Baptism printed in the year 1646. will have Circumcision to be a type of Baptism which cannot be For 1. Types must have something in their outward face to represent another thing more eminent and real Now Circumcision hath nothing in the outside to set forth Baptism 2. It is not so handsom to make one outward sign the antitype of another 4. Circumcision was as holy an Ordinance as Baptism in the New Testament for they are both in themselves outward acts and no holiness more in one then in another but as they have from institution only Baptism is more easy to the flesh then Circumcision and yet not more easy if that way of dipping should be the only way of baptizing especially at some seasons and to some bodies 5. The N. T. gives as large and honourable characters of Circumcision as it doth of Baptism thus the Apostle cals it in Rom. 4. The seal of the righteousness of faith A character so resplendent and glorious that the Gospel can give no higher to an Ordinance And as much as he saith of Baptism in effect 1 Pet. 3.21 that Baptism saves through the answer of a good conscience the contrary Opinionists are put to hard shifts to avoyd the strength of this place and therefore some would evade it thus saying That the Apostle doth not call it a seal of the Covenant or Promise but of the righteousness of faith Sol. A miserable evasion as if the righteousness of faith were not included in the Covenant or there were any righteousness of faith but what comes by the Covenant and so would make a separation between the promise of righteousness and the righteousness promised Others would cloath the Text with this disguise That it sealed it only to Abraham whereas it was so to Isaac and Jacob and David and all that were in the Covenant This is held forth most clearly in that verse 1. That Circumcision was a seal of the pure Covenant of grace in which righteousness was promised to Abraham and his seed indefinitely 2. That this seal was applied to all the seed that were but externally and visibly in Covenant to Infants and the same sign that Abraham received upon profession of his faith his Child received and therefore he is said to be the Father of Circumcision as of Faith ver 12. 3. Doctor Willet from this place holds forth the sameness of the substance of the Sacraments of the Old and New Testament both which do seal the righteousness of faith and lays it as a great errour on the Romanists who affirm That the Old Testament Sacraments did not exhibite the graces of the New 4. This cannot be denied from the place without men will wilfully put out their own eyes that Circumcision had as glorious a use as Baptism viz. to seal the righteousness of faith which must be as well to others that had the true efficacy of the Covenant as to Abraham himself and no higher mercy can any Ordinance of the New Testament seal to any There were many other circumstantial and accidentall uses of circumcision according to the Jewish state as we will grant Mr. Tombes as 1. To engage to the performance of the whole Law Gal. 5.2 3. Acts 15.10 2. To be a partition-wall between Jew and Gentile Eph. 2.14 But when the Apostle would give circumcision his true character and shew what the primarie and substantiall use of it was he calls it a seal of the righteousness of faith 6. Circumcision and baptism signifie one and the same thing and so agree in being signs of the same grace compare Coloss 2.11 12 13. with Rom. 6.3 4. and 6. v. circumcision signifies the putting off the bodie of the sins of the flesh baptism is into Christs death and to testifie the crucifying the old man with him that the bodie of death might be destroyed as by the comparing these two places it is most clear and 3 v. and 6 ver of Rom. 6. chap. onely baptism hath this larger consideration in it as that it takes in Christs resurrection with it and also the quickning of the soul together with him which was not so fully signified in circumcision but implied according as the Apostle argues in the same place Rom. 6.5 v. for if we have been planted in the likeness of his death we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection the one being a consequence of the other and as circumcision did cut off the foreskin in token of the destruction of sin so baptism by washing signifies the taking away the pollution of sin thus God when he would promise to kill sin and work all grace he expresseth it by circumcision I will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed Deut. 30.6 And the Apostle Phil. 3.4 saith We are of the circumcision that is we have the true work of grace in us The reason why I urge these considerations is to hold for the capacitie of Infants as well for Baptism as Circumcision there is no reason why they should be thought more unfit and incapable for the one then for the other For First if Circumcision were a seal of the righteousness of Faith and yet applied to Infants and Baptism can seal no higher mercie why should it be thought such a strange and unmeet thing to baptize them more then to circumcise them they usually say you put a seal to a blank in baptizing Infants the same might be said as to Circumcision yet they were circumcised as well as Abraham that profest his own Faith I must acknowledge I never could yet understand why Infants should be thought fit to have that seal applied to them in the Old Testament which the New calls a seal of the righteousness of Faith and yet be denied it in the New Testament as incapacious when Baptism can seal no more I wish it were seriously considered Especially Secondly when Baptism shall signifie the same thing in substance be both signs of the same grace the one cutting away sin as with a knife the other washing it away with water and yet Infants capable and most fit to have the administration of the one ordinance not of the other if these of the dissenting judgment did with more sobriety weigh such considerations as these they would not with so much foolish contempt write and speak of Infants Baptism A knife may be applied to an Infant as to Abraham though old and in the heighth of his Faith and seal the righteousness of it but water must onely be poured on actual believers and grown persons such as Abraham but not on Infants though it hath no more to seal as if there were some strange excellencie and virtue in the nature of water that it were too precious to wash the Infants of believers For if there be no more virtue in the water that baptizeth then in the knife that circumcised you see there is no more glorious use of the one then the other And what end God should have to
A CHRISTIAN SOBER PLAIN EXERCITATION ON The two grand practicall Controversies of these Times INFANT-BAPTISM AND SINGING OF PSALMS Wherein all the Scriptures on both sides are recited opened and argued with brevity and tenderness and whatever hath been largely discussed by others briefly contracted in a special method for the edification of the SAINTS By Cuthbert Sidenham Teacher to a Church of Christ in Newcastle upon Tine LONDON Printed for Robert White and are to be sold by Francis Tyton at the three Daggers in Fleet-street near the Inner-Temple-gate 1653. Are to be sold by VVilliam London in Newcastle 1653. To his dear and honoured Brother Mr. William Durant my faithful Fellow-labourer in the Gospel And the Church of Christ over whom the Holy Ghost hath made us Joynt-overseers Dearly Beloved I Present you these first-fruits of my poor labours as a pledge of my love and testimony of my unfeigned desires and longings after your settlement and comfort together I am indeared to you in the bowels of Christ and for his sake ow my self unto you My highest ambition in this world is to see you stablished in truth and flourishing in the glorious graces of the Gospel I have treated on these two subjects because I know they are the tempting errours of these Times and have the fairest glosses set on them and have too much influence to disturb the Peace and Order of Churches The first especially which eats out mens affections and creeps at the heart like a gangrene insensibly an opinion which hath been always ominous and of a wonderful strange influence accompanied with the most dangerous retinue of errours since the first Embrio of it was brought forth whether by a judgement of God or from its natural and secret connexion with other principles of darkness I will not determine only God hath shewed some black characters on it in every Nation where it hath prevailed though we cannot but say many Saints are innocently under the power of it For the second I hope when mens hearts come in Tune their voyces will likewise The former denies more Fundamental Principles as the Covenant in its extent and subjects the freeness of Grace the riches of its workings in the New Testament and contracts the Gospel leaving more Grace visible in the Legal and Old Testament dispensation then in the New I have only summed up what others express more at large with something new and never yet touched that I know of And as to the method all is new and made fit for your use if Christ set it home on you I have nothing else to add but to tell you you have been yet kept pure in the midst of many Distractions and the violence of desperate Opinions Take heed of plausible errours that come painted to you with the name of the most glorious truths Lose not your glory at last try and weigh every tittle that is propounded It 's my desire you may have the glorious Title given to you the Bereans had to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men of better breeding then to take up any thing on trust though from the Apostles themselves untill you know how they were inspired Compare Scripture with Scripture do not distract your selves in the Gospel lay truths together they will shine in their proper glory Part not so easily with antient enta l d priviledges Have so much pity to your Children as not to blot their names out of Heaven by your own hands until God do it by soveraignty do not bury them alive Those that know the riches of such a priviledge will not easily part with it upon such poor terms as most propose I plead for poor Infants and it 's but charity to speak for those whose tongues are tied I intend brevity in this as in all the following Discourse The Lord fill you with wisdom and understanding and give you to know what his perfect will is and hearts to obey it And thrive like Saints of the New Testament that lie at Christs breasts night and day These are the desires of Your unworthy Teacher Cuthbert Sidenham CHAP. I. Severall Considerations premised as an entrance to the Discourse BEFORE I enter on the main questions handled in this Discourse it will not be unnecessary to premise something in general concerning this Controversy which is such a bone of contention among the Saints for to make our way clear before us And 1. Let this be considered that there is nothing in all the N. T. against the baptizing of Infants not one hint from any express word dropt from Christ or his Apostles not one phrase which though never so much strain'd doth forbid such an act but there is much for it in divers Scriptures compared together and what is wanting in the one is supplyed in another abundantly as hereafter will appear 2. The sum of all that our Opposites have to say though they make a great deal of noise in the World is only this that they can find no syllabical precept or word of command in terms saying Go baptize Infants or any positive example where it is said in so many words Infants were baptized only actual believers as they believed were baptized all that they say besides is only to quarrel with our arguments and make shift to evade the strength of them but this is their only argument and their all for however they talk of the Covenant and fleshly and spiritual seed yet this is the Goliahs sword none like to it I would therfore fairly encounter with it in the Portall that I may see all their strength before me Concerning which take in these considerations First this argument is built on this false principle That no direct consequences from Scripture are mandatory and so obliging nor of Divine Authority which all Orthodox Professors and Divines grant but these which are against Infants baptism and it is most clear for 1. The way to know Scriptures is by comparing them together 1 Cor. 2.13 and this must needs be by their Harmonie and by deduction from one to another 2. Without True consequence were as Scripture no one could speak truth but these that speak just the very expressions of Scripture 3. There could be no spiritual reasons nor arguments used in any Discourse to be of any force or consequence though from the Scripture for there can be no arguing from Scripture but by consequences and deduction for in all arguments there must be a medium and a conclusion a proposition and an inference 4. Nothing upon this account can be Scripture but the very letters and syllables in the Bible nothing of the meaning or sense is Scripture for you must draw out the sense and meaning from the letters by rational consequence as the conclusion from a proposition by a fit medium and how absurd would this prove that letters should be Scripture and not the sense and so it must be according to that Maxim of theirs 5. This is against all preaching and expounding
old therefore old persons are to be circumcised and none else as because grown persons were baptized therefore not Infants when they must be first baptized themselves for Children are baptized by the promise first to them and in them to their seed 2. An affirmative position is not exclusive of subordinates because believers were said to be baptized Ergo not their seed is not true reasoning for their seed were comprehended with them in the same promise 3. A non dicto ad non factum non valet consequentia as Divines say because it 's not exprest in so many words therefore it was not done is no argument especially when there is enough to shew it was done though not written Christ speaks short that we may search he expects N. T. Saints to be so ingenuous as to take more by a hint then those of the Old who were not so bred as we now they had every pin of the Tabernacle appointed it 's not so punctually set down now either as to Churches or Government but only the main Substantials laid down and it 's left to the ingenuity of the Saints to draw forth the consequences Lastly to premise no more God hath alwaies ordained some Ordinances in the administration of which for the most part the subject hath been purely passive to express his own free grace most eminently as Circumcision on Infants And can we think he hath left no Ordinance now as a visible character only to hold forth his meer grace in the N. T. where he reigns by grace And there is no sign so fit to express it as Baptism and no subject so capable as poor Infants CHAP. II. About the nature of the Covenant made with Abraham THE first great thing in this Controversy is to consider the nature of the Covenant which is the first foundation of the priviledge to believers and their seed as it was first made with Abraham and his seed in the name of all believers and their seed both Jews and Gentiles for so large is the extent of that Covenant to both as hereafter shall be proved from New Testament expressions and if we find the same Covenant reaching Gentile-believers and their Children as Abraham and his we cannot be denied the new external sign and seal of the same Covenant for though the outward signs may be changed yet there is no change of the priviledges if the Covenant remain entire For the opening of which we shall consider 1. The nature of Abrahams Covenant 2. How persons may be said to be in that Covenant For the first we must begin with that place Gen. 17. where God began not only to express the Covenant in larger terms then formerly but to adde a visible seal to it viz. that of Circumcision There be many conjectures about this Covenant those that differ conceive it to be a mixt Covenant made up of spiritual and temporal blessings together and not of the same purity with the Covenant in the New Testament and so make a carnal part and a spiritual part of it and Circumcision to be annexed especially to the former not so to the latter this is the true relation of their judgement about this Let us review the Covenant and its terms and we shall soon find the mistake First and chiefly We affirm this was a Covenant of pure grace the same in substance with the Covenant administred now under the Gospel since Christs coming in the flesh and spirit 1. It was founded upon pure grace Gods love to Abraham and 't is not any thing in Abraham or his to move God more then to the Gentiles 2. It was a Covenant without works therefore of pure grace Rom. 4.1 2 3 4 5. and all along the Chapter 3. It was a Covenant made only with a believer upon Gospel terms the same the New Testament holds forth in the 3 4 and 5 v. of that Chapter now faith is the only condition of the Covenant of grace 4. It was a Covenant made in Christ and therefore a pure Covenant of grace as any can be in the Gospel Gal. 3.16 17 18 and 29. 5. Consider the tenure of this Covenant Gen. 17.7 I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations to be a God to thee and thy seed after thee Here is the substance and strength of this Covenant to be a God to Abraham and to his seed and what can be more then to be Jehovah to him can there be any expression more high or that can set forth more grace in purity then this It 's more then can be exprest that God ingageth his Deity to him and it is as much as if God had said whatever I am in mine own Godhead I will be to thee and thy seed to make you happy and blessed this is the first and main thing premised and it comprehends Christ grace glory all blessings above imagination the Apostle in Heb. 8.10 useth the same expression as the sum of all when he speaks of the new Covenant I will be to them a God and they shall be to me a people We need adde no more if that were not a Covenant of pure grace the Gospel knows none other That which they have to say why it 's a mixt Covenant and a temporall as some of the most ignorant affirm is from the following expression of Gen. 17.8 And I will give unto thee and to thy seed after thee the Land wherein thou art a stranger all the Land of Canaan for an everlasting possession c. Now say they if the promises be mixt so is the Covenant To which I answer that the Land of Canaan and such like promises were but additional and added ex superabundanti to the first promise not at all incorporated to the bulk and body of the Covenant which was made in Christ and consisted of more pure considerations these promises were but fitted to the outward administration of the first promise of grace and the state of Abrahams family but there was no mixture For 1. The Covenant with Abraham is repeated in the New Testament entire without any of those additions as is proved formerly 2. The promise of Canaan was typical of Heaven and so did but more open the first promise to be their God shewing them that God would bring him and his to Heaven and the fulness of his glory as he would bring them to an outward Canaan and this was suited to Gods design in administring that vast promise by types and outward figures so Abraham closed in with it by faith as a promise expounding figuratively the substance of the Covenant Heb. 11.8 9 10. so 13 14 15 16. So that the first promise was positive and shewed the nature of the Covenant the other was typically expository Canaan setting out Heaven and the eternity of their rest with this God in Covenant and this will no more make a mixt Covenant then the type and the substance when they meet
together will differ in signification 3. We may as well say these promises in the New Testament make up a mixt Covenant and so of a different nature when God saith in Mat. 6.33 Seek first the Kingdome of God and all things else shall be added and 1 Tim. 4.8 Godliness hath the promise of this life and that which is to come which are as much mixt as ever the Covenant made with Abraham was whereas all know these are but accidental appendixes of the promise of grace and dispensed according to the use he hath for and the conditions of his Saints thus Canaan was added to the Covenant as all other things to the Kingdome of God 4. If this be a mixt Covenant because Canaan is added and the like then how comes it to be the same in the N. T. and to be of force now when no notice is taken of Canaan and the temporal promises Sure in this mixture the promise of free grace was primary and like oyl at top for Abrahams Covenant the very same for substance is clear and without mixture in the Gospel though it is administred externally as it was then and the blessings of Abraham come on the Gentiles though not of an external Canaan If they say that Canaan was added only for the dispensation of the Covenant to the Jews it 's granted but that it should make a mixture in the Covenant is most false which is the same for ever though the outward administration be different things may be added yet not mixt as a mans cloaths to his body and yet there is no mixture between a mans flesh and his cloaths But let us come to Circumcision the seal of this Covenant it sealed it say they as a mixt Covenant Then 1. It sealed the one part as well as the other take it in their own sense that is it sealed God to be their God as Canaan and so it was not a seal meerly to a temporal promise 2. If the Covenant was so mixt in the nature of it then Circumcision sealed unequally though it was added to a mixt Covenant for it sealed the promise of Canaan to those that never went into Canaan as many that died before that time and afterwards many that were circumcised died in the Wilderness and under Gods wrath and so sealed nothing at all neither part of the Covenant visibly and that is hard that to so many there should be neither the fulfilling of spiritual nor temporal part of the promise 3. Grant them this Covenant was mixt then it was either in the substance or circumstances if in the substance then Abrahams Covenant was not Gospel and believers must seek for another Father as to the example of faith and that were to make it rather like Nebuchadnezzars Image of Iron and Clay then made up of Gospel materials If in circumstances of administration and additaments of external types it 's granted and we have the same promise now with new outward administrations if this mixture were in the nature and substance of the Covenant then it must remain as long as the Covenant lasted and so unto this day for no man is so bold though many are bold enough as to say that Abrahams Covenant is abrogated if it be under any other consideration it 's easily waved and the truth the same So that Circumcision sealed the Covenant primarily in its nature as a Covenant of grace and God being a God to circumcise their hearts c. and Canaan and other things consequently and accidentally as God made a promise of them for the better visible administration of the Covenant to them in that external polity And surely it 's beyond an ordinary reach to believe that God should make a Covenant with Abraham and for his faith in it should create him the Father of the faithful in all ages and this Covenant should be brought in the N. T. and renewed and the tenure of it freshly held forth to believers there and yet at the first making of it God should mix temporal promises with the spiritual substance of it and annex a seal that should only or specially seal the temporal part of it and so poorly confirm the main and essential nature of it especially when God speaking of Abrahams faith stiles Circumcision the seal of the righteousness of it Rom. 4. But of this more in another Chapter CHAP. III. The distinction of Abrahams seed into fleshly and spiritual into natural and believing considered whether the Infants of believers may not be called in the New Testament the seed of Abraham THE next thing which must have its place of consideration is that question of Abrahams seed with whom the promise was made and upon this hinge hangs all the main weight on both sides and if we make out Infants of believers in the N. T. to be in Covenant as Abrahams seed the controversy would be at end To make out this the most of the following Chapters are designed only in this we shall fall more directly on the question it self Those that differ from us make many distinctions of a fleshly carnal seed of Abraham and of a spiritual seed a believing and a natural seed which distinctions are taken out of Rom. 9.7 8. Gal. 4.23 and Chap. 3.16 and most true if well applyed but before I come to open the Scriptures I would premise these considerations concerning Abraham and his seed 1. That Abrahams spiritual seed were as much his fleshly seed also Isaac as Ishmael except Proselytes and Servants 2. The Covenant was administred to all Abrahams natural and fleshly Children as if they had been spirituall and before they knew what faith was or could actually profess Abrahams faith 3. It 's no contradiction in d fferent respects to be a seed of the flesh by natural generation and a Child under the same promise made with the Parent for they both agreed in Abrahams case none was a Child of promise but as he came of Abrahams flesh and as he came from Abrahams flesh so every one had the seal of Gods Covenant on his flesh Thus a spiritual promise was made with Abraham and his carnal seed 4. There was no distinction of Abrahams fleshly seed and his spiritual seed in the O. T. but all comprehended under the same Covenant until they degenerated from Abrahams faith and proved themselves to be meer carnal and rejected the promise 5. There is a carnal and spiritual seed of Abraham even under the N. T. as our Opposites must acknowledge as well as Infants so are the most visible Professors which they baptize which may have no grace and many prove carnal indeed through the predominancy of their lusts and corruptions 6. When there is mention of Abrahams carnal seed in opposition to spiritual seed it cannot be meant primarily or solely of those that descended from Abrahams flesh for then Isaac and Jacob were the carnall seed yea Christ himself who as concerning the flesh came of Abraham it must be therefore
seed and spiritual under the Gospel you cannot apply it to Infants but to professing believers for the Children of believers are not the fleshly seed of Abraham but if there be any such distinction it must be between visible grown Professors of whom some are spiritual and Christ's and others carnal and born under Mount Sinai and not Christ's 4. It 's a true rule in Logick that in every good division Partes debent inter se opponi The Parts ought to be opposite Now to be born from Abraham both as a natural and spiritual Father was both common through the promise in the Old Testament and not universally opposite and so it may be now an Infant is born of the flesh of a believer yet the Covenant makes the believer a spiritual Father in some respects as well as a natural 5. The seed takes its denomination from the Covenant and its tenure and if the Covenant be made to Abraham and his seed and these were at first Infants of his body and renewed with believers in the N. T. as we shall prove in the following Discourse then Infants of believers are the seed now as well as formerly Abraham only being the first root and Father 6. Visibility of profession doth no more make a man of the spiritual seed and so Christ's now under the New Testament then the Covenant in its outward administration in the Old made all the Jews and their Children really new Creatures and a spiritual seed for under the one and the other persons may be carnal All these considerations are to shew that these places of Scripture are mistaken and doe not shew who is the seed as to Ordinances but who are the seed as to election and salvation and that Infants may be as well the seed notwithstanding all these places as well as visible Professors Q. If any say But we have no warrant to judge of any but by visible profession Sol. 1. Let us judge as God would have us and we shall find as much ground to pass such a judgement on Infants as them if God call them holy we may do so and it will be dangerous then to call them unclean 2. The promise is the surer way of judging seeing at best we can but judge externally and with hopes and it 's better to rely on God and to expect what he will do through his promise at least on some then to trust my own judgement 3. The Word owns Infants of believers visibly as we own visible Professors as the Scriptures following will demonstrate For the present seriously view all these places together Gen. 17.7 Acts 2.38 39. Deut. 30.6.11 12 13 14. Rom. 10.1 6 7 8. with Heb. 8.10 11. Jer. 31.22 Esay 65.23 with many such places that hold forth the seed to Infants as well in the New Testament as in the Old I end this Chapter with this consideration that if you exclude Infants of believers to be Abrahams seed upon this ground because they are not the spiritual seed then dash out the name as well of grown Professors to be Abrahams seed who are no more so really because of that then these Infants and we shall quit the one with the other and then there shall be found no visible subjects of Baptism either of Infants or grown persons for they are both as to election and inward grace unknown to us to be Abrahams seed they were both formerly accounted Abrahams seed grown persons and Infants especially by the Covenant and now the one is to be accounted Abrahams seed viz. grown persons professing though they may have no right to the inward grace of the Covenant and Infants who had first right next to Abraham must be excluded though they have never so real an interest because they are Infants and cannot speak for themselves But so much of this the next Chapter will second this CHAP. IV. How any person may be said to be in the Covenant the divers considerations about it TO the former let this be added because it seems strange how any can be in Covenant and yet not partake of salvation In opening of this the common distinctions of all Divines must be repeated that according as there is an internal and external administration of the Covenant so there is a two-fold being in the Covenant 1. Secundum propositum electionis According to the purpose of election in Gods heart and his eternal decree so only the elect and these which have saving faith are in Covenant this some call and not improperly to be intentionally in Covenant God principally intending the Covenant to them others call it spiritually and savingly from the effect 2. There is a being in Covenant In facie visibilis Ecclesiae In the face or according to the judgement of a visible Church where judgement and charity are mixt together Rom. 9.4 Deut. 29.10 12 13 14. Iohn 15.2 Iohn 1.11 Psal 50.5 with variety of Scripture And of such there are two sorts 1. Such as stand by their own visible profession as all first Covenanters doe so all visible Saints now and so many Proselytes in the Old Testament Exod. 12.44 45. Deut. 29.10 11. Gen. 12.5 Or else 2. As in a Political Moral consideration as in the right of another through a free promise as if a Prince give a title of honour or a piece of land to one and his heirs they are all interested it yet some prove fools or traitors and are afterwards incapable It 's so in this and was with Abraham and his seed Now that this distinction holds in the New Testament I shall thus discover to you 1. If men deny an external as well as internal being in Covenant none can administer an external Ordinance an outward sign to any for we must go by external rules in these actings 2. Visible Professors will have the worst of it for we must administer no Ordinance to these which are not internally in Covenant and we have no proof but their own expressions and our good hopes and present probable judgement to warrant us and many visible miscarriages to contradict our judgements and hopes at special times 3. We set a seal to a blank to all grown persons who are baptized or receive the Lords Supper without we know them certainly in the Covenant and that who knows for our judgement will no more hinder the seal from being a blank to grown Professors then to Infants without they prove real at last 4. The best evidence you can have from any of their being in Covenant is but visible expressions suppositions and hopes and probabilities all which you must help out by your own charity and fallible observation for God hath promised no seal on my spirit for another mans condition it 's a blessed mercy if I get the seal on my own heart for my self So that the great Question will be answered from this which Mr. Tombes and they all urge That if God made the Covenant with believers and their seed they must all be
saved c. With which I shall but thus parly 1. Doth God make the Covenant of salvation with every visible Professor whom they baptize or with every visible Saint or do they baptize them out of Covenant Then how come any to fall off and be damned or what rule have they to baptize by 2. Why should it be thought more hainous to set a seal on Infants as in the Covenant then on these Professors which afterwards prove not to be in Covenant 3. Or do they baptize because that persons are in the Covenant If not then upon no spiritual account if upon their being in Covenant then either internally or externally on the first it cannot be absolutely but as manifested externally not upon a meer external being in Covenant for then they may set a seal to a blank if upon both together the one externally demonstrated by the other then it is still by the external being in Covenant that we judge with hopes of the other There is a trick that some have got whereby they think to evade this being in Covenant as the fundamental ground of Baptism by this distinction That it is not being in Covenant but being an actual Believer gives right To which I answer 1. That the Covenant take it spiritually is the ground of faith not faith of the Covenant 2. If the Covenant be the ground of faith for who can believe without a promise it may well be the ground of an outward priviledge 3. To separate the Covenant from the conveyance of actual priviledges is almost as dangerous as to separate actual faith from the Covenant for the one gives a right as well as the other 4. Infants in the Old Testament were thus as really to be esteemed in the Covenant as actual visible Believers are now and under the external administration of the Covenant as the Proselytes who came in to the Jewish Church and were the first fruits of the Gentiles For that there is an external administration of the Covenant of Abraham or rather of God in Christ even in the New Testament is clear for that many were baptized who proved hypocrites and many believed visibly likewise as Simon Magus Hymenaeus Alexander Philetus c. many in all the Churches and yet these must be accounted the spiritual seed though most wicked because they can profess their own present sudden faith and poor Infants of believers must be accounted the carnal seed though so long under a Gospel promise of which you shall not want proof hereafter Now that all which are baptized or have any Ordinance have it administred fundamentally on the ground of the Covenant externally administred I prove thus 1. God administers all his graces by Covenant much more outward Ordinances 2. Souls can have no challenge or interest in God but by some Covenant or other God is tied to none but as he ties himself 3. If there were not a visible and external administration of the Covenant none should know of the invisible design of it unto any all things would be in the dark to us as to Gods Covenant in a visible dispensation 4. If this invisible design were not secretly carried on in an outward visible dispensation there could be none condemned by an outward rule for who can condemn these who are intentionally and invisibly in Covenant or for Re And if every one visibly in Covenant be intentionally and spiritually in Covenant it 's just the same The whole is this None are in Covenant say they but real believers the spiritual seed so none to be baptized but such when it comes to application of the Ordinance then none are the spiritual seed but visible believers and these visible believers can be judged by no way but by an external profession to be in Covenant and Infants are no visible believers therefore no spiritual seed when as the one is as visible by promise as the other by profession CHAP. V. Opening that place in Acts 2.39 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 THIS Text I first hold forth as fit to discover the New Testament application of the Covenant of grace and its continuation to believers and their seed as to Abraham and his in the Old Testament It 's the first Argument used after Christs Ascension to provoke the Jews to repent and submit to Gospel ordinances and the first open promulgation of the Covenant both to Jew and Gentile with the prime priviledges of it in which is contained the Gospel-Covenant made with believers and their seed 1. Here is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the promise which can be no other then the promise of remission of sins and so of salvation sutable to that in Gen. 17.7 and repeated at large in Jer. 31.34 For it must either be a promise of temporal things or spiritual of temporal things it cannot be for there is no absolute promise of these things in the New Testament but as included in or following spiritual mercies as Mat. 6.33 Neither is there a syllable in this Chapter pressing men to look after temporal enjoyments or engaging them to embrace the Gospel by any outward emoluments Ob. The great and only interpretation of this promise by these that differ is that it hath reference to v. 16. and is meant of the promise of the holy Ghost prophesied of by Joel Chap. 2.28 which was to be poured forth in the latter daies and now visibly and eminently begun to be fulfilled at the day of Pentecost To which the Answer will be clear and fair though that be granted and not at all weaken but strengthen the former sense For 1. That promise is a spiritual promise and more large and comprehensive of spiritual mercies then any other the promising of the spirit is as much as to promise all at once graces gifts yea Heaven it self for all are but the fruits of this promise Christ in the Old Testament and the Spirit in the New contain all the promises in an eminency When Jesus Christ was to leave the World and speak all his heart at once and leave his last blessing that should be better then his bodily presence among them he expresses all in this that he would send the Spirit Joh. 14.16 26. Ch. 15.26 16.7 And of this large promise as well according to Christ's promise before his Ascension as Joels Prophesy the Apostles and Believers received the first fruits in this solemn day of Christs triumph So that to say it 's the promise of the Spirit is as much as to say it 's the promise of all spiritual things For this read in Gal. 3.14 the Apostle speaking of the fruits of Christs death saith It was that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Iesus Christ that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith The same phrase that is in this 38. And in the promise of the spirit which is to be received by faith is included justification sanctification yea all graces and it 's here joyned with the blessing
of Abraham But 2. If they take the promise of the Spirit in a limited and restrictive sense for the external gifts as the most do for the gifts of tongues and miracles and prophesy they both clip the promise and make the argument and comfort from it invalid and of no efficacy 1. It 's a mighty wrong to that famous promise of the Spirit to circumscribe it in these accidental gifts which were especially necessary and almost only for that season when it 's a promise that reacheth all the latter daies and is still accomplishing though all these extraordinary gifts are ceased 2. This straitned sense is expunged by the manner of the expressions of that Prophesy both in Joel and this in the Acts I will pour out of my spirit on all flesh and on your servants and handmaids will I pour out of my spirit Which shews the universality and variety of the subjects and blessings in this promise that it shall be so large and full a mercy as if there were to be no limitation of its measure 3. If it were meant meerly of these gifts why then there is no more benefit of that promise after the Apostles daies but that Christ was out of date and did expire with that age whereas it is a promise made for all the time of the New Testament which is exprest by the latter daies and the last daies up and down the Scripture A parallel promise to this you have in Isa 44.3 I will pour water on him that is thirsty and floods on the dry ground I will pour my spirit on thy seed and my blessing on thy off-spring Now the promise of the spirit is alwaies appropriated to the New Testament daies And secondly This cannot be the meaning of this phrase if we consider to whom the Apostle speaks to persons pricked in their hearts wounded for their sins in crucifying of Iesus Christ crying out v. 37. Men and Brethren what shall we do to be saved Now what comfort could this be to tell them they should have extraordinary gifts their hearts were bleeding under sin their eye was on salvation they saw no hopes of it nor knew the way to obtain it the Apostle bids them repent and be baptized they might have said What shall we be the better why saith the Apostle You shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost for the promise is unto you What promise of gifts of tongues and miracles What is this to our souls how will this save us might they well object It would be but a poor comfort to a wounded soul for to tell him of a promise of gifts not of spiritual grace and the holy Ghost is a better Physician then to apply such a raw improper plaister to a wounded heart which would hardly heal the skin this promise is brought in as a cordial to keep them from fainting and to give them spirits to believe and lay hold on Jesus Christ And truly no other promise but that of free grace in order to salvation can be imagined to give them comfort in that condition But to put all out of question That the promise prophesied of in Joel and quoted here was the promise of salvation and the same with the Covenant of Grace Consult the Original in Joel and the parallel in this of the Acts in Joel 2.27 the Prophet founds all the promises that went before and all that come after on this That he is the Lord their God and none else which was the very express words in that Covenant made with Abraham And then afterwards viz. in the New Testament to make out this fully He will pour out his spirit on all flesh c. v. 32. which is a part of that prophesy and is quoted again in v. 21. Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved one grace put for all and salvation being put at the end of the promise must needs be the aim of it The same expression you have again repeated Rom. 10.13 And in the former v. 38. he exhorts them to repent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the remission of sin the exhortation is to a Gospel duty the effect and profit of it was to be remission of sins and receiving the gift of the holy Ghost and the promise must needs be answerable by which all is enforced and it must needs have been a mighty low and disproportionable way of perswasion to put them upon such high things in the former verse and to encourage them only by the narration of a promise of some temporary gifts in the following when their eye and heart was set on remission of sins and salvation by Jesus Christ and nothing but a promise holding forth these mercies could have been considerable to them And it 's very observable in that verse he joyns remission of sins with the gift of the holy Ghost and then adds the promise to both as the ground of one and the other and comprehending both And for that expression of Receiving the gift of the holy Ghost it may well be noted that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the free gift not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the gifts of the holy spirit noting the very sending of the spirit as a free gift to bestow all mercies on them and so respecting rather the free and bounteous manner of bestowing the holy Ghost on them then any limited effects of his reception By all which it is demonstrated that this is no ordinary common no temporal promise or of meer gifts though never so extraordinary but a promise of free grace I only adde this to all the rest as undeniable by the principles of these that differ it 's a promise made not only to these Jews but it 's universally to the Gentiles and to all the called of God but all that are called have not received such gifts of the holy Ghost which then were given but every one that is effectually called doth receive the promise of remission of sins and the free favour of God and therefore this promise must be taken mainly in that sense But the great difficulty is in the following part of the verse and about the interest of their Children in this promise and therefore the next work must be to make out this that the Children as well as the Parents are included in this promise as they were in the promise made with Abraham 1. Let us consider to whom the Apostle speaks to the Jews who were prickt in their hearts The promise is to you and your Children He speaks to them after the wonted manner of expression in the Old Testament when ever the promise is mentioned and useth their own language in which they were trained up in from their Fathers I will be the God of thee and thy seed Gen. 17. The promise is to you and your Children If the Apostle had intended to exclude their Children from the same priviledges they had formerly by the Covenant he would never have spoken
Covenant all the lump the whole body of the Jewish Nation were taken in to be a Church and were accounted holy 2. As a root it answers to him from whom all the Jews sprang up and from whom they drew all their Church priviledges as their breath Thus the Lord by the Prophet in Isa 51.1 2. bids the Jews to look to the rock out of which they were hewen and the pit out of which they were digged he means it of Abraham first as appears by the second verse Look to Abraham your Father and to Sarah that bare you for I called him alone and blessed and increased him c. Ob. But what kind of consequence is this and how doth the Apostle make use of this If the first fruits be holy so is the lump and if the root be holy so are the branches From what principle doth the Apostle argue Sol. The Apostle in the former verse speaks of a receiving in again of the Jewish Nation and brings in this as a ground to hope for it There is yet a holy root which hath an influence on the branches and argues that if the root be holy when the branches broken off shall be re ingraffed they shall be holy likewise The like phrase you have in v. 28. As touching the Gospel they are enemies for your sake but as touching the Election they are beloved 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for their Fathers sake God having so cast his Election as to run in that vein most eminently And some do render it They are beloved through their Fathers But this is clear 1. That Abraham or as some say Abraham Isaac and Iacob were the root 2. That he argues from the holiness of the root to the holiness of the branches that is from them as Parents to their posterity as Branches 3. That this was an usual and common principle of arguing in Scripture from the Parent to the Posterity for else he had spoken in the dark and had proved notum per ignotius if they could not universally reason from it and if you observe he writes it as an Axiom of the greatest demonstration and never stands to prove it further 4. It had been an argument of no force for to prove the calling in of the Jews and their happy state upon re-ingraffing to tell them If the root be holy so are the branches and they are beloved for the Fathers sake if there were not a virtue still in the root to derive holiness to them when they should be received in and ingraffed to their own Olive he laies all the weight on the root being still holy and fresh though the branches be broken off And what can you make of this as to argumentation If the root be holy Ergo the branches and apply it to Persons and Parents but in a moral and imputative consideration Ob. But holiness is not propagated by nature from the Parent to his Child and we all derive sin by nature from our Parents and are as the Apostle saith Eph. 2.2 by nature the Children of wrath c. and as David saith Conceived in sin Sol. 1. It 's true we are so and there is no holiness propagated by nature take it for internal habits as a wise man doth not convey his wisedome or a vertuous man his vertues to his Child neither can a Believer convey his faith and other graces to his Child and in this sense Abraham is not a root he begets no Believer and under this consideration the argument cannot hold Abraham in this sense is only a root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exemplary only Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 effectually to convey similar graces But 2. There is a holiness by gratious estimation or imputation which flows from Gods Covenant or some special priviledge given to such a stock or kindred or Nation God taking such a family such a stock and separates it to himself for some holy use and so blesseth them And thus it was with Abraham and is most common in the Scriptures and according to the nature of priviledges among men where the son of a Freeman is free and the son of a Nobleman a Nobleman and by way of allusion though it doth not hold in all particulars as in justification Christs righteousness is imputed and we accounted holy by it So as to some special priviledges the root the Parent being holy and in the Covenant his Child hath the advantage of it not meritoriously from the Parents faith but virtually through Gods gracious promise to the Believer and his seed But 3. This is not by natural generation for then it should be to all Children but by grace and proportion it 's Gods good pleasure thus to derive the priviledge and out of special respect to the Parents and to encourage them in their own faith and strengthen them in their hopes concerning their seed thus did God choose out Abraham and his family from all the world and blessed him yet it was not from nature his seed were more blessed then all the world besides But as Dr. Willet saith well on this place The branches are holy because of this holy root not by an actual and inherent holiness but by a prerogative of grace grounded on the promise of God made to believing Fathers and their seed which is the same in the New Testament as in the Old and in this sense the argument is strong and enforcing the scope of the Apostle So that though the generation be natural the derivation of a Title to Church priviledges and the characteristical note of holiness is given them by grace in the Covenant which takes in the branches with the root In no sense besides can this argument be true without you make the root Christ which you see cannot be meant in this place without great absurdities The third and special term to be opened is what this ingraffing is of the Gentiles into the root and how they are ingraffed v. 17 19. For the understanding of this Mr. Marshal hath laid down a sure position which neither Mr. Tombes who is the most learned Adversary of this Truth nor any other hath or can shake and that is That the ingraffing in of the Gentiles must be sutable to the breaking off the Jews as they were broken off so are we ingraffed This the Apostle clearly proves in every verse In v. 17. Thou being a wild Olive speaking of the Gentiles collectively considered wert ingraffed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in amongst them so Grotius translates it Positus es inter ramos illius arboris Thou art set among the branches of that tree and so referring to the first words of the verse which is implyed that some remained still for but some of the branches were broken off and the Gentile-believers were inoculated among them and by a special adoption were partakers of the same priviledges according to that of the Poet Ovid Venerit insitio fac ramum ramus adoptet But the best reference is to the
us charity and respect to Infants in these ordinary administrations they are capable of and to confirm their old state in the Church by such a new and unwonted carriage Christ abounding to them who were most undervalued and could say nothing for themselves And how harsh is it to conceive that Christs intent was hereafter to cast them out of the visible Church and from the participation of all outward signs of salvation when his carriage was thus transcendently loving to them and so only to give them a lightning before death Let mens consciences not gulph'd in prejudice judge This Text if there were no more will fly in the Consciences one day of the most confident Contemners of Infants and their Baptism I shall only adde to satisfie the learned the consent of godly and eminent Authors on this Scripture Non est ulla historia in toto codice Evangelico quae frequentius in Templo legatur quam haec ipsa Quoties enim Infans ad sacrum baptismatis fontem affertur toties etiam ex agendis Ecclesiasticis haec historia recitatur sed admodum raró eadem in Ecclesia recitatur Chemnitius Polycarpus Lyserus in Harm Evangel And doubtless it 's no ordinary note that three of the Evangelists should so punctually relate this story without any considerable change of words or sense All the Objection is because the word Baptism is not inserted when as much as that comes to is and that Christ baptized no grown persons Hinc jam illud est quod dixisse Dominum omnes tres memorant talium enim est Regnum Coelorum Non sanè adultorum tantum qui ut Infantes sese humiliarunt quod Anabaptista contendunt Hoc enim sensu quod dixerat sibi Infantes apportandos esse tanquam subjecta ratio minimè cohaereret c. Facessat igitur stulta ista vestra sapientia Sinite Infantes mihi adduci ajo enim non solum horum esse Regnum Coelorum sed nullum omnino Regni hujus fore participem nisi Infantibus his similis evadat Si jam ad Ecclesiam pertinent ipsorum est Regnum Coelorum eur eis signum Baptismi quo in Ecclesiam Christi qui ad eam pertinent recipi solent negaremus Siqui hoedi inter eos sunt tum excludendi nobis erunt cum id esse sese prodiderunt interea ne simus severiores Christo aut est nostrum baptizare plusquam Domini amplecti imponere manus benedicere fuit quae fidei aut charitatis jactura per Baptismum Christo adducere quos adduci sibi jussit Much more then this hath Bucer on Mat. 19.13 14 15. full of spiritual consideration To this doth Musculus Calvin Beza adde their holy testimonies But I spare these quotations because it 's ad homines to men like our selves Let these which dissent read impartially and consider if this place should stand alone without any harmony of other Scriptures whether there be not more in it for Infant-baptism then anything they have against it I would be so ingenuous with them as to deal with any of their awaked Consciences CHAP. XI Wherein is considered the method of God in the Old Testament of administring Ordinances in Families and baptizing Housholds in the New Testament and how far it contributes to Infant-baptism IT 'S not a slight thing to consider how that ever since the Fall this hath been an usual method of God in administration of the Covenant and priviledges of grace to make it run through families and housholds of Believers as the special veins Hence families as they were the first natural societies so they were the first Churches the Covenant and the priviledges of it was among them from Adam to Abraham it went on thus And when the Covenant in Abrahams time came to be more expresly opened and fairer expounded God goes on still in the same method makes the Covenant with Abraham and his houshold only the family was enlarged it became a greater houshold according to the vastness of the extent of the Covenant yet still it was dispensed as to a family Now if you come to the New Testament there you see God going on in the same method as if he had cast by an eternal decree this platform Baptism the New Testament Ordinance is administred according to the same design to families and housholds Let us consider what Christ himself saith to Zacheus Luk. 19. who was a Gentile and one of the chief Publicans upon occasion of this mans conversion to open the nature and continuance of the Covenant to the Gentiles in the same form as it was to Abraham This day is salvation come to thy house forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham Here is the same language used in administration of Circumcision in the Old Testament and the same reason forasmuch as he also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a son of Abraham What can be drawn from this place more proper then these conclusions 1. That as soon as ever he was converted and believed Christ applies the promise to his house if there were not something more in it he would have only said Salvation is come to thee 2. It 's clear that he opens the Covenant made with Abraham not only to himself but his house and argues from his being a son of Abraham that therefore the Covenant is not only made with him but with his house that is his seed it were enough for to call him the son of Abraham and to say salvation is come to himself but to mention his house together with himself and give this as a reason because he is the son of Abraham is as much as to say the priviledges of the Covenant is the same to you and your house as it was to Isaac and Jacob forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham as well as they Now for Christ to speak in this dialect and to tell them of their housholds and of favour to them in the beginning of the Gospel and yet at the same time exclude their Infants from all outward signs of the promise which they ever had in the darkest daies of grace is a strange policy unsutable to the simplicity of Jesus Christ Concerning this continued method of God though this Zacheus be a singular yet he is not the only example if you read all along the Acts of the Apostles these which had housholds the promise runs with a gracious entail Acts 11.14 Cornelius hath the promise to him and his house Acts 16.15 Lydia was baptized and her houshold Ver. 31. the Apostle exhorts the Jaylor to believe and he should be saved and his whole house Just as God made the Covenant with Abraham Walk before me and be thou perfect Gen. 17.1 2.7 And I will be a God to thee and thy seed or houshold In ver 33. it s said he was baptized and all his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he and all that were of him a most emphatical expression to set forth
there is no proportion between a knife and water and therefore it must be in their proper signification and reall use which is the Apostles scope in this place and therefore he expresseth the inward grace properly signified by the one Ordinance and yet confirmed by the other Circumcised in him being buried with him in Baptism 2. If the analogy be between Circumcision and Christs burial not between it and Baptism yet it will come all to one yea be our advantage For 1. That shews that Circumcision did hold forth as much as Baptism viz. Christs death and burial 2. That when we are said to be buried with Christ in Baptism and that is the outward sign to represent our burial with Christ we are as if we were circumcised Circumcision holds analogy with Christs burial and so doth Baptism with both And thus take it in what sense you will the Text will clear it self CHAP. XIV A clear Explication of Mat. 28.19 with Mar. 16.15 16. wherein their argument from the first institution is opened and confuted LET us at length come to view that prime Text Math. 28.19 on which these that are against Infant-baptism lay the most weight As from the very first institution of that Ordinance Christ gives his Apostles there Commission to teach and baptize Go ye therefore and teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father Son and holy Ghost Hence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which they translate Disciple all Nations and then baptize them they argue None are to be baptized by Christs institution but these which are first taught and so made Disciples But Infants are not capable to be taught or to be made Disciples Ergo They may not be baptized That I may shew the errors of this argument and so fully clear up the point the terms with their connexion both in the major and minor proposition must be examined from the words of the Text and that parallel place Mar. 16.15 16. which for methods sake I shall hold forth in these following considerations 1. For the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we shall not much stand on whether it be translated to make Disciples or as it is in our common version Go teach all Nations for it is sometimes a verb transitive to teach by writing or viva voce with a living voyce and so it is to be taken here saith learned Whitaker De Script and most agreeable with Mar. 16.15 where he bids them Go preach the Gospel to every Creature 2. The strength of the argument lies if there be any strength in it on the absolute supposed connexion between discipling and being baptized therefore they say None but these which are capable of teaching are capable of Baptism which is Fallacia à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter a Fallacy to take that absolutely which is meant only according to some respect But to shew the idleness of the connexion 1. You find preaching or teaching the Gospel to be separated as to the administration and necessary and immediate connexion by Paul himself 1 Cor. 1.17 Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the Gospel so he saith in the former verses He taught many baptized few 2. Compare this with Mar. 16.15 16. which expounds this you will find believing and being baptized as close connected to salvation as here Baptizing to Teach He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Now if any will stand on the order of words to prove an institution we may as well argue from Mark as they from Mathew None must be baptized but these which are taught so none that believeth and is not baptized can be saved and that Baptism is as necessary to salvation as believing for in order of phrase they are absolutely joyned together And what a strange inference would that be to make Baptism equal with faith to salvation and yet we have as much ground to argue from the one place so as they from the other without they will admit some other qualifying term to make it up 3. The order of things is not always or commonly so exactly exprest in Scripture by the position of the words for sometimes one thing in the order of words is put before another which in order of nature and consideration is antecedent to it as Mar. 1.15 Repentance is put before Faith Rom. 10.9 Confession with the mouth is put before believing with the heart as to salvation with abundance of other places of Scripture Thus many things in the Evangelists are left out by one supplied by another and the same word directly uttered in one inverted in another especially about the administration of the Lords Supper For to avoyd tediousness consult the places your selves Mat. 26.26 27. Mar. 14.22 23. Luk. 22.20 1 Cor. 11.25 3. A third consideration to open this Text in Matthew is from comparing it once more with its parallel Mar. 16.15 there it is Go preach the Gospel here it is Teach and baptize Now hence it follows that their teaching was by holding forth the Gospel As much as if he had said Open the Covenant tell men the riches and fulness of grace Now if they must teach the Gospel they must needs instruct them in the Covenant which was to these that believed and their seed Now sutable to this Commission Peter when he comes to open the Gospel to the Jews pricked in their hearts presently holds out the promise to them and their Children Acts 2.38 39. and by that to make them both Disciples So Gal. 3.13 The blessings of Abraham to come on the Gentiles is one of the main parts of the Gospel Now if they teach men Gospel they must preach as Peter did when he had converted the Parent The promise is to you and to your Children Thus in Luk. 1.72 this is made one great end of Christs coming to perform the mercy promised to our Fathers and to remember his holy Covenant so that preaching the Gospel is preaching the Covenant Now that Infants are in the Covenant as well as grown persons we have formerly proved 4. This is no more then was required of Abraham at the time of Circumcision and yet his Infants were not excluded from the Ordinance Gen. 17. Walk before me and be perfect Chap. 18.19 Abraham was to command his Children and teach them to keep the ways of the Lord and yet his Children were not to be kept from the sign of the Covenant until they were taught and had walked before God in uprightness as Abraham 5. To come home to the word in their own sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Make Disciples now Children are not capable of being made Disciples say they I answer 1. Some have been made Disciples before they were distinctly taught as the twelve whom Christ called and they followed him and became his Disciples and were real Disciples yet as ignorant as Infants and were taught afterwards by degrees 2. One is said to be made a Disciple even
of Jesus Christ as High-priest as any one that runs may read now either they must say these were not baptized before or else must conclude that his design is not to inform them and that so transiently of the nature or manner of administring of that Ordinance Thirdly the Apostle here doth directly instruct the soul how to make confident addresses to God viz. from the sense of our justification and sanctification together for so by our hearts being sprinkled from an evil conscience is meant and can be meant no other then Christs blood sprinkled on our souls in the assurance of our absolution from sin and the washing with pure water no more but by this outward expression of the purity of our conventions as to sanctification that we may not come with scandal of external unholiness when we pretend to be justified by Christs blood Fourthly the usual word is here left out which expresseth that Ordinance and it is your bodies not baptized but washed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a clear allusion to that of Levit 16.4 from whence it seems to be excerpted when Aaron the high-Priest was to enter into the holy place and before he was to be attired for that work it is said He shall wash his flesh in water and so put them on the 70. translate the words thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He shall wash his whole bodie with water to signifie the holiness he should have in his person as from external publick pollutions the very same intent of the Apostle is here that if we would be confident before God when we approach unto God we must come with Christs blood on our consciences and no known pollution on out conversations and if we will follow their grounds from comparing these two places we may conclude that baptism was as much an Ordinance of the Old Testament as the New for washing the body was used in both Fifthly it is a usual phrase in Scripture to express the sanctification of our persons from inward outward defilements by the washing of water and washing the body yet not in the least to hint out the manner of baptizing by water as into the special administration of that Ordinance thus in Esa 1.16 when God saith to his backsliding people wash you make you clean must he needs mean go and be baptized but that outward expression is put for the reforming of their wayes and expounded by putting away the evil from their doings or works thus in Ioh. 13. Christ expresseth justification and sanctification by washing in general and then washing the feet he that is washed which is not baptized for Christ saith he must wash or else Peter could have no part in him and Christ did not baptize such a one need no more but to wash his feet that is walk holily so that here is washing and washing of the feet and yet neither meant of baptizing nor washing Thus likewise in the Corinthians it is said as to their sanctification Now you are washed now you are cleansed now you are justified he means not Now you are baptized but of the special purification of their hearts and lives from their former pollutions of flesh and spirit which though signified by baptism yet so remotely as no man can gather the constant method of external baptism from it Sixthly he saith your bodies washed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with clean or pure water now I hope as to baptizing none are so foolish as to stand on it whether they be baptized after a rain when the water is puddled or whether only in pure and crystal streams from an unpuddled spring or ocean and yet they must be tied to the one as the other if this Text be their president and we may as well question from this Text whether they be rightly baptized if there be any mud or slime or filth in the water as whether we baptized if all our bodies be not washed but now this expression to set forth holiness and sanctification is most apt and full of life our hearts and conversations in drawing nigh unto God should be as if externally they were washed with clean water transparent and spotless before him shining with an Evangelical brightness and spiritual purity for it will be very hard to draw nigh to God with a good conscience and a tainted and besmeared body or conversation with unholy acts whereby God is so much dishonoured especially to come as the Apostle saith in the former part of the verse with a true heart and full assurance of faith Seventhly if he had meant by this washing of the body baptizing he would not have made such a disproportion according to their own rule between the sign and thing signified for he speaks of the heart being only sprinkled and yet the body washed with clean water now if baptism doth not signifie and seal justification as well as sanctification it is not a seal of the Covenant of grace and if it do signifie it cannot go beyond the thing signified in expression and outward representation And if Christs blood in Heb. 12.24 be called the blood of sprinkling and it be one of the main things signified and sealed in baptism well may we answer it by an outward act without offence or sin Eighthly grant that by washing the body is meant baptizing here which you see cannot be extorted by violence or extracted by any chymical virtue yet it will not serve their turns For First the body is said to be washed when any one or more of the principal parts in sight or use are washed what is done to any eminent or commanding part it carries the denomination of the whole with it for Maries annointing and washing of Christs head and feet in Luke 7.44.45 is interpreted in Iohn 11.2 for the anointing of the Lord as much as if she had done it to all his body throughout though it is only exprest in the former place of the anointing and washing his head and feet This is most usual in Scripture Secondly if they will go to the strictness of the term of washing the body then First it must be washed naked or else it is not a a washnig of the body Secondly it must not be a bare dipping or plunging into water but some other act must be done with the body viz. a rinsing or rubbing as we do pots or cloaths which we wash which are not said to be washed because dipt under water but so rinsed as the filth and dirt is taken out I only urge this to shew the inevitable inconveniences these men will bring on themselves by such interpretations of Scripture Many other considerations might be added if this Tract would bear the weight of them CHAP. XVII A short summing up of the former principles and arguing them from the method of the Apostle Peter about those he baptized Acts 10.47 THat we may bring up all unto a full conclusion let that place be considered Acts 10.47 and the manner