many extraordinary Sacraments that God appointed to that Nonage-people or Heirs under Age to use the Apostles phrase Gal. 4.1 2 3. which God in mercy gave to help their Faith upon special occasions and emergencies besides some that you mention to wit the Brazen-Serpent for one which was but occasional Jo. 3.14 15. But Circumcision was one of the standing Sacraments and Seals annexed to the Covenant under a Church-dispensation all along into the place of which Baptism by the Lord's-appointment is come which holds proportion with it in all the main things it signified and Sealed And hence 5. You will easily have an Answer to those Popish absurdities and abominations you would fasten upon our Tenent We do not affirm meerly from the Analogy that Baptism is come in the room of Circumcision for if we had not something out of Scripture to warrant it we durst not pin it upon a meer Analogy If therefore Papists or other superstitious wits by arguments drawn from Analogies bring-in Jewish Rites as High-Priesthood National Churches Orders of Priesthood and other innumerable Rites and Ceremonies without any Institution of Christ or New-Testament Authority we have as good ground left us in Scripture to convince them as you have and I hope should be as ready to do it as occasion shall be offerred And thus I have done with your sixth Question propounded long before and your Answers to it now come to the seventh Quest 7. Whether the not-Baptizing Infants makes the Priviledges under the Gospel less than the Circumcising them under the Law p. 205. which you somewhat alter p. 228. saying less than under the Law who had then Circumcision Your Answer is not at all and give your reasons why Not-Baptizing of Infants makes not Gospel-priviledges less than legal First they were not say you Circumcised because Children of Believers or sealed with a New-Covenant-Seal as being in the New-Covenant but upon the account of a Birth-Priviledge as of the natural lineage and Seed of Abraham as a Typical Shadowy thing c. I Reply 1. Were not their Parents professing-Believers at least under such a profession as suited that Dispensation Did they not attend upon the Sacrifices which pointed their Faith at Christ to come And were not they as they grew up to come before the Lord and say A Syrian ready to perish was my Father c. See Deut. 26.5 to v. 12. and there they were to worship before the Lord And afterwards v. 27. to avouch the Lord to be their God as he also avouched them to be his People v. 26. Was there no profession of Faith in all this 2. Were they not Sealed with the Seal of the Covenant of Grace under an external and Ecclesiastical Dispensation I suppose you will not say it was the Covenant of Works though when it became National it was given in somewhat a legal manner 3. What was that Birth-priviledge Did it not depend upon the Covenant Ecclesiastically dispensed and submitted to I will be thy God and the God of thy Seed Gen. 17.7 And did it not run in the natural Lineage and Seed of Abraham as they were his Church-Seed as hath been shewn I pray consider what were the Proselytes and their Children who were also Circumcised they were not at all the Natural Seed of Abraham but they were his Visible-Church Seed 4. You say Circumcision was to distinguish them from the Nations and to keep that line clear from whence Christ according to the flesh should come Suppose this last to be true of Abraham's natural Seed what was this to the Proselytes and their Seed from whom Christ was not to come yet they were to be Circumcised 5. You say there is no such thing in the Gospel the Body and Substance being come the shadow was to vanish and pass away no Birth-priviledge but the new Birth c. I Answer 1. There is no such thing as Bodily Circumcision in the Gospel that is indeed abolished But 2. That there is no Birth-priviledge of the Children of Inchurched-Parents under the Gospel but the new-Birth that I must deny and have already proved that there is And that that Birth-priviledge is a means and help tending to the New-Birth if it be rightly improved Christ is the common Father of Inchurched-Parents and their Seed now in these Gospel-days and they are Externally and Ecclesiastically Christ's and Abraham's Seed and in the same sence Heirs of Promise as hath been already proved And this Priviledge is not a Bondage and a returning to the Type and Shadow as you term it but a blessed Fruit of the Covenant made with Abraham who hath a Church-Seed now as well as heretofore What else is the Hypocrite that you admit if he be not one of Abraham's Church-Seed He is not one of Abraham's Seed Spiritually and Savingly nor hath the New-Birth indeed yet you judge him to have it Ecclesiastically and hence you Baptize him So much to your first Secondly neither ought such a thing say you to be any more esteemed the loss of a priviledge than our not enjoying literally a Holy-Land City Temple Succession of a High-Priest c. I Answer 1. The loss of Baptizing the Infants of Inchurched-Parents under the Gospel would be the loss of a great priviledge both to Parents and Children which under the Law they did enjoy For it would be a loss of that which signified and Sealed God to be their God and the God of their Seed and to Circumcise their hearts to love the Lord and to signifie their initiating into the Church by your own concession and this would be the loss of no small Priviledge and therefore we cannot easily bear this loss 2. It is the loss of a Priviledge also in reference to Temporal Blessings and External Ordinances and means of Conversion As Canaan was an External Blessing signified and Sealed to them by Circumcision so Temporal Blessings are to us and our Infants by Baptism Psal 111. For it is a Sign and Seal of God's Covenant wherein Temporal Blessings are also implied and in the Explanation of it by other Scriptures expresly promised So also for External means of Grace 3. It is the loss of a Priviledge also in reference to Heaven and Eternal Happiness there of which Canaan was a Type unto them that if they did truly Believe in the Messiah then to come and walk in the ways of God Eternal Salvation was Sealed unto them thereby All those we must lose and yet esteem the loss of them the loss of no Priviledge 4. There is not the like Reason of the loss of Baptism
could wash my hands as clean that way as you could wash yours by dipping them into the water and I should not count her a Slut that would so wash her hands when they were foul Our experience therefore you see tells us that there is as effectual a way to wash our dirty-hands by pouring water upon them as by dipping them Besides unless you rinse or rub as well as dip you will not easily make clean work of it and if this your similitude hold you must not only dip the person you Baptize but you must rinse or rub him too to signifie his cleansing You take away the cavils of unseemliness from dipping by saying It is the fruit of â—â—â—rnal Wisdom Unbelief and shunning the the Cross and so no other than to reproach the Wisdom of Christ c. I Answer Were it apparent from Scripture that Christ had ordained Dipping and himself so practised it as you affirm I hope through the Grace of Christ many of his people would not count it undecent as now they do And there must be clearer light to convince them that are considerate of it than any you have yet held forth And I much wonder that you who will not admit of Consequences concerning Infants-Baptism which are far more rational and certain should content your self with such uncertain ones as you have brought for dipping I would only recite out of Mr. Cobbet p. 212. what he saith out of Nicephorus lib. 13. cap. 19. of the flying of the Women naked being beset with armed-Men as they were to be Baptized and that sad story of a Priest defiling of a Woman when to be Baptized Then as to the hazard of health you say known experience doth amply refute that vain Imagination You will not be offended I hope if the experience of some others be set against yours It is more than probable that some have presently upon it fallen into a Fever which cost them their lives And I could tell you of some Eye-witnesses credible-persons who saw both the Baptizer and the Baptized in danger of drowning and had very probably been both drowned if one had not leapt in from the bank in his Clothes and relieved them both I would not have mentioned these things had not your words required an answer for it is Truth and Peace that I aim at and not Contention and bitterness To your Chapter V. pag. 253. I Answer Having as I trust given satisfactory Answers to what you have said and in some measure evidenced and confirmed the contrary-truth those several mischiefs absurdities and contradictions cannot justly be charged upon our practice I shall mention them very briefly having spoken to most of them amply before Only I must tell you that the Errours you charge our Doctrine and Practice with do not naturally and perse follow from them but they are accidental to them as far as they are Errours They are the Errours of Persons only not of our Doctrine nor of our Practice according to our Doctrine And therefore you injuriously charge them upon our Doctrine Practice It is fallacia accidentis As for what is Truth in any of them we own and have proved it before but the most of them you falsly charge upon us Let those that own what is Erroneous in their Expressions make them good if they can or rather repent of them Our Assertion of Infant-Interest and Baptism will stand without them 1. Baptizing of the Infants of Inchurched-Parents is not an altering of the Order of Christs Commission as hath been proved but it is acting according to his Commission Disciples we have proved them to be and so by Christ's Commission to be Baptized Repentance and Faith visibly-professed at least should precede in grown-persons not so in Infants but their Baptism and being Externally in the Covenant of Grace is to engage and stir them up to seek to God for Repentance and Faith And this Answer will undermine all the rest of your absurdities mischiefs and contradictions It 's no changing of the subjects that Christ hath appointed Nor a frustrating of the holy and Spiritual Ends of Baptism but a means to attain them if it be rightly-improved Nor doth it invert the Order by sprinkling or pouring water upon the face Nor doth it naturally and of it self introduce any Errour or false Doctrine We do not hold that it is to take away Original Sin Nor that it doth of it self work Grace and Regeneration yet we dare not limit the Lord that he should not work it then or at any other time when he pleaseth And that it was an Apostolical Tradition we own it no otherwise than from their writings and practice recorded in the Scripture If any make it an unwritten Tradition let them please themselves with their own fancy Nor doth it maintain that Children have Faith though it is beyond your reach to say this or that Child hath no Faith secret things belong to God But that they are Disciples of Christ and in Christ's School we have proved though they have not yet learnt one Letter That all the Infants of Inchurched-Believers are Externally in the Covenant of Grace and federally-Holy I have proved and you cannot prove it to be an Errour or false Doctrine Nor doth it defile and pollute the Church either by bringing false matter therein who are no Saints by calling neither capable to perform Duties nor enjoy priviledges Those words Saints by calling if you mean such as have Actually answered the call of Christ in his word at least in the judgment of Charity respect only-Adult-persons who are immediate-Members and not Children who are Mediate Members by means of their Inchurched-Parents as middle persons appointed of God to convey them into that Estate and Relation This distinction will free the Church from pollution of which more hath been said before We do not hold that a Church is gathered or made up only of Infants but of grown persons who alone are able to perform Duties But Infants are capable of enjoying Priviledges Is it not a Priviledge for God to be their God Externally in Covenant To be under a promise of God's Circumcising the heart and to provide them outward means for that End Some of your perswasion have held that they have great priviledges They are then true matter of the Church as visible in their kind and do not pollute and defile it By your Argument the Children of the Jews must be false matter for they were no Saints by calling nor could they perform duties yet they were mediate members of the Church and a part of that holy-people as hath been shewed Nor doth it lay a Foundation of Ignorance and prophaneness but the Contrary as I have abundantly proved Nor is it a confounding World and Church together nor bringing the World into the Church and turning the Church into the World You will see the contrary if you impartially-weigh what I have said before This reasoning of yours is as much against Children
of the Jews heretofore as against ours now Was the World and the Church confounded in the Church in Abraham's Family and afterwards Their Infants were of the Church then You may easily see a way to solve this doubt if you consider that their Infant-Membership gives them not a Title to the Membership and Priviledges of Adult-Members but they must attain to those by a credible profession of Repentance and Faith and laying hold of the Covenant themselves Nor do we hereby introduce and establish any much less many humane Traditions and Inventions of Antichrist nor take God's name in vain but Sanctifie his name in giving to our Children what his Gracious Majesty hath bequeathed to them Nor is it of it self a bone of contention among them that own it or oppose it but by accident only to wit through their ignorance or perversness Nor is it of it self any just occasion of hatred wrath and persecution c. Nor doth it confirm the whole Antichristian Interest as you say you have made good in your Preface Nor doth it maintain that persons may have Regeneration and Grace if you mean spiritual and sanctifying Grace before calling but only External-Covenant-Grace Nor that Adult persons may be visible-Church-Members regularly before Conversion credibly professed Nor that persons may Repent Believe and be Saved by the Faith of another yet that the Children of Inchurched Believers may be Baptized we do hold Nor that those Types and shadows that are in Christ fulfilled and abolished are at all profitable now to be practised though we hold the Doctrine of them of profitable use still But we cannot comply with you that the legal Birth-priviledge as you call it was a Type or Shadow of the Regenerate seed now in Gospel-days and so must cease which I have spoken to before Nor doth it revive Judaism and out Christianity but maintains that Gracious Covenant made with Abraham and his Church-Seed Gen. 17.7 It is that Ancient Covenant of Grace dispensed in a Church-way to Abraham and his Family that is solemnly laid hold of to enter Christians their Seed into the Visible-Church no new humane Invention instead thereof Is it not by this Covenant laid hold of and professed that your Churches consist See Isa 56.3 4 5 6 7 a prophecy of Gospel-times If not they cannot be said to be the Church-Seed of Abraham Nor doth this tend at all to Exclude Believers Baptism that have not been Baptized before but to establish it And there is good reason as hath been shewed to deny those that were only Mediate Members and Baptized in Infancy the right of the Church-Membership of Immediate Members and the Priviledges peculiar to them until by their own credible profession and laying hold of the Covenant themselves they become Immediate Members see Isa 56.4.6 7. Isa 62.5 Isa 44.3 4 5. As for those that hold the Children of Inchurched-Parents to be Members of the same species and kind with them and hold not the distinction of Mediate and Immediate Members I think your Assertion will reflect upon their Principle and Practice for I could never yet see how they could free themselves rationally from the plea of such Children when grown up owned still by them as Members of the same kind with their Parents and having no gross-Crimes to lay against them and yet deny them the Priviledges of Adult-Members I must leave it to them to make it out for I shall not undertake it See Mr. Davenport's second Essay in Answer to the Synod at Boston I have often thought that this and some other like things have been an occasion of stumbling to some of your perswasion who have not been able to see how such should be rationally satisfied and the Church kept free from pollution and therefore they have opposed the Membership and Baptism of Children As to your first contradiction I must crave pardon if I tell you it wants Charity and Candour You may easily see that Dr. Owen speaks of Adult-persons only though perhaps he hath not exprest it And indeed Sir I find you have been often guilty of that fault in your Book I suppose you would count it a piece of dis-ingenuity and want of Charity if one should construe some speeches of yours in that manner As for Instance speaking of Abraham say you All whose posterity were to be marked therewith that is with Circumcision p. 228. and p. 230. You say There were all the Families and Tribes of Israel and all proselyted strangers with their Children without distinction of good or bad to be Circumcised Now if one should charge this upon you that you meant the Woman and Female-Children should be Circumcised for they were part of the Tribes and Families of Israel or that all the posterity of Abraham by Keturah in their Generations were to be marked with Circumcision which also you have denied I doubt you would not think your self well dealt withal Yet thus you have done with many others and I hope you will see it and Repent of it Baptism is a Symbol of present Regeneration in the judgment of Charity to Adult-Persons but of future Regeneration to Infants The Lord thy God will Circumcise the heart of thy Seed Deut. 30.6 To your Second pag. 257. Baptism truly figures Implantation into Christ and consequently Communion with him in the vertue of his Death Burial and Resurrection but the outward manner and Ceremony doth not particularly represent all those things as I have before proved To your third is Answered in the first To your fourth I Answer that the similitude of Marriage of which Baptism may be a Declaration is not to be extended to every thing that belongs to Marriage Similitudo non currit quatuor but to be applied only to that particular that it is brought to illustrate You know I suppose that similitudes do not run upon all four Christ is compared to a Thief if any should extend that similitude beyond what Christ in tended it he would make Thievish-work of it The scope of that place Eph. 5.25 26 27. is not to shew how the soul was married to Christ and what consent was required but to set forth the great love of Christ to his Church in Justifying Sanctifying and Saving them from whence he draws an Argument to press Husbands to love their Wives as is plain there And he being the head of the Church as Visible as well as Invisible his Love to her is great in affording means to those Spiritual and Saving Ends And so Infants will come under it but not Stones and Bells c. But I pray further consider whether according to your arguing any Infant can be Spiritually and Savingly Married to Christ and so be saved He is not capable of giving consent not to restipulate no more than Stones or Bells or Church-Walls I Believe God saves some Infants but not Bells and Stones To the fifth hath been Answered before To your sixth I Answer That Godly Men do not
into Covenant with her Isa 62.5 Isa 56.4 6 7. and engage themselves by the strongest bonds to the Lord and his Church See this plainly Isa 44.3 4 5. One shall say I am the Lords c. I shall readily confess that Infant-Baptism of Inchurched-Parents keeps us upon the old bottom of that Ancient Covenant of Grace made with Abraham and his Church-Seed as well as his spiritual Seed and that is no dishonour nor damage to us But it keeps us not upon the old Romish Antichristian bottom nor doth it make us symbolize with the Church of Rome as it is now Antichristian but with the Church of Rome as it was once Apostolique planted and watered by the Apostles It 's known that Baptizing of Infants was in Use long before the Whore of Rome was in being And if she yet retain an Ordinance of God and we symbolize with her in that as far as it is God's Ordinance the Lord will not blame us for it though Men do ' Hear what Mr. Philpot saith Book of Martyrs Vol. 3. p. 607. Indeed saith he if you look upon the Papistical Synagogue only which hath corrupted God's word by false interpretations and perverted the true Use of Christ's Sacraments you might seem to have good handfast of your opinion against the Baptism of Infants But for as much as it is of more Antiquity and hath its beginning from God's word and from the use of the primitive Church it must not in respect of the abuse in the Popish Church be neglected or thought not expedient to be used in Christ's Church If this Argument be valid why do you use Baptism at all and Dipping Which thing the Papists use I hope it now appears that the mischiefs absurdities and contradictions that you have loaded Paedo-Baptism and Paedo-Baptists with are false mischievous and absurd and contradictory to the Truth and therefore not to be defended and charged upon us by you but to be repented of To your Chapter VI. Pag. 261. Wherein you say The Nullity and utter Insignificancy of Infants-Baptism is made appear in that it wants the Essentials to wit Matter and Form And coming to shew that it hath not a right matter in stead thereof you bring in the Subject and say The right Subject of Baptism is wanting Here I must crave leave to tell you that you miss it in your Logick For Matter is one of the two Essential Causes that gives being to the effect but the Subject is not so but in order of Nature at least it follows the Effect It is Argumentum modo quodam consentaneum and not Absolute consentaneum as Cause and effect are Here then is a Transition a genere ad Genus The matter of Baptism is Water and the External form of it is the due application of it unto the person in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost which I have shewed to be a pouring of water upon the face and not a dipping of the whole person under water raising him up again to figure our Burial Resurrection with Christ as you affirm it doth in the outward Ceremony of it I have spoken largely to that before evidencing it to to be a Sign and Seal of our Implantation into Christ Externally at least and so of our Union and consequently Communion with him in his Death Burial and Resurrection but not that the outward form of Baptism doth expresly and particularly represent those things unto us which is the thing you would have to introduce Dipping Here then we see are the Essentials of Baptism to wit Matter and Form the Subject is no part of the Essence of Baptism that belongs to the third Commandment But Baptism it self to the second The one is a piece of Instituted-Worship the other the Subject to whom it is applied and the Application as to Infants of Inchurched-Parents determined long before and never reversed but confirmed now in Gospel-times which cannot be said of Bells and Churches and such like things as Papists wickedly-Baptize An Infant of Inchurched-Parents is not of the Essence of Baptism it self as neither was heretofore an Infant of the Essence of Circumcision Baptism is one thing and the Infant is another The Infant is but one sort of the Subject of Baptism and is not of the Essence of the Ordinance as neither is a professing-Believer but he is one sort of the Subject Recipient to whom the Ordinance is dispensed The Infant Subject was determined in the Covenant long before and was never cast out and therefore should still enjoy that Priviledge it being the same Gracious Covenant for the substance that God made with Abraham and the Church in his Family that is come upon us Gentiles Gal. 3.13 and not another which being continued and extended to In-Churched-Parents and their Children in Gospel-days there needed not an Express Command for their Infants that they should be Baptized And this kind of Arguing is not from one Covenant to another as some would have it but from one and the same Covenant and the Initiatory Seal of it to another Initiatory Seal of it which by God's appointment is come into the place of the former long since abolished As for what you say pag. 263. There is no Covenant where there is no consent and therefore there can be no Covenant with Infants for they cannot give consent It is very untrue For 1. It is contrary to Scripture Deut. 29.10 11 12. How did the Infants of the Jews consent And yet God made his Covenant with them for they are expresly mentioned and were some of that Body of People that entred into a Covenant with God that day Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God Your Captains with all the Men of Israel your little ones that thou to wit Collective Israel of which the little ones were a part shouldst enter into a Covenant with the Lord thy God and into his Oath which he maketh with thee this day Here we have God making his Covenant not only with them but with their little ones expresly who were not capable of giving their consent but their Parents in whose Power they were did restipulate for them How contrary is your assertion unto this 2. It is also contrary to reason and common experience Do not Fathers often Covenant for their Children in Leases and Deeds of Land and also bind them to several Cnoditions and others Covenant to them and their Children Do they not often settle an Estate upon a Child that knows nothing of it and engage their Child to such and such Tearms though he be not capable of giving his consent yea sometimes a Child in the womb If therefore God that gave me my Child and also a Fatherly-power over him condescend to enter into a Covenant of Grace with me and with my Child Externally at least promising to be my God and the God of my Child Have I not power to enter my self and my Child into
Covenant with him though my Child know nothing of it nor is at present capable of giving his consent And should not I and my Child also when he comes to Age acknowledge the rich Grace of God therein Surely there 's all reason for it And if the Lord be also pleased to Seal this Covenant to me and to my Child though at present he is not capable of giving his consent Is it therefore a nullity a meer nothing Is he not bound to make use of it when he is grown up and to seek unto this Covenant-God for Regenerating Grace What other Men of larger Principles hold will not concern those that consent not with them It is therefore a little unbrotherlike to beat us with their Cudgels Whom you account a right Minister I know not but I have often thought that every Brother whom those of your perswasion call forth to dispense that Ordinance is not a right Minister and therefore to return the words of Chamier upon you in the sence he meant them It is not a Sacrament but a rash mockery or deceiving by no means to be endured in the Church and so that speech will fall with more equity upon you than upon us about the Baptizing of Infants Yet some Godly and judicious do judge a little more charitably that when it is done in the way of an Ordinance it is not a meer Nullity though it hath been defective in some things Circumstantial fieri non debuit factum valet Thus I suppose I have Answered to the main of your Arguments though I have not traced you in all places in the Order that they lie in your Book Also some of your humane Testimonies I have examined and find them faulty As to the rest not having the Authors by me nor time to examine them I shall leave that task to another hand that hath diligently Examined and scanned them and as he told me finds them not a little abused from whom I suppose you you will shortly hear If those debates be blessed to discover the truth to your self or any other and add any thing to the making up of the breach that the Lord may be one and his Name one amongst us in these points wherein we yet differ I shall have what I aimed at and the God of Truth and Peace shall have all the Glory Amen FINIS POSTSCRIPT HAving had an opportunity to make further Inspection into Dr. Homes his Vindication I find that he hath Answered to the very same Testimonies you produce long since produced by Mr. Tombes whose large Piece it seems to me you have epitomized But take not the least notice that I can perceive of the overthrow the Doctor hath given to those abused-humane Authorities but bring them in as new things of your own as if nothing had ever been replied to them You needed not have spent so much Paper had you but read what hath been replied by him and many others to your Arguments which you pass over in silence as if nothing had been said against them My prayer to God is and shall be that God would deliver his people from being deluded by dark and covert dealing which tends to the obscuring of the Truth and to a specious promoting of errour It is matter of grief to see many honest and simple-hearted Christians suck up your mistakes as infallible undoubted and unanswerable Truths The God of Truth make the Truth to appear with such evidence as that they that are misled may embrace and receive it in the love of it and may be reduced into the way of Truth and established therein Books sold by R. Chiswel at the Rose and Crown in Paul's Church-yard 1674. FOLIO's CRitica Sacra in Biblia 10 Vol. 16 l. Buxtorfii Concordant Heb. 1 l. 10 s. Cotgrave's French and English Dictionary corrected and enlarged 1673. 1 l. 4 s. Twiss de Scientia Media 12 s. Scapulae Lexicon Graco-Latinum 1 l. 10 s. Dr. Heylin's Cosmography 1 l. 4 s. The Life of Archbishop Laud by Dr. Heylin 10 s. Schroder's compleat Chymical Dispensatory English 10 s. Lord Cooks four Institutes of the Laws of England viz. 1. His Comment on Littleton 1 l. 2. His Comment on Magna Charta largest paper 16 s. 3. Pleas of the Crown 6 s. 4. Jurisdiction of Courts 8 s. Blunt's Law-Dictionary 9 s. Mr. Farindon's Sermons compleat 1672 in 3 Volumns Lord Bacon's Natural History 8 s. The Works of Dr. Thomas Jackson in 3 Volumns with many Additions and a large Table 1672. 3 l. 10 s. Cambridge Concordance second Edition 1672 16 s. House of Mourning a collection of Funeral Sermons 16 s. Mr. Joseph Mede's Works 1 l. 10 s. Dr. Jeremy Taylor 's Sermons 1 l. The Jesuits Morals 10 s. Bartholinus's Anatomy English with Figures 12 s. Dr. Allestree's Sermons 8 s. Chillingworth against the Papists 12 s. Lord Bacons Advancement of Learning 10 s. Isaac Ambroses Works 1 l. 6 s. QVARTO's GValt Charletoni Onomasticon Zoicon Mantissa Anatomica 6 s. Duport Versio Psalmorum Graec. 4 s. Prideaux Fasciculus Controversiarum 3 s. 6 d. Duport Gnomologicon Homericum 6 s. Davissoni Comment in Sever. Dani Ideam Med. Philos Dr. Manwaring his Method of Cure 6 d. Caryl on Job compleat twelve parts 4 l. Description and History of the future state of Europe 1 s. The Jesuits Intrigues 1 s. Burroughs Jewel of Contentment 2 s. 6 s. The Works of John Gregory of Christs-Church 6 d. Dr. Tho. Pierce's Sermons 6 s. Sinner impleaded in his own Court 6 s. Correct Copy of some Notes conc God's Decrees 1 s. Fowler 's Defence of the Design of Christianity against John Bunyan 1 s. Goldmans Dictionary with large Additions 1674. 18 s. Dr. Taylor 's Disswasive from Popery first part 2 s. Lyfords Discovery of Errors Heresies of the Times 4 s. Dr. Sherlock's Visitation-Sermon at Warington 1659. 6 d. Dr. West's Assize-Sermon at Dorchester 1671 6 d. Mr. Dobson's Sermon at Lady Farmors Funeral 1670. 8 d. Directions for Improvement of Barren Land 6 d. Culverwel's Discourse of the Light of Nature 3 s. 6 d. Dr. Meric Causabons Letter to Dr. Du Moulin about Experimental Philosophy 6 d. Dr. T. Jacomb's Sermons on Rom. 8. 1672. 9 s. Lord Hollis's Relation of the Unjust Accusation of certain French Gentlemen charg'd with a Robbery 1671. 6 d. OCTAVO's GValt Needham de formato Faetu 3 s. 6 d. Gregorii Etymologicon Parvum Hottingeri Cippi Hebraici Pasoris Lexicon Grae. Novi Testimenti 5. s. Grammatica Grae. Novi Testaments 4 s. Syntaxis Erasmiana constrictior 2 d. Ross Gnomologicon Poeticum 4 d. Commenii Vestibuli Linguarum AuctuariuÌ„ Lat. Eng. 4 d. Dionysius de situ Orbis Graece Vossii Elementa Rhetorica 4 d Duport Versio Psalmorum Gr. Lat. Id. Grae. Markam's Perfect Horseman enlarg'd by Thetford 1s 6d Gâ—uge's Word to Saints and Sinners with his Prayers and Catechism 2 s. Dr. Simpsons Chymical Anatomy of the Yorkshire Spaws With a Discourse of the Original of Hot-Springs and other Fountains and a Vindication of Chymical Physick 3 s. His Hydrological Essays with an Account of the Allom-Works at Whitby and some Observations about the Jaundice 1 s. 6 d. Dr. Cox his Discourse of the Interest of the Patient in reference to Physick and Physitians and Detection of the Abuses practised by the Apothecaries 1 s. 6 d. Organon Salutis Or an Instrument to cleanse the Stomach With divers New Experiments of the Virtues of Tobacco Coffee with a Preface of Sir H. Blunt 2 s. Doctor Cave's Primitive Christianity in 3 parts 6 s. Dr. Bryan's Interest and Duty of Believers 2 s. 6 d. A Discourse of the Nature Ends and Difference of the Two Covenants 1672. 2 s. Vavasar Powel's Concordance to the Bible 4 s. 6 d. Dr. Mainwairing's Compleat Physician 2 s. Assemblies Confession of Faith Catechisms Lat. 2 s. The shorter Chatechism Grae. Lat. by Harmar 1 s. Sir Thomas Overbury's Characters 2 s. Leyborne's Carpenters Rule 2 s. Langley's Rhetorick 2 d. Lo. Hollis Judicature of the House of Peers asserted 10 s. Ign. Fuller's Sermons of Peace and Holiness 1672. 1 s. 6 d. Lipsius's Discourse of Constancy 2 s. 6 d. Roll's Sober Answer to the Frieudly Debate 3 s. 6 d. Hodges Apology for the Nonconformists 1 s. 6 d. Davenports Power of Congregational-Churches 1 s. Hardcastle's Christian Geography Arithmetick 1 s. 6 d. Mathers Sermons of Conversion 1674. 1 s. 6 d. Mr. Blinmans Answer to H. D'anvers of Baptism 1674. 1 s. 6 d. Willis Anglicisms latiniz'd 3 s. 6 d. Walkers English and Latin Proverbs 9 d. Mystery of Jesuitism 3d. 4th Part. 3 s. 6 d. Buckler of State and Justice against France's Design of Universal Monarchy 1673. 2 s. 6 d. A Free Conference touching the Present-state of England at home and abroad in order to the Designs of France 1673. 1 s. Lord Berkly's Historical Applications 1 s. 6 d. Dr. Samways Unreasonableness of the Romanists 1 s. 6 d. Record of Urines 1 s. DVODECIMO's REusneri Symbola 2 s. 6 d. Burgesdicii Ethica 1 s. 6 d. Pemble de Origine formarum 1 s. Johnstoni Thaumatographia Molinaei Characteres Ethici 1 s. 6 d. Oweni Epigrammata 1 s. Vav Powel's Concordance to the Bible 2 s. Dyer's Works 2 s. Meriton's Duty of Constables 1 s. 6 d. Drexelius of Eternity 2 s. New help to Discourse 1 s. 6 d. Abbot's Young-Mans Warning-piece 8 pence Dr. Taylor 's Discourse of Friendship 1 s. Wits Commonwealth 1 s. 6 d. Dr. Hacket's Christian Consolations 1 s. 6 d. New-England Psalms 1 s. 6 d. 16 24. LVc Florus Lat. 1 s. Pharmacopaea Londinensis 2 s. Quintus Curtius Lat. 1 s. 6 d. Suetonius Lat. 1 s. 6 d. Plauti Comediae 2 s. 6 d. Bicaissii manuale Medicorum 1 s. 6 d. Clerks Companion 1 s. Crums of Comfort 1 s. Valentine's Devotions 1 s. Warwicks Spare Minutes 6 d. Grimstons Christian New-years-Gift 6 d. Childs-Book and Youths-Book 6 d.