away the Filth of it Now says he and you to the same purpose the sprinkling of the Blood of Christ and the pouring forth of the holy Spirit upon the Infant are more fully and plainly represented by Baptism as administred by sprinkling than by dipping He says further That if the inward and spiritual Grace signified by Baptism be more lively represented by sprinkling than by dipping then surely sprinkling is not only lawful but more expedient than dipping but the inward and spiritual Grace signified by Baptism to wit the cleansing the Soul by the Grace and Spirit of Christ is more lively represented by sprinkling than by dipping therefore more expedient and accordingly we find Almighty God himself often expressing the Mercy of Sanctification by this Action Ezek. 36 25 Theu will I sprinkle clean Water upon you and ye shall be clean c. Ansew 1. To this I answer where the Thing signified is not the Sign is a nullity but your Thing signified in sprinkling VVater on the Face of an Infant viz. the holy Spirit and Graces of it does not appear in those Infants you so sprinkle Ergo Your Sign is a nullity If Grace was in them so much as in the Habit of it when they are grown up the Act and Fruits of the Spirit and Faith would shew themselves for Grace is an active and lively Principle where-ever it is infused 2. And I positively deny that the End and Use of Baptism is or can be represented by sprinkling or pouring of VVater but by what I have said and produced by the Testimony of the Scripture and almost all Learned Men both Antient Fathers and Modern Divines I have fully shewed the contrary 3. I thought the Sacrament of the Lord's-Supper had been instituted by Christ to signify the Effusion or pouring forth his precious Blood and not Baptism VVill you confound the Use and End of one Sacrament with the other to maintain your own Innovation and Abuse of Christ's holy Baptism 4. Might not the Jews who instead of making Altars of Gold or Stone made them Altars of Brick say that Altars of Brick might serve as well to answer the Use and End of burning Incense Nay may be they might say they had not the other to do it and therefore built their Altars of Brick But would this Pretence do No no what saith the Almighty God They provoke me continually to my Face Also might not others argue thus about the Sacrament of the Supper viz. VVhat need we have VVine If we use Mum or some other Red Liquor instead of the Fruit of the Grape it will answer the Use and End of that Sacrament as well as VVine O whither would this lead us 5. VVe utterly deny that Baptism was ordain'd or instituted by Christ to signify either the pouring forth of his Blood or the pouring forth of the holy Spirit and must tell you that you affirm what you please without any Proof from God's VVord But by the way let the Reader observe how you go from sprinkling to pouring VVater on the Face of Infants I question whether you ever do so or not but if you should that would be no more Christ's Baptism than sprinkling You are not to devise new Signs or Symbols of Spiritual Mysteries of which God speaks nothing in his VVord nor ever instituted to such Ends. I affirm he has appointed no Rite or Ordinance in the Gospel to represent the sprinkling or pouring forth of the holy Spirit The Papists have you know seven Sacraments and they tell us of the Use and End of them and how wonderfully significant they are and yet all the Use and Signification of them were the Contrivances of their own wicked Hearts And I must tell you that they prove what they do and say for their Sacraments as well as you do As to what you speak of pouring or sprinkling take what Tho. Aquinas most excellently hath said on this account It belongs to the Signifier says he to determine what Sign is to be used for the Signification But God it is who by things sensible signifies spiritual things in the Sacrament Christ hath ordained Baptism to be a Sign Symbol or lively Representation of his own Death Burial and Resurrection as I have proved and confirmed by a Cloud of Witnesses Will God endure or suffer Men think you to invent out of their own Brains new Signs and Symbols of Divine Gospel-Mysteries and then father them upon him and call them his Ordinances Nay more be so bold as to say these are more useful and answer better the End of God than those which he himself instituted For thus you and other Pedo-baptists speak of Sprinkling viz. 't is not only lawful but more expedient than Dipping And hereby you seem to teach God Wisdom or to magnify yours above his Be astonished O Heavens Be thou horribly amazed O Earth Were ever any Men thus bold before First You contrive a new Rite and new Significations of it which God never appointed to represent such things and then say 't is more expedient than Christ's Ordinance of dipping which was instituted by him for other Ends and Significations whereas the whole Body of all learned Men and Christians witness to and testify the contrary Pray take what Sir Norton Kâ—atchbul hath wrote in direct opposition to what you affirm Saith he Baptism which now saves us by Water speaking of the Text in 1 Pet. 3. 21. that is by the assistance of Water and is antitypical of the Ark of Noah does not signify the laying down the Filth of the Flesh but the Covenant of a good Conscience towards God while we are plunged in the Water which is to testify our Belief of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ so that there is a manifest Antithesis between these words by Water and by the Resurrection Nor is saith he the Elegancy of it displeasing As if he should say the Ark of Noah not the Flood was a Type of Baptism and Baptism was an Antitype of the Ark Not as if Baptism is a washing away of the Filth of the Flesh by Water wherein it answers not at all to the Ark but as it is the Covenant of a good Conscience towards God by the Resurrection of Christ in the belief of which Resurrection we are saved as they were saved by the Ark of Noah for the Ark and Baptism were both a Type and Figure of the Resurrection so that the proper End mark of Baptism ought not to be understood as if it were a Sign of the wishing away of Sin although it be thus oftentimes taken Metonymially in the New Testament and by the Fathers but a particular Signal of the Resurrection by Faith in the Resurrection of Christ of which Baptism is a lively and emphatical Figure as also was the Ark out of which Noâ—h returned as from a Sepulchre to a new Life and therefore not unaptly called by Philo the Captain of the new Creation and the Whale's Belly out
dying Infants from Original Sin by virtue of his Blood in a way unknown unto us Must we deny Original Sin or own Infant-Baptism does cleanse from it Strange Divinity you prove nothing 4. You say all were not regenerated in Circumcision but God blessed his own Ordinance in his own time for the Regeneration of his Elect c. So say you not that all are regenerated in Baptism but because Baptism sheweth the necessity of Regeneration and being effectual in time unto all those that are elected for working Regeneration in them Answ 1. You say all were not regenerated in Circumcision and so not that all are say you regenerated in Baptism c. Sir take heed you do not deceive the Souls of People I deny that ever any one Soul was regenerated in Infancy either in Circumcision or Baptism nor did God ever ordain either of those external Ordinances to regenerate young or old 2. I know the Scripture and worthy Divines hold forth that Baptism is a Sign of present Regeneration they that ought to be baptized i. e. Believers do rise out of the watery Grave as Dr. Sherlock asserts new born Creatures but thus do not Infants whom you baptize or rather rantize 3. Prove if you can that God ever blessed Circumcision or Baptism to the Regeneration of any Elect Infants when grown up But if none but Elect Infants are the Subjects of Baptism why do you baptize as you call it all the Infants of Believers Are all their Children elected and none but theirs Are not many Children of Unbelievers elected Why then are such not to be baptized as well as the Children of the Faithful Sir we know not who are elected till called and Baptism belongs to none but such who can make a Profession of their Faith and give Evidence of effectual Calling and present Regeneration You write but your own Phantasie not God's unerring and certain Truth 4. You say Abraham's Heart was circumcised before the Flesh of his Fore-skin but you intimate his Childrens Flesh was circumcised before their Hearts were circumcised In the same manner you say our Ancestors the Gentiles were first Fruits unto Christ and were regenerated before baptized but their Seed are baptized before they are regenerated To Abraham you say it was a Seal of the Covenant of Grace he had and of the Righteousness of his Faith before circumcised but to his Seed it was a Sign of the Righteousness of Faith they were bound to receive for Justification after they were circumcised and so you speak of Believers Seed in respect of Baptism Answ 1. I answer Abraham only received Circumcision as a Seal of the Righteousness of his Faith c. But prove that Circumcision did bind all his Children to receive by Faith Justification 't is a bold Assertion I have proved that Circumcision did not appertain to the Covenant of Grace but to the external or fleshly Covenant God made with Abraham and in him with the whole Nation of the Jews and therefore 't is positively affirmed by the Apostle That such that were circumcised were bound to keep the whole Law Gal. 5. 3. not to receive by Faith Justification Your Parallel between Circumcision and Baptism 't is true well futes with the Human Contrivance of those that first invented Infant-Baptism who would thereby fain make the Gospel-Church National as the Jewish Church was and confirm the old Church-Right and Church-Membership which is taken away and a new Church-state erected which doth not consist of Believers and their Carnal Seed as such but only of the Spiritual Seed of Abraham who are Believers or living Stones who are built up a Spiritual House 1 Pet. 2. 5 6. The Gospel-Church is not National but Congregational say what you please to the contrary 2. Therefore as the Faithful at first among the Gentiles and Jews too received Baptism as Believers being regenerated before baptized so must we unless you have a new Gospel or fresh Authority to change the Administration of Gospel-Ordinances and the Gospel-Church I thought the Water as it just came forth of the Fountain was most pure you do but plead for the muddy Water that has run through the Popish Stream You say Circumcision was a Sign of Admission into the Church of God every Male did come in through that Door the uncircumcised had no right to the Privileges of the visible Church So you would have Baptism to run Answ 1. 'T is not true what you say Circumcision was not the Door into the Jewish Church they were all born Members of that National Church and therefore their Females were as truly Members that were not required to be circumcised as their Males 2. Tho we grant Baptism is the initiating Ordinance into the Gospel-Church yet it admits of no Members but Believers only if any others upon a false Faith get into it they have no just Right thereto and when discovered are to be put out 3. Sir tremble at the Thoughts of what you say It is not we but Christ in his Blessed Gospel that excludes Infants or the Natural Seed of Believers as such from being Members of the Gospel-Church he hath shut up that Door viz. by Generation i. e. being the Seed of Abraham or Seed of Believers as such and hath opened the Door of Regeneration 'T is we that believe and our Children that the Lord our God shall call and none else 4. Sir Circumcision was so far from being any such a Privilege as you intimate that the Apostle calls it such a Yoke of Bondage that neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear Act. 15. And in Answer to what you say p. It was not for their Sin nor the Sin of their Parents that Infants are excluded or not received into the Gospel-Church but because it was the good Pleasure of God to erect another and more spiritual Church-state and to remove the old Way and Typical Church-state of Israel 5. Therefore for you to intimate as if we were so unnatural as to cast our Children out of God's House is not to be indured it doth but reflect on the Wisdom of God we are more faithful to our Children and not like the Ostritch than you for we would not allow them that Right which God hath not nor make them think in Baptism they were regenerated and made Members of God's Church and so deceive and put them upon a Temptation not to seek out for any other Regeneration and Gospel-Right to Church-Membership You say Circumcision was an Obligation to put off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh and say you Baptism putteth us under the same Obligation c. Answ Baptism can oblige none to put off the Body of Sin but such that are the true Subjects of it by virtue of Christ's holy Institution which are only Believers such who before baptized have received the Spirit of God so to do But you without any Warrant from Christ would put this hard Obligation on your poor Infants whereas
Mr. Owen saith it plainly appears that the sprinkling of VVater is not Baptism 2. That God receives all into the Covenant of Grace and Gospel Church through the Spiritual washing of Regeneration and Sanctification of the Spirit and that such only by Christ's positive Command ought to be baptized 3. That there was no Gospel-Baptism no Baptism of Christ under the Law but that 't is a pure positive Command and Institution of our Lord Jesus in the Gospel 4. That God received none of his People under the Law into Covenant through Baptism or through sprinkling of Water and Blood And that the sprinkling of Blood was a Figure of the Atonement of Christ's bloody Sacrifice and the sprinkling of Water of the sanctifying Virtue of the Spirit in Sanctification and not that Gospel-Baptism was signified thereby 5. That 't is only the meer positive Command of Christ in the New Testament that gives being and a just Right to Gospel-Baptism 6. That tho the Children with their Parents were taken into the Legal or Typical Jewish Church by God's positive Command that being a National and Typical Church yet no Children or Parents are by the positive Command of Christ in the New Testament to be received into the Gospel-Church but only those of them that believe and are washed in the Blood of Christ and sanctified by the Sacred Water of the Holy Ghost sith the Church of God now is not National but Congregational not consisting of the Fleshly as such but the Spiritual Seed of Abraham And since there being no Precept nor Precedent in all the New Testament that any one Infant was baptized or taken into the Gospel-Church it follows 't is an Human Tradition 7. That the Covenant on Sinai and the Ceremonial Law was not the Covenant of Grace tho given in subserviency thereunto and the latter a clear Figure of the Covenant of Grace and held it forth to all such who by Faith could see beyond those Sacrifices to the Anti-type of them Lastly Mr. Owen saith If Children were baptized formerly into Covenant ought they not to be baptized into his Covenant now especially because the Grace of the Covenant being enlarged under the Dispensation of the Gospel and the Privileges being more extensive I answer He doth but beg the Question asserting that which he proves not nor is ever able to prove viz. 1. That Children were baptized into the Covenant under the Law What Pedo-baptist ever asserted this before And in vain doth he affirm it now especially since he cannot prove sprinkling is Baptism 2. That all Infants were received into Covenant with God by Legal sprinkling and not till then but certainly all the Infants of the Jews were born Members of that National Church therefore not received into that Church and Covenant by Circumcision which most of the Assertors of Childrens Baptism do affirm much less not by sprinkling Blood and Water upon them Yet that sprinkling of Blood and Water might I deny not be a Sign that they and the whole House of Israel were God's Legal Covenant People and so the Type of the whole Spiritual Israel who should be washed in the Blood of Christ or Blood of the New Covenant and sanctified by his Spirit as is said before 2. Moreover evident it is that tho the Covenant of Grace in the Dispensation of it under the Gospel is enlarged and the Spiritual Privileges more extensive than were the Privileges of the Legal Covenant and Legal Church yet the external Privileges are less and not so extensive now as was theirs How many outward and earthly Privileges had the Jews and Ministers of God under the Law more than the Saints and Ministers of Christ have now Many of which I have reckoned up in the beginning of this Treatise Thus I close with your Eighth Argument CHAP XIV Proving that Children have no Right to Baptism from John the Baptist's Administration of Baptism in Opposition to what Mr. James Owen saith in his 12th Chapter That John baptized no Infants neither according to the Practice of the Jewish Church nor by virtue of any Commission he had from God that sent him Containing an Answer to Mr. Owen's 9th Argument for Pedo-Baptism MR. Owen saith If John baptized Infants Baptism doth always belong unto them for the Baptism of John and the Baptism of the Apostles were the same in the Substance of it He baptized in the Name of Christ to come and they baptized in the Name of Christ that was come Answ If you can prove John baptized Infants you do your Business indifferent well Now say you What we are to prove in this Chapter is that John baptized Infants to manifest this let it be considered 1. John the Baptist came not to nullify the Covenant of Abraham but rather to fulfil it and the Covenant of Abraham was that God would be a God to his People and to their Seed all the Visible Church of the Jews were in this Covenant John warneth them that they trusted not in the Privileges of this Covenant by living ungodly Lives he doth not in any Place make void this Covenant but rather confirms it saying God will raise other Children to Abraham if the Jews brought not forth Fruit meet for Repentance he came to baptize the Seed of Abraham which were all of them in the Covenant of God not only the Parents but the Children also Therefore their Children had the same right to Baptism as their Parents had Answ 1. I deny not but the whole House of Israel were in Covenant with God both Parents and Children and so abode till the old Covenant and old Covenant-Seed were cast out but What saith the Scripture Cast out the Bond-woman and her Son Gal. 4. 30. Now the Apostle tells you by the Bond-woman is meant the Sinai Covenant and by her Son the natural Seed of Abraham as such Gal. 4. 22 23 24 25. 2. This Grant of yours proves that the Jewish Covenant which took in all the People both Parents and Children was not the Covenant of Grace because but a finall number of the Jews were in God's Election and so in the Covenant of Grace See Dr. Owen on the Hebrews 3d Vol. Pag. 256. The Covenant of Grace in Christ is made only with the Israel of God the Church of the Elect. Pag. 291. The new Covenant is made with all who effectively and eventually are made Partakers of it and if they are not so with whom the New Covenant is made it comes short of the Old in Efficacy who were actual Partakers of the benefit of that that is of those external Benefits 3. Nor doth that which you mention help you viz. that in that Covenant made with Abraham and the whole House of Israel 't is said God would be their God or a God to Abraham and to his Seed in their Generations For First God may be said to be the God of a People divers manner of ways as Dr. Bates observes 1. Upon the account of
only is the publick Head of his Seed a Believer's Faith objectively justifies and saves himself only not his Children Could Reverend Mr. Jones find no better a Pen to defend his Cause of Pedo-Baptism My Faith may be said to unite me to Christ but doth it also unite my Child to Christ Whatsoever good Children do receive from their believing Parents besure the Parent 's Faith doth not render his Child a Believer but however my Faith doth not make the Condition of my Child worser than it was and it may not make the Condition of my Child better for all the good Counsel Education good Example and Prayers some Children have from their Godly Parents they make them not the better 'T is not in him that willeth nor in him that runneth but in God that sheweth Mercy You intimate what Cause there is of bitter Sorrow in the Churches of God that the Major part of their Children are out off from the Covenant of Salvation Answ Our Doctrine cuts off not one Child of any Believer that is in the Covenant of Salvation if God hath elected the major part of the Children of the Faithfull we say they shall be saved 'T is impossible for any to cut off one of God's Elect. But what is this to their Children as such or to the positive Right any of our Infants have to Baptism Do you cut off your Infants from the Covenant of Salvation because you will not give them the Blood of the Covenant I mean the Lord's Supper Brethren Both the Sacraments are Ordinances that are of meer positive Right viz. depending as to the Subjects and all Matters thereunto belonging upon the Sovereign Will and Pleasure of the Lord Jesus the great Law-giver and as they that come to one Ordinance are to examine themselves and to discern the Lord's Body So all they that come to the other are to believe in Christ and to repent from dead Works You mistake 't is not the Eternal Covenant of Grace that you say you stand up in the Gap to maintain but you strive to introduce in Gospel-Times an external relative Covenant according to the Flesh like that Covenant of Peculiarity which God made with Abraham and his Natural Seed as he was a publick Head and Father of the whole House of Israel or of the National Political and Typical Church of the Jews Nay you would fain have all the Seed of Believers to be in that Covenant that peculiarly and absolutely did belong to the Natural Seed of Abraham as such and none else Now 't is this thing which we deny we say that there was a twofold Covenant made with Abraham signified by Sarah and Agar And tho there was Grace and Mercy in both yet the Covenant of Grace or Free Promise was not made to Seeds as of many i. e. not to all the natural Seed of Abraham or Seed of Believers as such but primarily it was made to Christ and in him to all the Elect who alone are in the Eternal Covenant of Grace That the Election takes hold both of some of Believers Seed and some of the Seed of Unbelievers is evident and tho God may comprehend in his Eternal Love more of our Seed than of the Seed of Unbelievers yet I have proved in this Treatise and Reply to Mr. Owen that the Covenant of Grace and the Election of God runs nor to the Seed of the Faithful as such and also that Believers Seed nor Unbelievers Seed until they believe in Christ ought to be baptized nor taken into the Visible Church because 't is not the Covenant of Grace considered as such that gives any Person a Right to Baptism but the meer positive Command of our Lord Jesus Christ whose express Command and Commission injoins none to be baptized but such who are Believers or such who are discipled by preaching the Word Mat. 28. 19 20. Mark 16. 16. John 4. 1. Acts 2. 37. Acts 8. 12 14. Acts 8. 37. Acts 10. 47. Acts 16. 30 31. Acts 18. 8. Rom. 6. 3 4. Mr. Owen tells Mr. Jones who he says hath the Tongue of the Learned that his desire was that he would be a Disputant for those Weaklings who are not able to dispute for themselves Reply He tells us one while that Mr. Jones desired and importuned him to write his Treatise and at another time he says his Will and Desire was that Mr. Jones should do it As touching the Reverend Mr. Samuel Jones I have had such an account of him by a Worthy Minister that I am fully satisfied that had he wrote on this Subject we should have had no such bitter Reflections or ill Treatment as we meet withal from this Man He hath dipped his Pen into Gall and Wormwood and hath made work for Repentance besides I am informed that Mr. Jones neither put him upon this Work nor approves of it tho perhaps when he saw his Forwardness he might say Go on and do it Sirs those Weaklings he means need no such a Disputant he hath done them no service nor the Church of God either we throw none of them out of that Eternal Covenant of which he speaks nor can Men nor Angels do it such of our Infants that are in the Eternal Covenant are safe enough But we deny that our Infants are in that Covenant of Peculiarity which God made with Abraham and his natural Seed as such And this I doubt not but you will find in the insuing Answer sufficiently proved Moreover He says He stands up in the gap to maintain the Eternal Covenant which God made with the Faithful and their Seed Great is the Truth and it will overcome Reply He should not boast before he puts off his Armour that may be a Truth in a Man's Opinion which is a gross Error in it self You will when you have read our Answer the better judg whether he hath prov'd the Baptism of Infants to be from Heaven as in the Title of his Book he asserts it is He farther says We are Fathers and the Law of Nature teacheth us to preserve the Inheritance of our Children Reply Our Affections are not less to our Children than his we are Fathers also but are not willing to give an Inheritance to our Children which of right belongs not unto them Grace nor gracious Privileges in the New Covenant come to be the Inheritance of our Children in a Natural way as they are our Off-spring tho evident it is in the Covenant of Peculiarity God made with Abraham the Jews and their Seed as such had an Inheritance given them by the Lord i. e. many Legal and External Privileges besides the Land of Canaan which Circumcision was a Token or Sign of but we and our Children have no right to that Inheritance They had the Shadow we and our Children that believe have the Substance they had the Shell we the Kernel The true Inheritance is by Faith that it might appear to be of Grace and not in Circumcision
nor in Baptism but by Faith only Therefore when our Children are called of God or do believe in Christ they have right to the Inheritance which Baptism is a sign of and what signifies the sign without the thing signified You our Brethren the Pedo-baptists give your Children the Name but not the Nature of Christ what is the lofty Title of Earl or Duke and no Estate suteable to that fancy'd Honour Mr. Owen saith We are Stewards over the House of God and we ought to protect the Feeble and Afflicted we are Shepherds and our duty is to provide for the Lambs of the Flock lest any cast them out of the Fold Reply It is required in Stewards that they be Faithful and to see that they give no portion of their Masters Goods to any but to such he hath directed and commanded them so to do Now Christ hath commanded his Stewards or Ministers no more to give Infants the Holy Ordinance of Baptism than the Lord's Supper He therefore that doth it let him answer it when our Lord comes 2. Are our Infants Lambs in Christ's Fold or feeble and afflicted Christians in Christ's Spiritual Family Infants are committed to Ministers care who are Natural Fathers but not as Ministers God never made his Ministers Stewards to take care of and to be Nurses of little Infants True â—ew born Babes in Christ or Babes in Grace they are to provide for and take the care of those Lambs they must see not cast out of Christ's Fold when they are received in by Baptism c. VVe are Builders saith he and we ought to build the VValls of Jerusalem working with one Hand in the VVork and with the other holding a VVeapon Neh. 4. 17. And we must not reject those small or little Stones which the Father received into the old Building whom the Son received into the new Building and will be received by the Holy Ghost Mat. 19. Luke 1. 44. who maketh them lively Stones of Jerusalem that is Above and these Stones by some are cast into an unclean place without the City Levit. 14. 40. God doth raise up Children unto Abraham See Mat. 3. 9. Reply Because the old Jerusalem by God's appointment was built with dead Stones which was a Type of the New will he without Christ's Authority build his New and Spiritual Jerusalem with such Materials We deny not but that God did receive Infants as such into his old Building But doth not St. Peter tell us the Gospel-Temple is built up with Spiritual Stones lively or living Stones i. e. Men and VVomen spiritually quickned by Divine Grace or renewed by the Holy Spirit Let him prove if he can that Christ received into the Gospel-Church any one Infant and tho we deny not but elect Infants that die may be lively Stones in Jerusalem Above I mean Heaven yet it follows no more from thence that Infants ought to be baptized than that they ought to partake of the Lord's Supper Moreover evident it is that John in Mat. 3. 9. the Text Mr. Owen quotes doth deny such to have a right to Baptism that were the Seed or Children of Abraham according to the Flesh Think not to say within your selves we have Abraham to our Father The Covenant of Peculiarity God made with Abraham tho it gave right to his Male-Infants to Circumcision yet it gives no right to Gospel-Baptism to any either Young or Old Male nor Female God can raise up of Stones Children to Abraham i. e. such that have no Descent from Abraham So that it appears Fleshly Descent in Gospel Times signifies not any thing as to Gospel-Church-Membership Worthy Britains Search the Scriptures and be not mistaken about the Covenant God made with Abraham you will find the Covenant of Grace was one and the same from the beginning and it was always held forth by way of a Free Promise first to Adam and so to Abraham c. but there was a Covenant made with Noah and tho it was full of Mercy to him and all Mankind yet that was not simply in it self the Covenant of Grace So also there was a Covenant made with Abraham and his Natural Seed as such which we call a Covenant of Peculiarity or which peculiarly did appertain to his Natural Seed or Off-spring to which Covenant Circumcision did belong which was distinct to the Free Promise or Covenant of Grace which God made with him and with all the Elect in him You may assure your selves that that Covenant in which there was mutual Restipulation between God and Abraham and his Carnal Seed or between God and the whole House of Israel and upon the Condition of Obedience thereunto Life length of Days and the Earthly Canaan was promised and upon their Disobedience Temporal Death was threatned was not the Covenant of Grace tho it might be given in subserviency to the Gospel-Covenant or the Covenant of Faith And so it was as a School-master to bring them to Christ 'T is only the Holy Spirit thro Faith that actually intiles us or our Children to the Covenant of Grace We must believe and our Children must believe before either we or they can be actually in this Blessed Covenant so as to have right to Baptism I mean such of them that live c. Also know as I said before that it is not the Covenant of Grace simply considered in it self that gives any Person a right to Gospel-Baptism but the meer positive and express Command Will and Pleasure of Christ the only Lawgiver For the Covenant of Grace gave no Godly Man or his Male-Children in Abraham's Time or before or after any right to Circumcision but only God's Command to Abraham which ran to those that proceeded from Abraham's Loins or were bought with his Money Brethren Can any think that Abraham could purchase Men with Money and that way bring them into the Covenant of Grace No 't is nothing but the Purchase of Christ's Blood can do that In a word it is evident that should we grant all that Mr. Owen and other Pedo-Baptists say That all the Children of Believers were in very deed in the Covenant of Grace yet it would not follow from thence that our Infants should be baptized any more than that they ought to have the Lord's Supper given to them as I said before because both those Ordinances as Circumcision was are absolutely of meer positive Right Therefore we must know that 't is the Will and Command of Christ in the New Testament that Infants ought to be baptized if they have right thereunto but since there is not the least Intimation given in all God's Word that 't is his Pleasure they should be baptized it must be a piece of Will-worship to do it Object But whereas 't is objected it may be gathered from Consequences that 't is our Duty to baptize them I answer In point of instituted Worship or for any meer positive Legal or Gospel Ordinance there ought to be an express Precept
Covenant you bring your poor Babes under being wholly without Divine Authority it is therefore voluntary and so forbid and sinful Secondly It is also directly repugnant to those Precepts Add not to his Word lest he reprove thee c. Thirdly Consider that Infants Baptismal Covenant is also directly repugnant to the nature of the Covenant of Grace rendring the Covenant of Grace to be of the same nature of the Covenant of Peculiarity God made with Abraham and his Natural Seed as such and so sutes only with the Baxterian Errors and Mr. William's New Scheme which renders the Covenant of Grace conditional according to the Covenant of Works Take Mr. Baxter's words viz. The Condition of the Covenant of Grace by which we have right to the Benefits of it is our Faith mark it or Christianity as it is meant by Christ in the Baptismal Covenant viz. to give up our selves in Covenant believing in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost renouncing the Contraries and that through this consent to the Christian Covenant called Faith alone is the full condition of our first right to the Benefits of that Covenant of which Justification is one Baxter's Fourth Proposit in his Preface to Dr. Tully 1. From hence note as Mr. Troughton observes Mr. Baxter doth not say that Christ's Righteousness apprehended by Faith doth justify us but Faith in a comprehensive Sense as it includeth Obedience to God according to this Covenant It appears that the Belief and Practice of the Christian Religion upon performance of their Infant Baptismal-Covenant is that Righteousness by which they are justified as the purport of Mr. Baxter's Sense 2. From hence also it appears that the Spring or Rise of this grand Baxterian Error is from Infants-Baptismal Covenant therefore Brethren 't is time to consider the danger of this unwarrantable Practice and evil Innovation D. Williams confirms Mr. Baxter's Notion Take his words What doth the Covenant bind thee to speaking of Infants Baptismal-Covenant His Answer is To be the Lord's in sincere Care to know love believe obey worship and serve him all my days and to depend on God thro Christ for all Happiness Rom. 6. 4. Quest What if a Child thro the love of Sin or vanity of Mind will not agree to this Covenant I answer saith he He then rejecteth Christ our Saviour and renounceth the Blessings of the Gospel Quest Is it a great Sin to refuse to agree to the Covenant to which thy Baptism engaged thee He answers It is the damning Sin and the Heart of all Sin Mr. Williams's Book called The Vanity of Youth pag. 131. 1 Reply From hence it appears that Mr. Baxter and Mr. Williams plainly declare that the terms and condition of the Covenant of Grace which must be performed by such that would be justified is to perform this Infant Baptismal-Covenant viz. sincerely to love believe obey worship and serve the Lord not Faith only whereby we receive Christ rely on Christ but the whole of that Obedience to which they were obliged by their Infant-Baptism 2. Observe also that it appears according to these Men that Unbelief is not the condemning Sin but the non-performance of this Baptismal-Covenant 3. How are these Men left of God to darkness of their own Minds not only to affirm the Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace rendering it no better than a new Covenant of Works but also to make this devised and voluntary Infant Baptismal-Covenant to be the only Condition of it and of our Justification in the sight of God 4. Moreover They bring their poor Babes without any Authority from Christ under a Covenant and charge them with Perjury if they break it when grown up it they perform it they shall be pardoned justified and saved but they must be damn'd if they answer not the Rule of the Promise or Baptismal-Covenant which is to repent to be regenerated and so answer their new Law of Faith and sincere Obedience So that in this Covenant lies the Conditionality of their Covenant of Grace For no other formal Covenant is proposed by them to the People unless they are for Mr. Joseph Allen's voluntary Covenant contrived out of his own Head and proposed to all devout Adult Persons to enter into which no doubt is forbid by our Saviour as sinful he was a well-meaning Man And the Truth is his devised Covenant seems more plausible and reasonable than Infants Baptismal-Covenant because he would have none but such enter into his Covenant who are Adult Persons besides it must be with their own free Consent whereas Children are brought into theirs without their knowledg or consent and are obliged to do those things which they have no power to perform And as it is not required by the Lord so God hath made no Promise to them of Grace and Assistance to discharge the Obligation thereof Fourthly To conclude It is easy to gather from whence their Mistake doth arise about this Baptismal-Covenant which evidently appears to be from their applying it to false Subjects and so to bind such to perform those things which Christ never ordained Baptism to do viz. such that are in their Natural State or who when baptized believed not nor were capable so to do for your Brethren the Pedo-Baptists tell you that Baptism obligeth such as are baptized to believe and to become new Creatures not that they were such that then did believe c. And from hence it followeth that it is one of those Works or Acts of Obedience that go before Faith and therefore a dead Work and pleaseth not God as well as not required of him for all Works before Faith or Union with Christ are dead Works they not proceeding from a Spiritual Vital Principle It therefore appears from hence that Infant 's Baptismal-Covenant is directly also repugnant to Christ's true Baptismal-Covenant For evident it is that Christ's Baptism only belongs to Believers who are renewed regenerated and have Union with Christ and so in a justified State before baptized Our Baptism doth not oblige us to believe and to be regenerated or to die to Sin as such that were not dead before but it is a sign of that Faith and Death unto Sin we had when we were baptized or to shew that we were then dead to Sin c. How shall we that are dead to Sin live any longer therein Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his Death Or as being dead with him Therefore we are buried with him into Death Rom. 6. 2 3 4. Not buried alive or whilst dead in Sin No but as being dead to Sin Not to oblige us to be regenerated but as Persons who are regenerated before buried in Baptism And the Covenant of Baptism is to walk in newness of Life as being before quickned That like as Christ was raised from the dead by the Glory of the Father so we should walk in newness of Life I find Mr. Richard Baxter
these four respects Add if you can a fifth 1. As the Promise refers to Christ so they cannot be 〈◊〉 who is Abraham's in a special manner to whom God promised he would be a God to and impart all Blessings of the Covenant unto according to that glorious Compact or Covenant of Redemption made between him and the Father before the World began upon the account of his blessed Undertaking as a Mediator and Surety that so he might impart all those purchased Blessings and Privileges to all who believe in him or were given to him by the Father 2. As the Promise refers to the Elect Seed as such who had the Faith of Abraham and 〈◊〉 in his Steps it cannot include the Infant-Seed oâ— believing Gentiles as such 3. As the Promise refers to Isaac who was Abraham's own natural Son according to the Flesh as well as according to the Promise they are not the Seed of Abraham 4. As Ishmael and the Sons of Keturah were the Seed of Abraham so the Infant-Seed of believing Gentiles are not the Seed of Abraham If you can â—dd a fifth sort of Abraham's Seed I mean such who are so called from the Scripture pray do when you write again Arg. From hence I thus argue Iâ— the Children of believing Gentiles as such are not the Natural Seed nor the Spiritual Seed of Abraham then they can have no right to Baptism or Church-membership â—…y virtue of any Covenant-Transaction God made with Abraham But the Children of â—…eving Gentiles aâ— such are not the Natural Seed nor Spiritual Seed of Abraham Ergo They can have no right to Baptiâ—â— nor Church-Membership â—…y virtue of any Covenant Transaction God made with Abraham It is affirmed by some that the Children of Believers are the Spiritual Seed of Abraham till they by actual Sin unrepented of are otherwise Answ 1. Tâ—… which I answer Then some of the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham may perish eternally and the Promise is not sure â—o all his Spiritual Seed it is directly contrary to wâ—â—t S. Paul affirms in Rom. 4. 16. Therefore it is of Faith that it might be by Grace to the end the Promise might be â—â—re to all the Seed not to that only which is of the Law but to that also which is of the Faith of Abraham who is the Father of 〈◊〉 From wâ—ence I argue Arg. 2. All they that are in that Gospel Covenant which God made with Abraham or who are his true Spiritual Seed have the Promise of Everlasting Life made sure to them But all the Infant-Seed of Believers as such have not the Promise of Everlasting Life made sure to them Ergo The Infant-Seed of Believers as such are not in that Gospel-Covenant God made with Abraham nor his true Spiritual Seed Take another Arg. 3. If all the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham have the Faith of Abraham and walk in the steps of Abraham even that Faith Abraham had before he was circumcised then the Infant-Seed of Believers as such are not the Spiritual Seed of Abraham But the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham have the Faith of Abraham and walk in the steps of Abraham even that Faith Abraham had before he was circumcised Ergo The Infant-Seed of Believers as such are not the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham As to the Major see Rom. 4. 11 12. The Minor cannot be denied No Man in his right Wits will affirm the Infants of Believers as such have the Faith Abraham had before he was circumcised nor do many of them nor can they walk in the steps of Abraham having not his Faith If any object and say If Infants of Believers are not included in that Covenant made with Abraham how can any of them who die in their Infancy be saved I answer 1. Cannot God save dying Infants unless they were included in the Covenant made with Abraham How then could the dying Infants of the Godly who lived before that Covenant was made with Abraham be saved God has many ways through Christ's Undertakings to save dying Infants as Dr. Taylor notes which we know not of Secret things belong to God and revealed things to us 2. Were they in any sense included in that Covenant made with Abraham tho not accounted for his Natural or Spiritual Seed yet it would not follow from thence that they ought to be baptized because the Females who were truly Abraham's Natural Seed and some of them might be his Spiritual Seed too yet were not circumcised no more than the Male Children of the Godly were before Abraham's time c. 3. Were they in Covenant as they are the Natural Seed of Believers Then Baptism however does not bring them into the Covenant and if so their State is good whether baptized or no And if Baptism brings them into the Covenant of Grace and makes the Covenant sure unto them then it would follow that 't is in the Power of Men either to bring their Children into the Covenant of Grace or keep them out and that it is in effect to say Parents have Power to save or destroy their Children and how absurd that is I will leave to all impartial Men to judg I shall in the next place prove that the Covenant of Circumcision was not a Covenant of Grace or Faith and therefore doth not concern the Infant-Seed of believing Gentiles 1. I argue thus That Covenant that was made to separate the Natural Seed of Abraham from all other Nations of the World and made sure unto them the Earthly Promise of the Possession of the Land of Canaan could not be a Covenant of Grace which concerns the Infant-Seed of Believers under the Gospel But the Covenant of Circumcision was made to separate the Natural Seed of Abraham from all other Nations of the World and made sure unto them the Earthly Promise of the Possession of the Land of Canaan Ergo The Covenant of Circumcision could not be a Covenant of Grace which concerns the Infants of Believers under the Gospel The Major cannot be denied because the Gospel or second Covenant is establish'd upon no such Earthly Promises as the Covenant of Circumcision was not that we should have an Earthly Kingdom or possess the Land of Canaan but it is established on better Promises than these as Heb. 8. 6. Also if that Covenant concern'd us or our Children who are Gentiles then the Gentiles had equal Right to that Earthly Inheritance and then were not the Natural Seed of Abraham separated from all other People upon the account of that Earthly Blessing as their Possession only As to the Minor see Gen. 17. I will establish my Covenant between me and thee ver 7. And I will give unto thee and thy Seed after thee the Land wherein thou art a Stranger all the Land of Canaan for an everlasting Possession and I will be thy God ver 8. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy Seed after thee every Man-Child among you
whereof Christ is the Mediator But the Covenant of Circumcision was in its nature and quality as much a Covenant of Works as that Covenant made with Adam or the Sinai-Covenant Ergo The Covenant of Circumcision was not a Covenant of Grace or Gospel-Covenant Read Reverend Mr. Philip Cary's Defence and Proof of the Substance of this Argument in his just Reply to Mr. John Flavel p. 59 60. Thus he says and doubtless speaks the Truth viz. That Adam's Covenant was a Covenant of Works cannot rationally be denied for as much as Life was implicitly promised to him on his Obedience and Death was explicitly threatned in case of Disobedience upon these Terms he was to stand or fall And that the Sinai-Covenant was of the same nature he hath in the said Treatise clearly proved both of them requiring perfect Obedience and neither of them admitting of Faith in a Redeemer The Sinai Covenant commanded perfect Obedience under the pain of a Curse Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3. 10. It accepted as he shews of no short Endeavours nor gave any Strength and is called a Ministration of Death and of Condemnation 2 Cor. 3. And moreover 't is called in express Terms the old Covenant which God made with the Children of Israel when he brought them up out of the Land of Egypt Heb. 8. 9. Also the new Covenant is said to be directly contrary unto it or not according to it but opposed thereto and that there was no Righteousness by it nor Life for as the Apostle shews if there had Christ is dead in vain and besides the Apostle says 't is done away Now all these things being considered Mr. Flavel 't is evident doth but beat the Air and darken Counsel and all that he hath said in his last Book in Answer to that worthy Gentleman Mr. Cary deserves no farther Answer Now saith he that the Covenant of Circumcision is of the same stamp is evident for tho God promised to be a God to Abraham and to his Seed Gen. 17. 7 8. as he did also in the Sinai-Covenant to the same People in the Wilderness yet still it was on condition of Obedience with an answerable Threatning in case of Disobedience Ver. 9 10. Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy Seed after thee Every Man-Child shall be circumcised Ver. 14. The uncircumcised Male Child whose Flesh of his Foreskin is not circumcised that Soul shall be cut off from his People he hath broken my Covenant The same Terms saith he with the former Besides 't is evident that Circumcision indispensably oblig'd all that were under it to a perfect universal Obedience to the whole revealed Will oâ— God a â—…ed before Gal. 5. 3. And as the Term were the same so were the Promises that which was the great Promise of the Covenant of Circumcision was the Land of Canaan and God to be their God in fulfilling that Earthly Promise to Abraham's Natural Seed upon the Condition of keeping that Covenant on their parts That which Mr. Flavel hath said in his last Reply in his Book called A succinct and seasonable Discourse to Mr. Cary is mainly to prove that there is but one Covenant of Works p 217 218 c. To which I answer by way of Concession yet you must say that Covenant had several Ministrations and Additions as had also the Covenant of Grace because the Covenant of Works was made with Adam by which he stood in the time of his innocency justified and accepted by virtue thereof Could not God give such a second Ministration or Transcript of his righteous and holy Law tho not to Justification yet to aggravate his Sin and to his just Condemnation And doth not St. Paul assert the same thing Rom. 3 1â— 20 compared with Rom. 7. 13. That Sin by the Commandment or Law might become exceeding sinful So Gal. 3. 19. Nay I will 〈◊〉 always when the Scriptures of the New Testament speak of the old Covenant or first Covenant or Covenant of Works it passes by in silence the Covenant made with Adam and more immediately and directly applies to the Sinai Covenant and to the Covenant of Circumcision as all careful Readers who read the Epistles to the Romans Galatians and to the Hebrews may clearly find But to proceed Tho we say there is but one Covenant of Grace yet it is evident there were several distinct Ministrations of it or Additions to it and we say the Promise of the Gospel or Gospel-Covenant was the same in all Ages in respect of things promised with the nature and quality thereof which is a â—…ree and absolute Covenant without Works or any Conditions or foreseen Aâ—â—s of Righteousness or any thing to be done by the Creature Rom. 4. 5. The Substance and Essential Part of this Covenant is Christ Faith a new Heart Regeneration Remission of Sins Sanctification Preservation and Everlasting Life Yet this Evangelical Covenant had divers Forms or Transcripts of it which â—…ified those things and various Sanctions by which it was given forth and confirmed To Adam the Promise was made under the Name of the Seed of the Women bruising the Head of the Serpent to Enoch Noah c. in other Forms to Abraham under the Name of his Seed in whom all the Nations of the Earth should be blessed to Moses by the Name of a great Prophet of his Brethren like unto him and it was also signified to him under dark Shadows and Sacrifices unto David under the Name of a Successor in his Kingdom In the New Testament in plain words We all with open face beholding as in a Glass the Glory of the Lord 2 Cor. 3. 18. But now because there were so many Additions of the Gospel-Promise and new Covenant are there so many new Covenants This being so Mr. Flavel hath done nothing to remove Mr. Cary's Arguments but they stand as a Rock Take another of them Arg. 7. That Covenant in which Faith was not reckoned to Abraham or Righteousness could not be a Gospel-Covenant or a Covenant of Grace But the Scripture is express that Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness when he was circumcised but in Uncircumcision Rom. 4. 9 10. Ergo The Covenant of Circumcision was not a Gospel-Covenant or a Covenant of Grace Arg. 8 That Law or Covenant which is contradistinguished or opposed to the Righteousness of Faith could not be a Covenant of Faith or a Gospel-Covenant But the Law or Covenant of Circumcision is by the Apostle plainly opposed to or contradistinguished unto the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 4. 13. Ergo The Law or Covenant of Circumcision was not a Gospel-Covenant And from hence Mr. Cary argues thus By the way saith he let it be observed in reference to the two foregoing Arguments
as the Doctor mentioned before 2. If the Supposition were true the Proposition built upon it is false for saith he they that were capable of the same Grace are not always capable of the same Sign for Women under the Law of Moses altho they were capable of the Righteousness of Faith yet they were not capable of the Sign of Circumcision for God doth not always convey his Grace in the same manner Thus far Reverend Dr. Jer. Taylor Lib. of Proph. p. 234 235. For what the Bishop hath said answers all you affirm on this Text for Infants Baptism The Promise of the Spirit we grant runs to Believers and to all their believing Seed and Off-spring be they Jews or Gentiles and this Text proves nothing more It did not belong to the Jews Seed as such but only to their Children that did believe and so it doth to the Gentiles that were sometimes afar off that believe and to their Children that God shall also call as he doth call their Parents That which you seem to affirm from this Text is this viz. that there is such a Covenant made with Gentile Believers and with every particular Believer and his Carnal Seed as God made with Abraham which is strange Divinity We have proved that there was a Covenant of Peculiarity made with Abraham and his Natural Seed to which Circumcision did belong and by virtue of that Covenant as appertaining to the Flesh There was under the Law a knowing of Men the Jews in that Legal and External Covenant had the Preference above the Gentiles but that Covenant is taken away and that Partition Wall is pulled doâ—n and now the Jews have no Advantage upon that account above the Gentiles or the Gentiles above the Jews old things being passed away and old Church State and Church-Membership gone so that all you say upon this Scripture and Argument signifies nothing And remarkable 't is that Peter spake these words to the Jews The Promise is to you and your Children c. But to say the Promise runs to them and to their Infants as to Baptism and Church-Membership under the Gospel as Circumcision and Legal Church-Membership did under the Law is notoriously faise none of the Jews Children were allowed Baptism or received into the Gospel-Church but only such that did believe nor of the Gentiles neither when their Children believe or are called then they may be baptized and they have right to the Promise of the holy Spirit The Promise and Blessing of Abraham you say comes on the Gentiles through Christ and by Faith therefore say I not in a fleshly Line and by Birth-Privilege You say Abraham's Blessing was not Personal unto him and unto his Seed this Blessing came upon the believing Gentiles therefore say you it must come on the Faithful and on their Seed for it cannot be termed Abraham's Blessing if it come not upon the Gentiles in an essential form to Abraham's Covenant that is I will be a God unto thee and to thy Seed unless this Blessing come upon the Gentiles in the same manner and in the same Enlargement it being not Abraham's Blessing but a part of it being cut in the middle I will be a God to you Gentiles but not to your Seed is this Abraham's Blessing how unlike to it there is a great difference between an Estate settled on a real Man and that being also settled on his Children Answ 1. You talk â—s if you were ignorant what Abraham's Blessing wâ—s the Blessing of Abraham was not the External Privileges of the Covenant of Grace which it seems is all you plead fâ—r about your Infant Seed but the spirituâ—l Part anâ— Blessing of the Covenant namely Justification Pardon of Sin Adoption and Eternal Life 2 As to Abraham's Seed doth not the Apostle tell you that To Abâ—aham and to his Seed the Promise was made He saith not to Seeds as of many but to thy Seed which is Christ Gal 3 16 Now you contend for Seeds as of many even to all the fleshly Seed of Abraham and fleshly Seed of all Believers Sir no Gentiles but such as are Christ's 〈◊〉 â—braham's Seed none but such that believe and hâ—ve Abraham's Faith The â—nheriâ—ance which is God to be our God by way of special Interest 〈◊〉 settled upon all Believers and their Children that have the same Faith not their Carnal Seed as such but only God's Elect Ones 3. I have proved it is true that there was a Legal and External Covenant made with Abraham and his Fleshly Seed in which Covenant God was said to be the God of the whole House of Israel and was bound to them but that Covenant is abolished and the new Covenant is not according to that but quite different the Fleshly Seed are not in a Relative External Covenant 〈◊〉 Christ's Gospel-Church is not National This being considered it appears that whâ—t you say concerning Abraham being the Father of the Gentiles signifies nothing for your purpose for he was not the Father of any Gentiles but of such that believe in Christ or Elect Ones and this you seem to acknowledg in these words viz. the believing Gentiles are a Seed to Abraham Gal. 3. 29. But Sir what 's this to the Business prove if you can that the fleshly Seed of Gentile Believers as such are a Seed to Abraham for 't is that which we utterly deny and on that foot of account the whole Controversy depends You say the Children of the Flesh are not accounted to be the Children of God when they break their Covenant with God and John Baptist calleth such a Generation of Vipers Answ 1. This is the sense of the Apostle strange Can those that are the Children of the Covenant of Grace cease to be such May the Children of God degenerate into Dogs Wolves and Vipers I thought that such as are God's Children or Heirs according to the promised Covenant of Grace made with Abraham can never cease being the Children of God how else is the Promise sure to all Abraham's Spiritual Seed Do not all the Children of God partake of God's Divine Nature and are not they all Heirs of God Are you an Arminian Do you plead for final falling out of God's Covenant or from a State of tâ—ue Grace that must follow what you say here or your Argument is gone and lost for ever 2. Reader 't is plain that Ishmael Esau c. and many more of Abraham's Natural Seed nay all as such or â—s so simply considered were not accounted for his Spiritual Seed or the Children of God but only such that are God's Elect Ones or such as believe in Christ and 't is plain that none of the true Children of God can degenerate so as to cease being his Children I mean they cannot fall totally and finally from a State of Grace and become Vipers c. as Mr. Owen acknowledges some of Abraham's Seed did which clearly shews that those Jews never were in the Covenant of Grace God
Covenant of Faith or Grace How is it then that the Apostle Paul says the Law is not of Faith also the Covenant of Grace giveth Life But I argue thus The Law could not give Life Ergo The Law was not a Covenant of Grace So much for the first Note or Observation 2. The second Observation is The Duration or Continuance of this Covenant made with Abraham the Lord calls â—t an Everlasting Covenant c. Answ This might have been left out only it adds to the Number this is answered by the Objector himself be he who he will in saying the Hebrew word for Everlasting sometimes signifies no more than a long Continuance of Time We know it very well and those Mosaical Rites that ended in Christ are said to be for everlasting But when the Lord saith he will be a Person 's God for ever and ever or everlastingly it denotes his being so to all Eternity But God never said he would be the God everlastingly or to all Eternity to all who were concern'd in the Covenant of Circumcision nor was he Ishmael's God so tho circumcised and has he not cast off that whole Nation of the Jews with whom he made that Covenant and is not so their God now tho he is I confess to all Eternity or everlastingly the God of all Abraham's Spiritual Seed viz. all true Believers in Christ 3. The third and last Argument or Note to prove the Covenant of Circumcision a Covenant of Grace is taken from the Benefits and Blessings conveyed by it To be a God unto him and to his Seed and that everlastingly is a most comprehensive Gospel-Blessing for hereby say they God gives a Person an Interest in all that he is and in all that he has so far as can be communicated to a Creature This Blessing promised to Abraham comprehends Christ Grace Holiness here and Glory and Happiness hereafter And accordingly we find the Apostle Heb. 8. uses the same Expression with this of God's to Abraham I will be to them a God and they shall be to me a People Answ This is idem bis idem culpandum est the same again which is already answered Is God everlastingly a God to Abraham and to all his Fleshly Seed and to Believers who are the Spiritual Seed of Abraham and to all their Fleshly Seed I say is this so Does God give himself all he is and all he has to every Believer and to all his Fleshly Seed Have all their Children or every one of them Christ Grace Holiness here and Glory and eternal Happiness hereafter Or are they not to be justly blamed who jumble things so confusedly together 'T is true the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham and all his true Spiritual Seed who are the Elect have Interest in all God is and has so far as it can be communicated to Creatures and we know they have Christ as well as are Christ's as Paul notes Gal. 4. and Grace here and shall have Glory hereafter But a multitude of Abraham's Natural Off-spring and the Natural Off-spring of Believers has neither Christ nor Grace nor shall be saved but perish eternally Therefore this may serve for an Answer with what I have proved before touching the nature of that twofold Covenant made with Abraham Let us come to what is further asserted If the Covenant which God made with Abraham be one and the same with the Covenant of Grace then our Infant-Seed have right to Baptism Answ This has been urged before and I have already answered it only I shall add a Passage or two of Martin Luther's Paul therefore concludeth with this Sentence saith he They which are of Faith are the Children of Abraham That Corporal Birth or Carnal Seed makes not the Children of Abraham before God As if he would say there is none before God accounted as the Child of this Abraham who is the Servant of God whom God hath chosen and made righteous by Faith through Carnal Generation but such Children must be given before God as he was a Father but he was a Father of Faith was justified and pleased God not because he could beget Children after the Flesh not because he had Circumcision under the Law but because he believed in God He therefore that will be a Child of the believing Abraham must also himself believe or else he is not a Child of the Elect the believing and the justified Abraham but only the begetting Abraham which is nothing else but a Man conceived born and wrapt in Sin without the Forgiveness of Sin without Faith without the Holy Ghost as another Man is and therefore condemned such also are the Children carnally begotten of him having nothing in them like unto their Father but Flesh and Blood Sin and Death therefore these are all damned This glorious boasting then we are the Seed of Abraham is to no purpose Thus far and much more to the same purpose he excellently debates upon Mr. Perkins on the Galatians concerning the Covenant mâ—de with Abraham The Seed of Abraham saith he is the Seed not of the Flesh but of the Promise And this Seed is first Christ and then all that believe in Christ for all these are given to Abraham by Promise and Election of God Moreover this Seed is not many as Paul observeth but one It is objected that the word Seed is a Name collective and signifies the whole Posterity of Abraham Answ It doth sometimes saith he but not always for Eve saith of Sâ—th God hath given me another Seed Again he saith this one particular Seed of Abraham is Christ Jesus here call'd by the Name Christ first and principally the Mediator and then secondarily all Jews and Gentiles believing that are fit and grafted into Christ by Faith St. Paul saith the Children of the Flesh these are not the Children of God but the Children of the Promise are the Seed of Abraham Rom. 9. 8. Now this Covenant we grant thus made with Abraham is one and the same with the Covenant of Grace but what does this signify to the Infants or Fleshly Seed of Believers as such And thus I shall pass to your next Argument You say the Children of the Faithful are in God's Covenant because Christ is the Mediator of a better Covenant which was established upon better Promises Heb. 8. 6 c. But say you if the Children of the Faithful are excluded from the Covenant then the Covenant is worse and not a better Covenant It was a great Prerogative of Children being in Covenant Rom. 9. 4. for the Promises of God belonged to them but if the Covenant be shortened in Privileges how is it a better Covenant c. Answ 1. I answer It is granted by us that the Children of the Jews whether they were believing Jews or unbelieving Jews godly Persons or ungodly Persons they were in that external Covenant God made with Abraham's Natural Seed as such or with the whole House of Israel under the Old
Testament or old Covenant But the Promises and that Covenant then ran not to the Seed of believing Jews only but if they were Abraham's Seed I mean his Natural Seed whether Believers or Unbelievers Circumcision belonged to the Male-Infants as such and all other external Privileges but the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham ran only then as it runs now viz. to all the Elect only not to their Carnal Seed as such but to their Spiritual Seed If you are a Believer you are in the Covenant of Grace and if your Child in Infancy be one of God's Elect that decretively is in the same Covenant of Grace but not actually until it doth believe and has actual Union with Christ by Faith and partakes of the holy Spirit which is the Bond of that Union and Seal of the Covenant of Grace No external Rite can be the Seal of the Spiritual Covenant If therefore Circumcision was a Seal of any Covenant it was the External and Legal Covenant tho Abraham 't is true received it as the Seal of the Righteousness of his Faith even of that Faith he had being uncircumcised and in that sense it could be a Seal to no other Person but to Abraham only for who besides him had the Righteousness of Faith before they were circumcised and that they should be Fathers to all that believed not only of believing Jews but believing Gentiles also for so ran the Covenant of the Righteousness of Faith God made with Abraham And has God made such a Covenant with you or with any Believer now Or is there any such Covenant-Head under the Gospel save Jesus Christ alone Abraham was but a Typical Father the Covenant made with him and his Natural Seed as such typified Christ and all his Spiritual Seed 2. We have proved in the Legal or Old Covenant there were many other external Privileges besides Circumcision and external visible Church-Membership several of which we have mentioned to which we may add they had a right to the Land of Canaan and to a Civil Government and Governours among themselves or a Political Common-wealth as also a right to a glorious external Temple But Sir is the Gospel Covenant worse than that Legal Covenant because we and our Children have not such Promises and external Privileges Certainly if God pleases to open your Eyes you will soon see and confess your Mistake Besides the Apostle calling it a better Covenant and better Promises clearly shews they are not external Privileges but spiritual and so in that sense I have proved the Privileges and Promises of the Covenant of Grace do far exceed the Privileges the Jews had then and our Childrens Privileges are greater also tho not to be received as Members into the Gospel-Church till they do believe You say the Covenant of Grace that God made with Abraham was an immutable Covenant it was confirmed by an Oath Heb. 6. 13 17 c. therefore if the Children are excluded the Covenant you say it is mutable and if so what is become of the Oath and the Promises of God Where is the strong Consolation Where is the Immutability of God's Counsel Therefore say you those that do cast out the Children of the Faithful â—rom the Covenant of Grace c. weaken their Consolation and nullify the eternal Covenant and make God a Liar 1 John 5. 10. Answ 1. I answer Here you charge us home and lay horrid Evil at our Doors that do deny the Children of Believers as such to be in the Covenant of Grace but how unjustly and unrighteously we are charged by you I shall God assisting make appear 2. Sir Are all Believers Children in the Covenant of Grace I affirm and will stand by it if so they shall all be saved because all and every Soul that was or is in the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham shall be saved because it is an immutable Covenant and God's Promise and Oath are passed to secure them of Eternal Life Sir the Natural Seed of Abraham as such never had any ground of strong Consolation God never made a Promise and bound it with an Oath that they should all be saved I speak of Abraham's Fleshly Seed as so considered or as such for if he had made such an immutable Covenant with them and confirm'd it by his Oath What is become of his Promises and Oath since he hath cast off Abraham's Natural Seed O how preposterously you argue See Rom. 9. 6. Not as tho the Word of God hath taken none Effect For they are not all Israel which are of Israel Neither because they are the Seed of Abraham are they all Children but in Isaac shall thy Seed be called i. e. They that are the Children of the Flesh i. e. as such these are not the Children of God but the Children of the Promise are counted for the Seed Sir this Text says as much as we do affirm The Spiritual Seed of Abraham viz. all the Elect of God or Believers only are in the immutable Covenant and have strong Consolation but who can tell or know who they are that are God's Elect Ones until they believe or are under effectual Vocation and that Election runs only to Believers Seed as such you will not say For many Children of Unbelievers we seâ— daily are in God's eternal Election by their special Vocation and many Children of Believers are not elected because never called 2. Were it the immutable Counsel of God that all Believers Children should be called adopted justified and eternally saved you had said something and then all their Natural Seed might have strong Consolation indeed But alas alas how many Godly Mens Children prove wicked and ungodly and so live and die Were these such think you that ever were in the Covenant of Grace God maâ—e with Abraham Had they ever any ground of strong Consolation 3. Come Sir the Odium falls on your self I argue thus If all the Children of Believers are in the Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham and yet many of them eternally perish what then is become of the immutable and everlasting Covenant of Grace nay of the Promises and Oath of God and also of the Doctrine of final Perseverance O what Shame do you Pedo-baptists bring upon your selves by arguing after this blind manner for your Babes Baptism 4. But perhaps you will say you argue for the external Privileges of the Covenant of Grace to belong to your Children as such and not the spiritual and special Blessings of it Answ If so the case is still worse for then it will follow that God in the Covenant of Grace hath by his Promise and Oath and Immutability of his Counsel given to all Persons ground of strong Consolation that only have a share in the outward Rites and external Parts of the Covenant of Grace Sir deliver your self as well as you can from being ground to pieces between these two Mill-stones But why must your Children only have but part of the
external Privileges of the Covenant of Grace who only partake of Baptism and not of the Lord's-Supper Is not Faith required of all such that ought to be baptized as well as it iâ— required in all that partake of the Lord's Supper to examine themselves neither of which Infants are capable to do It iâ— manifest that the Children of the Faithful as such are not in the Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham but that there was a twofold Covenant made with him and that the Covenant of Grace only appertains to the Elect of God whether they be Children of Believers or Children of Unbelieverâ— which is not known to us until they are grown up and are brought by the Spirit of God under special Vocation and Regeneration and that they are the Adult only viz. such as believe that have right to Baptism but that not by virtue of the Covenant of Grace but by virtue of the positive Command of Christ in the New Testament Sir you mistake again it was not by virtue of the Covenant of Grace that Persons had right to Circumcision for if so then Lot and Melchisedec and Abraham's Males as soon as they were born had a right to it as also his Females nothing gave right to Abraham's Male-Infanâ—s to Circumcision but the meer positive Command of God to him which extended only to those Males in his own House or bought with his Money and not till the eighth day for such that died before the eighth day tho Males had no right to be circumcised nor had his Females any right thereto so none but Believers when they can give an account of their Faith by virtue of Christ's express and positive Command ought to be baptized Pray remember the Covenant of Grace as such gives no right to Baptism for if it did all Believers or Elect Persons had right to it from the first Introduction or Declaration of it to Adam upon the Fall No no it is a pure Gospel-Ordinance and meerly positive and only depends upon the Will and Pleasure of the Law-giver Jesus Christ Honoured Britains who inhabit North and South Wales let me intreat you to consider how false the Conclusion is that Mr. Owen draws concerning the Right the Infants of the Faithful have to Baptism namely that if they are in the Covenant of Grace then they ought to be baptized For as he nor no Man else can prove the Infants of Believers as such are in the Covenant of Grace so it would not follow were that granted that they ought to be baptized it being not the Covenant of Grace but the express and positive Command of Christ that gives Persons just Right thereunto Suppose Christ had not commanded Believers to be baptized would any Man have adventured to baptize them or conclude it was their Duty because they were in Covenant with God Or would Abraham have been circumcised himself because in the Covenant of Grace had he not received a positive Command so to be Certainly he was long in the Covenant of Grace before he was circumcised and did not sin thereby because God had not given that Precept to him until he was old Moreover it was the express Command of God that gave right to his Male-Infants to be circumcised and not only those of his Seed that were in the Covenant of Grace but Ishmael and others who were not Children of the Promise or in the Covenant of Grace were circumcised and also it was not Lot's Duty tho in the Covenant of Grace to be circumcised because not one that dwelt in Abraham's Family or his Natural Seed nor commanded by the Lord to be circumcised or to circumcise his Infants CHAP. VII Proving Infant-Baptism is not lawful because Circumcision under the Law belonged unto the Male-Infants of the Jews containing an Answer to Mr. James Owen's first Chapter IF say you Circumcision under the Law belonged unto Infants then Baptism under the Gospel belongeth unto them for even as Circumcision was so Baptism is the Seal of the same Covenant of Grace and signifieth the same things Answ 1. I answer If Circumcision did not belong to Infants under the Law any otherwise than by express and positive Command of God which gave them right thereto then if God hath not commanded Believers to baptize their Infants it is not their Duty to baptize them but their Sin if they do it But I have proved it was the express Command of God only that gave Male-Infants proceeding from Abraham's Loâ—â—s Authority to be circumcised and God hath given no such Command to Believers to baptize their Infants therefore Baptism doth not belong to the Infants of Believers as such under the Gospel as Circumcision did belong to Male-Infants under the Law 2. I have proved Circumcision was not the Seal of the Covenant of Grace tho it was a Seal to Abraham of the Righteousness of his own Faith yea of that Faith he had being not circumcised A Seal I have shewed gives an undoubted Right of all those Blessings and Privileges to those Persons to whom the said Covenant is sealed and so it did to Abraham but it was no Seal of the Blessings of the Covenant of Grace to Ishmael Esau and many thousands more who were commanded to be circumcised Were this therefore true that Mr. Owen asserts That Circumcision was a Seal of the Covenant of Grace to all that were circumcised in Infancy then they were all saved even all the Males that proceeded from Abraham's Loins many of which proved as vile and wicked Men as most that ever lived in the World Nor Reader is Baptism a Seal of the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel for if so it would seal all Gospel-Blessings to all Persons that are baptized who then were it so but would be baptized and baptize his Children Brethren the holy Spirit only is the Seal of the Covenant of Grace or Gospel-Covenant vid. Ephes 1 13 14. cap. 4. 10. You proceed to shew in several respects that Circumcision and Baptism signify the same things 1. You say because Original Corruption cometh by Natural Generation 2. Because we are born in Uncleanness we must be washed in our Infancy Answ 1. Supposing that Circumcision did and Baptism doth signify the Corruption or Filthiness of Original Sin or Uncleanness must we therefore baptize our Infants without any Authority Command or Example in God's Word 2. Doth Baptism wash away Original Corruption I know the Papists assert it doth do this but how do they or you prove it Baptism St. Peter saith doth not wash away the Filthiness of the Flesh or Corruption of Natural Pollution 1 Pet. 3. 21. 3. Your Reverend Brother Mr. Stephen Charnock fully proves that Baptism is not Regeneration that can't cleanse from Sin Answer his Arguments in his Book of Regeneration What tho those Baptists in Germany you speak of understood that the antient erring Fathers that introduced Infant-Baptism did bring it in to wash away Original Sin Cannot Christ cleanse Elect
you know nor whether ever God will give them his Spirit or Grace to enable them so to do And as one Pedo-baptist lately saith If they do not discharge this Obligation viz. their Baptismal Covenant they are guilty of Perjury and 't is the damning Sin O cruel Parents you list your Infants into the Spiritual War by your pretended Baptism and arm them not The Graces of the Spirit are the Believers Spiritual Armour and Weapons these they have when listed I mean baptized but Infants as such have not this Armour on when baptized Alas poor Babes they have too much Guilt upon them naturally O the Weight that lies upon them but you Pedo-baptists add to it by your Tradition of a Baptismal Covenant that God never appointed them to come under Therefore you object How can Children be bound to that which they are ignorant of You answer They were ignorant of the Bond of Circumcision and yet were bound over to the Law to take him to be their God and to depart from the ways of Sin c. Answ Because God obliged and bound over the Jews by Circumcision in their Infancy in that Legal Covenant to love the Lord their God with all their Hearts to take him to be their God and to depart from all the ways of Sin nay to keep the Law perfectly which shewed the necessity of Christ's Righteousness and Merits which was nevertheless upon this respect a Yoke of Bondage which Yoke by Christ we and our Children are delivered from Will you adventure to bring your poor Children under another like Yoke of Bondage Christ's Yoke is easy and his Burden is light because he gives all that are to be baptized his Spirit and a changed Heart to love God and cleave to him and serve him but you make his Yoke as hard as the Yoke of Circumcision by putting Baptism on your poor Infants to oblige them thereby to be regenerated and love God with all their Hearts before Grace in the Habit of it is infused into them and all this without the least Authority from Christ or the Gospel O cruel Parents Sirs who hath required this at your Hands You shall hear more of this hereafter You do intimate that 't is true Circumcision did oblige to keep the Law perfectly since the Law but from the beginning it was not so for say you Circumcision was not of Moses but of the Fathers Joh. 7. 22. Answ Was not the Moral Law from the beginning and were not those that were circumcised bound to keep the Moral as well as the Ceremonial Law How then dare you say and prove it not that from the beginning it was not so i. e. It did not bind Abraham's Natural Seed exactly to keep the Moral Law that is to love God with all their Hearts and their Neighbours as themselves yea to leave and loath all Sin Circumcision I have proved was no Seal nor part of the Covenant of Grace but of and part of the Covenant of Works so that you run into a dangerous Sâ—are and deceive the People unwarily by your Ignorance of the two Covenants made with Abraham and not distinguishing Circumcision from being a Seal to Abraham's Faith and not a Seal in common to all his Children It was a Sign to them in their Flesh but no Seal of the Covenant of Grace You further run a Parallel between Circumcision and Baptism as some others before you have done Pray take my former Answers to all you say here which I have given to other Pedo-baptists upon this foot of account 1. Others formerly have as well as you do now affirmed That Baptism comes in the room of Circumcision 2. They run a Parallel between Circumcision and Baptism and would have them both signify the same thing in an exact Analogy 〈…〉 〈◊〉 Say they which you seem to affirm also If Baptism succeeds in the room of Circumcision then as the Jewish Infants were circumcised so the Infants of Christians may and ought to be baptized But Baptism succeeds in the room of Circumcision Therefore as their Children were circumcised then so may ours be baptized now Answ 1. There is no necessity that a Gospel-Ordinance must succeed in the room of a Legal or Jewish Ordinance What if I affirm that no Ordinance succeeds in the room of Circumcision Were there not many other Rites and Ordinances under the Law or Old Testament besides Circumcision and yet you cannot find or once imagine any Gospel-Rite or Ordinance to come in the room of them respectively for that then it would follow there would be as many Christian Rites Precepts and Ordinances as there were Jewish Rites Precepts and Ordinances which as one observes were more than three hundred 2. Besides as Dr. Taylor observes If Baptism came in the room of Circumcision you must baptize your Children always on the eighth day and you must not baptize your Females at all because none but Male Infants were then circumcised 3 And whereas you say that Baptism signifies the same things that Circumcision did it is not true as will appear to all understanding Men if they consider these Particulars following which are so many Disparities viz. 1. Circumcision was a Shadow of Christ to come Baptism is a Sign he is already come was dead and buried 2. Circumcision was a Sign of the Covenant made with Abraham and his Natural Seed Baptism is a Sign of the peculiar spiritual Privileges made to Saints as such and no others 3. Circumcision was a Domestick Action i. e. to be done in the House Baptism an Ecclesiastick belonging to the Gospel-Church 4. Circumcision was to be done by the Parents in that respect Baptism is to be done only by Gospel-Ministers 5. Circumcision was the cutting off the Foreskin of the Flesh which drew Blood Baptism is to be done by dipping the whole Body into the Water without drawing of any Blood 6. Circumcision belonged to Male-Children only Baptism belongs to Males and Females also 7. Circumcision was to be done precisely on the eighth Day Baptism is not limited to any precise Day 8. Circumcision made a visible Impression on the Body which the Party might perceive when he came to Age of Understanding Baptism leaves no Impression on the Body 9. Circumcision belonged to Abraham's House to his Male-Infants only or such who were bought with his Money and not the Male-Infants of any other Godly Men in his days unless they join themselves to his Family Baptism belongs to Believers in all Nations 10. Circumcision bound those who came under that Rite to keep the whole Law of Moses Baptism signifies we are delivered from that Yoke of Bondage 11. If Circumcision signified the same things and consequently particularly the sealing the Covenant of Grace then those that were circumcised needed not to be baptized because sealed before with the same Seal or that which signified the same thing but Christ and all his Apostles and many others who were circumcised were nevertheless baptized 12.
Baptism the other after Baptism unto the Adult among the unbelieving Gentiles Teaching precedes Baptism but to the Children of such Baptism preceded Teaching in the same manner as Abraham being the Father of the Gentiles was taught before circumcised but his Children were circumcised before they were taught This yousay is the Signification of the word as appeareth Answ 1. I answer you would have the form of the Commission to run according to your Scriptureless Practice of baptizing of Infants as you call Sprinkling but that the Commission is wrested and abused by you to serve your turn will appear 1. They that are the only Subjects of Baptism according to the Commission are first to be taught or as the Greek word is discipled or made Disciples and then baptized and I will appeal to your Conscience whether they are not the same Persons that were to be taught before baptized that our Lord commands to be taught afterwards all other things that he hath commanded baptized Believers to observe and keep You would have the Parents converted from Heathenism to be taught before baptized but the Teaching afterwards not to refer to them but to their Children baptized before taught or in their Infancy O what abominable Abuse is this of the great Commission of our blessed Saviour 1. The Commission runs Teach them in all Nations whether Jews or Gentiles 2. Baptizing them that are taught or made Disciples by teaching 3. Teaching them i. e. the same them that were Disciples baptized Dare you invert nay subvert the sacred Commission and so make void the Command of God to uphold your own Tradition Sir tremble at the thoughts of it Answ 2. That this which we say is the true Purport of the Commission is acknowledged by Mr. Perkins Mr. Baxter and other Pedo-baptists Take Mr. Perkins's own words First of all saith he 't is said Teach them that is make them Disciples by teaching them to believe and repent here saith he we are to consider the Order which God observes in making a Covenant with Men in Baptism First of all he calls them by his Word and Spirit to believe and repent then in the second place he makes a Promise of Mercy and Forgiveness and thereby he seals his Promise by Baptism They says he that know not nor consider this Order which God used in covenanting with them in Baptism deal preposterously overslipping the Commandment of repenting and believing which is the cause of so much Profaneness in the World Doubtless he said right for you who baptize Infants that are not capable to repent nor believe make a multitude of profane Christians in the World as they are called Who knows which of the Infants you baptize God will call and savingly work Grace in which should indeed be wrought in all before they are according to the direct Order or From of the Commission or ought to be baptized O what profane Wretches doth your Practice bring into your Church if all you baptize you make Members thereof in their Infancy Mr. Perkins doubtless did not foresee how by his honest Exposition of the Commission he overthrew his Infant-Baptism and Church-Membership Moreover take Mr. Richard Baxter's words speaking of the Commission Christ gave to his Disciples Mat. 28. 19 20 viz. Their first Task saith he is to make Disciples of them which are by Mark called Believers The second work is to baptize them whereto is annexed the Promise of Salvation The third work is to teach them that are baptized Believers all other things which are after to be learned in the School of Christ To contemn this Order saith he is to contemn the Rules of Order for where can we find it if not here See Mr. Baxter's Right of Baptism pag. 144 150. This Man tho a Pedo-baptist yet durst not be so bold as to invert the Order of the Commission nor do as you do viz. affirm the Teaching mentioned after Baptism refers not to Believers baptized after they are made Disciples but to their Infants baptized of which the Commission speaks not one word nor can it by any colour of Reason or Consequences be drawn therefrom But to prove your false Exposition of the Text you proceed to do it First from God's Promise to Abraham Isaac and Jacob that in their Seed should all the Nations of the Earth be blessed Gen. 18. 18. 22. 18. Christ came say you to confirm the Promise unto the Fathers that the Gentiles might glorify God for his Mercy Rom. 15. 8 9. If God is not a God to the Gentiles and their Seed according to the Promises made to the Fathers then say you Christ weakeneth and not confirmeth the Promises God forbid we should think so c. Answ 1. God forbid that you should rest always under such dark and cloudy Conceptions of the Covenant and Promises made to the Fathers touching the Gentiles for the Covenant and Promises made to Abraham Isaac and Jacob were that the Gentiles through Faith in Christ should be Fellow-heirs with the Jews that believed in him and with the â—…s that bâ—…ed also And thus runs the Covenant of Grace to Abraham c. and thus it runs to believing Gentiles that all of them and their Children that believe or are in the Election of Grace shall be saved And 't is thus that all the Nations of the Earth are blessed in Christ whether Jews or Gentiles i. e. all such in all Nations that believe and are called by the preaching of the Gospel 2. But because Christ's Church does not now in Gospel-days take in whole Nations and whole Families as the Jewish Church under the Law did take in the whole Nation of the Jews and all their Families doth Christ weaken the Promises Sir that external Legal Covenant erected a Typical Church which Church ceased at the Establishment of the Spiritual Church which is only Congregational under the Gospel as I fully proved before But furthermore You say the Apostles understood Christ's Command unto them in this sense and therefore they have preached Salvation to those that believed and all theirs c. Answ The Apostles understood Christ's Command and Commission no doubt but it appears you understand it not Did they preach Salvation to Believers and to all their Children as such whether elected or not called by the Word or Spirit or not For this you must prove or you say nothing and how absurd would that be should you affirm any such thing Peter speaks of no Promise made to Jews nor Gentiles and to their Children but to such of them that the Lord our God shall call And 't is directly said that the Goaler and all his believed therefore if you will still affirm that the Apostles apply'd as you intimate Abraham's Covenant among the Gentiles unto the Seed the fleshly Seed of Believers as such you do assert an Untruth and cast a Lie upon the Apostles through your Ignorance Prove if you can they were to baptize any Person Adult or
fathering that on Christ which he never said nor intended When a King say you by his Charter or publick Writing sets at liberty the Inhabitants of some Town are not the Children Partakers of the Charter altho their Names be not particularly in it So it is here the King of Heaven is through the Charter of the Gospel making of us that were Strangers and Foreigners to become Fellow-Citizens with the Saints Eph. 2. 19. and to that end commanding to receive all Nations through Baptism into the Liberty and Privileges of the City of God and will he not receive the Children into the Privileges of their Parents Answ I answer if it be so as you say in all National States Governments and Constitutions and Civil Societies what doth this prove touching the case in hand unless you dare undertake to affirm the Gospel-Church is National and not Congregational Doth the Constitution of the Spiritual Gospel-Church run as in Human and National Constitutions Prove it for I utterly deny it Besides if your Infants as such are Fellow-Citizens with the Saints and are to partake of all the Privileges of the City of God why do you deny them the Lord's-Supper your Similitude proves no more their right to Baptism to one Privilege than another I never yet could understand what Spiritual or Temporal Privileges any Infant receives in Baptism What good doth that do them that have not the Things signified in Baptism There are great Benefits received in such a Grant you speak of in an external Charter but as God hath not commanded Infants to be baptized so not any Benefits can be proved they receive thereby In this you argue as Mr. Burkit hath done before you Reader take his Similitude viz. I demand saith he whether according to the Mind of God gathered from the words of the Commission the Remedy prescribed should be administred only to grown Persons because they only are capable of understanding and believing the Virtue and Efficacy of it Sure every Rational Man among you would conclude his Child capable of the Remedy as well as himself altho ignorant of the Virtue that is in it and only passive in the Administration of it and that it would be Cruelty yea Murder in the Parent to deny the Application of it to all his Children Reply I stand amazed at such Ignorance and Folly Does it follow because Children are capable to receive a Medicine against the Plague or Bodily Distemper are they therefore capable of Baptism and the Lord's Supper If capable of one say I of the other also For as a Man is required to examine himself and to discern the Lord's Body in the Lord's Supper so he is required to repent and to believe in Christ that comes to Baptism I would know how they prove Baptism to be the Medicine appointed to cure the Soul of the Plague of Sin or as Mr. Owen says for their Salvation Is not this to blind the Eyes of the poor People and make them think that an external Ordinance saves the Soul if not thus how can it be Cruelty yea Murder in Parents to deny the Application of Baptism to their Children as Mr. Burkit says The Antient Fathers from that in John 6. 53. Unless a Man eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood he hath no Life in him gave Infants the Lord's Supper thinking our Saviour like as the Papists do meant that Sacrament when indeed he meant only of seeding by Faith on Christ crucified But however their Argument for giving Infants one Sacrament was as good as yours for giving them the other But when they are as capable to repent and believe and are helped so to do as they are and do eat Bread or receive a Medicine for a Bodily Distemper let them have both Baptism and the Lord's-Supper and till then if God's Word be the Rule of our Faith and Practice and not our own Fancies they ought to have neither yet the Remedy or Medicine which is Christ's Blood we deny not but dying Infants may be capable of tho the way of its Application we know not as to them that is a Secret as to us You know the Church of England positively affirms Repentance whereby a Person for sakes Sin and Faith whereby he stedsastly believes the Promise of God made to him in that Sacrament are required of those that are to be baptized nay and of little Babes too therefore the Sureties answer for them that they do believe and repent or forsake the Devil and all his Works c. the Child answers by Proxy The Church of England baptizes no Child but as a Believer and a true Penitent Person All that are proper Subjects of Baptism are comprehended in the Commission and must be as such whether Adult or Infants who profess Faith and Repentance But you it may be foresaw the Snake in the Grass viz. That Godfathers and Godmothers is a Tradition and none of God's Appointment nor are they able to perform those things for the Child which they promise for him and in his Name And therefore make use of another Argument and would have them baptized without Faith or upon their Parents Faith of which the Church of England speaks nothing As to your Comparison it is not worth mentioning Baptism as I have told you doth not cure the Soul of Sin or save any Person but it 's the Blood of Christ applied by Faith Not that we say no Child can have the Benefit of that Soveraign Remedy because not capable to believe by reason Men and Women must receive it by Faith or perish God as Dr. Taylor observes may have many ways to magnify his Grace through Jesus Christ to them which we know not of who die in their Infancy yet have we no Authority to baptize them any more than to give them the Lord's-Supper Pedo-baptists talk at a strange rate as if they regarded not what they say or affirm while they bring Similitudes to teach People to believe Baptism is the Balm to cure the Contagion of Sin and as if the Application of it saved a little Babe from Hell and they guilty of murdering the Souls of their Children who deny to baptize them I had thought they would not have laid greater Stress upon Childrens Baptism than on Childrens Circumcision since they would fain have them run Parallel-wise Pray what became of the Jews Female Infants were they damned and what became of their Male Infants who died before eight days old for they broke God's Law if they circumcised them tho sick and like to die if they were not full eight days old Let such blush for the sake of their precious Souls and take more care for the time to come to what they write and preach I am grieved to see my blessed Master's great Commission thus inverted and abused Suppose the King should send you with a Commission into a remote Plantation and command you to act and do exactly according to the express
then we must not But little Children were brought to Christ and he did not baptize them therefore we must not Here is both Truth and Reason in this Argument as Dr. Taylor confesseth but none of either in his It is confessed by Mr. Burkitt himself That Christ did not baptize those Infants that came to him and whom he took in his Arms and blessed because with his own Hands he baptized none at all John 4. 1 2. Therefore since Christ who was God foresaw what Contention would arise about the baptizing of Infants had it been his Will they should be baptized would he not at this time put the Matter out of doubt and have baptized them or have given Command to his Disciples so to have done If therefore Infants be in so good a Condition as he says i. e. Subjects of Christ's Kingdom of Grace let us let them alone for we cannot by baptizing them put them into a better State than they are without any Warrant from Christ and by baptizing them not we cannot put them into any worser State or Standing than they are in without it Many Pedo-baptists are angry with us because we say we know not but that the Children of Unbelievers and Infidels may be in a good Condition as well as Children of Believers tho we deny not but that the Children of Believers have a greater Advantage than the Children of Unbelievers namely by the Prayers good Education and the good Example of their Parents c. But saith Mr. Burkitt Can any wise or good Man believe that our Saviour would speak such favourable words of Infants and his outward Gesture manifest so much good Will towards them only with an Intent to ensnare and deceive us doubtless it was to encourage his Ministers to perform all charitable Offices towards them Answ 1. He mistakes our Saviour speaks very little concerning Infants and that which is said of them was accidentally spoken being occasioned by those who brought little Children to him which the Disciples forbad and from hence he spoke what he did Moreover the cause why our Saviour spoke those words might be more for the sake of Parents that they might not be afraid touching the Condition of their dying Babes than to shew any Ordinance belonged to them for had it been so doubtless the Disciples would not have for bad those People to bring little Children to Christ 'T is therefore an Argument against Infant-Baptism and not for it because the Disciples were appointed by their Master to be the Administrators of that Ordinance on such to whom it did of right belong and had Infants been the Subjects would they have forbid People to bring Infants to him 2. We therefore may rather conclude had they been the Subjects of Baptism Christ by not hinting any such thing in the least on this occasion might rather have left us in a Snare in speaking nothing of it neither here nor at any other time 3. Therefore Christ speaking so favourably of Infants and yet baptizing them not may teach us to judg favourably of them and do any charitable Office towards them but not to presume to give them holy Baptism without Christ's Warrant no more than any other Gospel-Ordinance 'T is no matter what Calvin spoke 't is no Sin to keep such out of Christ's visible Fold whom he has given no Authority to take in Nor have any People a more charitable Opinion of the State of dying Infants than those stil'd Anabaptists 4. Those who are capable of some kind of Blessings of Christ we have shewed are notwithstanding not capable of Baptism We read not the Disciples baptized these little Children nor any else Object To this he as you do answer Perhaps they were baptized before But says Mr. Burkitt it doth not follow that the Apostles did not baptize those Children because no mention of it The Scripture no where tells us that the Apostles themselves were baptized shall we conclude therefore they were never baptized Answ 'T is no matter whether we read or read not that the Apostles were baptized since we find it was Christ's Precept and Practice to baptize Disciples or such who did believe in him We read of multitudes of Disciples that were baptized and we know the way of Christ was one and the same that which was the Duty of one Disciple as a Disciple was the Duty of every Disciple We read but of two or three Churches who broke Bread or celebrated the Lord's-Supper Could any Pedo-baptist but shew us a Precept for Infant-Baptism or but one Example or Precedent where one Infant was baptized we would not doubt but those little Children might be also but this they cannot do And whereas Mr. Barkitt and you say That there is not the same Reason why Infants should be admitted to eat the Lord's-Supper as there is for them to be admitted to Baptism I answer We deny it utterly What tho the one be a Sacrament of Initiation and the other of Confirmation Yet pray observe that Repentance and Faith is required of them that are to be baptized even actual Faith and Repentance as well as actual Grace and Examination c. to discern the Lord's-Body in those who are to receive the Lord's-Supper If all that were to be circumcised had been required to repent and believe as in the case of Admission to Baptism something had been said but the contrary appears Male-Infants as such had a right to that but have no such right to this You say Christ did not lay his Hands upon little Children to heal them of Sickness because the Apostles would not have been so cruel as to hinder them to come to Christ to heal their Distempers c. Answ Is it then greater Cruelty to hinder little Children of the Blessing of being healed of Bodily Diseases than to hinder them of Convenant-Blessings Spiritual Blessings How absurdly do you argue You add also Christ baptized them not at that time for say you they were baptized before by John the Baptist and Christ laid his Hands upon them to bless them say you laying on of Hands followed Baptism Acts 8. 17. Heb. 6. 2. many of the Anti-pedo baptists own it for they lay their Hands on those they baptize you say rebaptize Answ We rebaptize none Rantism is not Baptism c. but you should first prove John the Baptist did baptize any Infants for that you have not done nor ever can do We shall see what Proof you have for what you say by and by As to laying Hands on baptized Believers the Scriptures you mention prove that an Ordinance of Christ but not upon Infants the Apostles never taught or practised any such thing tho 't is true 't is a Popish Rite for as the Baptism of Believers is corrupted and changed to Infants so laying on of Hands on baptized Believers is corrupted and changed by the false Church to Infants also You say The Kingdom of God under the Gospel is made up of Children and
to an external Participation of Church-Privileges yet now 't is otherwise old things are past away now we know no Man after the Flesh 2 Cor. 5. 16. That Church-state is dissolved and manner of Admission into it by external Birth-Privilege and that this Text doth not help you I shall further open this place of Scripture 1. 'T is evident the Apostle is in the 9th and 10th Chapters to the Romans treating of the Election of Grace and of that Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham these were his People which he had not cast away Chap. 10. 1. and of this sort God had 7000 in Eliah's days ver 4. Even so saith he at this present time also there is a Remnant according to the Election of Grace ver 5. Hence he says What then Israel hath not obtained c. but the Election hath c. ver 7. He further shews that abundance of the Natural Seed of Abraham were broken off How are they broken off Why by their Unbelief they not receiving Christ but rejecting the Gospel and new Church-state were broken off But that the Gentiles might not boast over them the Apostle shews there is ground left to believe all those that belong to the Election of Grace shall in God's due time be brought in and so partake of the Blessings of the Gospel-Covenant or Covenant of Grace made with Abraham and to prove this in ver 16. he lays down an Argument For if the first Fruit be holy the Lump is also holy and if the Root be holy so are the Branches ver 16. by the Root I understand is meant Abraham Root and Father signifying here the same thing Abraham being the Root or Father as God represents him of all the Elect or of such who believe or the Root of all his true Spiritual Seed 2. By the first Fruits may be meant Isaac Jacob and the Holy and Elect Patriarchs for they were given as the first Fruits to Abraham of that Covenant and free Promise of God and these were holy with a true Spiritual and Internal New-Covenant Holiness 3. By the Lump he may mean the whole Body of the Elect or the Spiritual Seed of Abraham from the time the first Fruits were given him until the Gospel-day or whole Body of the true Israel of God who were holy as the Root and first Fruits were holy 4. By the Branches may be meant the true Elect Seed that were living then in that present time as ver 5. and these were holy too even as all the rest both as the Root First-fruits and whole Lump or Body were holy That is all the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham were like himself viz. holy in a spiritual sense And now observe he speaks of some Branches that were broken off these seemed to be Branches or the Children of Abraham and so they were according to the Flesh but were like those Branches in Christ who bear no Fruit and therefore taken away John 15. 2 3 4. he alludes to the Natural Seed of Abraham to whom he stood not as a Spiritual Father or Root but as a Natural and Legal Father as they were a National Church and sprung from him and these Branches were all broken off viz. for rejecting Christ 1. Not broken off from the Election of Grace for to that they did not belong 2. Nor were they broken off from the Gospel-Church for they were never graffed into that But 3. broken off from being any more a Church or People in Covenant with God the whole old State and Constitution being gone and they not closing in with Christ in the Gospel Dispensation Grace and Church-state are said to be broken off as a lost People because not replanted or implanted into Christ and the true Gospel-Covenant the old being gone quite removed and taken away they have now no Root to stand upon having lost their Legal Privileges as Abraham was their Father upon that foot of Account and they not appearing to be the true Branches or Seed of Abraham as he was the Father of all the Elect Seed or of all that believe in Jesus Christ they must of necessity from hence be broken off from being the People of God or belonging to any Head or Root in any Covenant-Relation to God at all the Dispensation being changed Old things being gone and all things being now become new But these new State-Blessings Rights Church and Church-Privileges are rejected and thus were some of the Natural Branches broken off and the Gentiles who were wild by Nature i. e. never were in any visible Church state with God nor in any sense related to Abraham as a Root were graffed into the true Olive Jesus Christ and into the true Gospel-Church and so Partakers of the Sap and Fatness of the Root and of the Olive that is of the Spiritual Blessings and Privileges of Abraham and of the Covenant of Grace made with him and of the sweet Blessings and Privileges of the Gospel Church and this they receive and partake of as being first graffed by saving Faith in Christ and so united to his Mystical Body But since there are a greater Number of the old Natural Branches that are beloved for their Father's sake that is for the sake of Abraham as the Rooâ— and Father of all the Elect Seed they shall in due time be graffed in again and so become a People visibly owned of God and in Covenant with him as all the true Seed now are and formerly were And if this be considered what doth this Text do to prove the Natural Seed of Believers as such are in the Gospel-Covenant for if the Natural Seed of Abraham can lay no Claim not have any right to Gospel-Privileges but are gone or broken off what ground is there for us to think that on Natural Off-spring as such should be taken in The Apostle speaks not of such Brâ—…s or of being holy with an excernal federal Holiness but of such a Holiness as was in the Rooâ— viz Abraham who believed in God and thus all his true spiritual Seed who are actually Branches and in Govenâ—… being grafted into Christ by Faith are holy and also all the Elect â—eed of Abraham not yet called are decretively of in God's sight so who calls things that are not as if they were they are all holy and beloved for their Father Abraham's sake with whom the Covenant of Grace was for himself and all his true Spiritual Seed And 't is from this Argument the Apostle argues for the calling of the Jews and the graffing of them in again who belong to the Election of Grace they therefore who would make every believing Parent to be the Root to his Natural Off-spring as Abraham was to his true Spiritual Seed or Off-spring or a common Head or Root of their Natural Off-spring as he was to his know not what they say or affirm for then there would be so many common Roots and Fathers like as Abraham was called a Root and Father and
then also there would be a Knowledgâ— still of Men after the Flesh which the Apostle Paul disclaims 2 Cor. 5. 17. Moreover the Jews who were broken off are still the Natural Seed of Abraham and if therefore this Holiness was an External Relative Federal Holiness they are in that sense holy as much as any Children of a believing Gentile can be said to be but this 't is evident is not that Holiness of which the Apostle speaks nor is there any such Holiness under the Gospel-Dispensation spoken of Thus Reader I have examined Mr. Owen's Exposition of this Text and have found it to be a false Exposition and a palpable Abuse of the sacred Text and have opened the Text I hope truly It therefore follows from what I have said in Opposition to what Mr. Owen saith in the Close of the ninth Chapter as here followeth 1. That by the Natural Branches that receive Virtue and Fatness from the Root before Christ came were not meant the Natural Seed of Abraham as such because no ungodly Person did or doth or can receive the Virtue and Fatness of the true Olive-Tree or saving Blessings of the Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham What Virtue or Fatness is in a simple external federal Profession or Holiness either in the Jewish or Christian Religion as it respects only a Separation to visible Church-Membership 2. It appears also that the Jews that believed in Christ tho they were not broken off of the Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham yet they and their Children stood no longer in that Legal and External Covenant of Peculiarity which God made with Abraham and the whole House of Israel but that that old Covenant is dissolved 3. That those Jews that believed not and their Children are broken off from being any more in any Covenant-Relation to God as his People and that for their Unbelief 4. It also appears that none of the Gentiles are received or graffed into Christ and into the true Olive or into the Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham but only such that believe not them and their Fleshly Seed as such but they themselves and their Children also that do believe even none but such who by Faith partake of the Fatness that is the best of Blessings that appertains to the Covenant of Grace not external Blessings and Privileges only no no they are not the Fatness i. e. the best and the choicest of Covenant-Blessings but Union with Christ Justification Pardon of Sin Adoption and Eternal Life in these things consists the Fatness of the true Olive which Believers Seed as such partake not of nor any but the Elect and called ones of God according to his Eternal Purpose only 5. It also appears that those Jews that shall be called and graffed in again into their own Olive-Tree shall be none but the Elect and that their own Olive-Tree doth not refer to the external Privileges of the Covenant of Peculiarity God made with Abraham's Natural Seed as such but shall receive of the Fatness of their own Olive-Tree which is the Covenant of Grace for that primarily was made with Abraham's Natural Seed that believe and belongs to all God's Elect also as their own and proper Olive whether Jews or Gentiles So that when the Jews are called we may be sure they will plead no external Privileges of their old dissolved Covenant but come in upon the Terms of the Gospel with their Children that believe and none else And if the Controversy of Infants right to Baptism and Church-Membership ceaseth not till they shall be called and come in who will then renounce the old Federal Right and all Old Testament external Privileges be sure it will cease then CHAP. XII In Answer to Mr. Owen's 10th Chapter and 7th Argument viz. that the Infants of the Faithful as such ought to be baptized because they can partake of those things prefigured in Baptism TAke Mr. Owen's 7th Argument which runs thus viz. If the Children of the Faithful can partake of the Blessings figured in Baptism they ought to be Partakers of Baptism also if the invisible Grace belongeth unto them the visible Sign cannot be denied unto them c. Answ If we should grant that the Children of the Faithful as such can and do partake of the Blessings figured in Baptism yet it doth not follow they ought to be baptized because there is no Precept or Example for it in the New Testament For may not I argue thus viz. If the Children of the Faithful can partake of the Blessing prefigured in the Lord's-Supper they ought to partake of the Lord's Supper if the invisible Grace belongs to them the visible Sign cannot be denied unto them This Argument is therefore as forcible to bring our Children to the Lord's Table as it is to Baptism Baptism signifies three things which you say little Children can partake of 1st You say it signifies Remission of Sins through the Virtue of the Blood of Christ Mark 1. 4. Acts 2. 3 8. This you say belongs to little Children in two manner of ways 1. They have need of pardoning Grace 2. Many of them receive Remission of Sin for many of them that die go to Heaven Answ 1. Your first Argument hath as much in it for the baptizing of Infidels and their Children as for the Children of Believers for do not they need pardoning Grace 2. As to your second Reason Do all the Children of Believers that die go to Heaven and do none of the Children of Unbelievers go thither Dare you affirm that all Unbelievers Children that die are damned if not why may they not be baptized as well as the Children of Believers 3. But do you baptize no Children of Believers but such that die do not many of them live and prove ungodly when grown up that you baptize Two things you must prove if you say any thing here to the purpose 1. That all dying Infants of Believers are elected and so shall 〈◊〉 saved 2. That all they that go to Heaven or shall be saved â—ay nay ought to have both Baptism and the Lord's-Supper administred to them Nay and it follows also that you ought only to baptize those Children of Believers that died or such that you have ground to believe are elected to Salvation according to your own Argument But let me tell you if you knew what Children of Believers or Unbelievers are elected yet you ought no more to baptize them than to give the Lord's-Supper 'T is not Election I tell you again that gives any a right to Baptism but the positive Command of Christ Might not Mâ—lchisedec or Job have said our Children do need what was prefigured in Circumcision therefore we will circumcise them would that have justified them if they had presumed to have done it without God's Command for the Command and meer positive Precept to circumcise was only given to Abraham and it only extended to himself and his Male Children or such
1. 〈◊〉 answer tho we cannot as the apostles could not certainly or inâ—… know who were truly regenerated or are true Believers yet they baptized none but such in whom they saw such Signs of Grace that made them in Charity to believe or hope they were Believers they made a 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 ession of their Faith but in little â—…bes there appear no Signs of Grace nor can they make any Confession of their Faith where there is no Knowledg there can be no Fâ—… 2. And whereas you say they are Members of the visible Church under the Gospel it is false the Gospel-Church doth 〈◊〉 consist of whole Nations and Families as did the Jewish Church under the Law in a natural way The Gospel Church is a Spiritual House not consisting of Babes in a way of Generation 〈◊〉 of Spiritual Babes in a way of Râ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. 5 6. 3. Nor doth the Promise run to any but to them whom the â—ord shall cal Acts 2 39 even to Jews and their 〈◊〉 that are called and so to the 〈◊〉 that sometimes were aâ—ar off Ephes 2. 4. As touching Election 't is strange to me that you should affirm that that runneth in the Fleshly Line of Believers and their Seed as such and cite that Text to prove it Rom. 9. 4 5. in which St. Paul proves directly the contrary 〈◊〉 e. Not as tho the Word of God hath taken none Effect for they are not all Israel that are of Israel ver 6. Neither because they are the Seed of Abraham are they Children but in Isaac shall thy Seed be called ver 7. That is they which are the Children of the Flesh these are not the Children of God but the Children of the Promise are counted for the Seed ver 8. Sir tho the Covenants and Promises did belong to the Israelires yet you may see how the Apostle doth explain it even to none but to the Elect or only to such that God by his Spirit through the Power and Virtue of the Promise should regenerate and cell by his Grace Therefore in Opposition to what you say none were accounted Abraham's Seed and Children of the Promise but such that were in Christ Gal. 3. â—lt You say all the Children of the Faithful are under the Promise but God administreth the Grace of the Promises to the Elect only and to many of them in their Infancy But because we know not upon whom the Election falleth it is the Will of God that we should baptize all that are under the Promise Answ 1. If all the Children of the Faithful are under the Promise they are all elected because the Promise to whomsoever 't is made is sure to all the Seed see Rom. 4. 16. If it be the natural Seed as such 't is sure to all them and not one of the Seed of Believers shall perish but if it be meant only of the true spiritual Seed then 't is sure only to them for those to whom the promise is made 't is confirmed unto by the Word and Oath of God that so the Heirs of the Promise might have strong Consolation Heb. 6. 18. Therefore those to whom the Promise belongs the Grace therefore or Blessing of that Promise God will bestow upon or else his Promise is made void and of none Effect Prove that there are any who are under the Promise or are Children of the Promise and yet God doth not administer the Grace of the Promise unto them are any the Children of the Promise and not elected 2. But whereas you say the Grace of the Promise is given to some in Insancy we deny it except to such that die in Infancy and do you disprove us if you can But 3. The worst of all comes at last Sir where is it written what you so boldly affirm viz. Because you know not upon when the Election falleth it is the Will of God that you should baptize all that are under the Promise And you affirm that all the Children of Believers are under the Promise I argue thus If it be God's Will that all the Children of the Faithful should be baptized it is revealed in his Word but this is not revealed in his Word no nor that any one of them whilst Infants ought to be baptized therefore 't is not his Will they should 4. May not we by your Argument baptize Unbelievers in whom no Grace appears because we do not know how the Election runs they may be under the Promise and in the Election as far as we know What a preposterous way of arguing is this of yours But no more to your 10th Chapter and 7th Argument for your Childrens Baptism CHAP XIII In Answer to Mr. James Owen's 11th Chapter and 6th Argument concerning those Baptisms that were under the Law proving that Christ's Ordinance of Baptism is a pure Gospel-Institution and that it was not in being tell he appointed it in the Gospel-days 〈◊〉 what you have said in your 11th Chapter which contains your 8th Argument tho it may seem new to some I shall shew it is nothing at all to the purpose You say the Form of Baptism was before the Law and under the Law and from thence infer that Children ought to be baptized under the Gospel Answ 1. You may infer from the same Ground and Argument that Clothes Pots Tables and Vessels ought to be baptized under the Gospel as an Ordinance of Christ because they were dipped washed or baptized before and under the Law 2. Moreover you may infer as well that Unbelievers yea the worst of Men and Cattle also ought to be baptized under the Gospel because Noah and his Children were baptized in the Ark among which was cursed Chan you intimate that Cham was baptized upon his Father's Faith so that it appears the Father's Faith will not only save the Infant-Seed of Believers but save them when they are Adult Persons also But were not the Beasts and the Fowls baptized and saved by the Ark as well as Noah and his Children and his Son Cham But as touching that Text 1 Pet. 3. 10. how the Ark of Noah might be a Figure of Baptism I shall speak to that more fully by and by 3. Because all sorts of Washings or Dippings are in the Greek Tongue Baptizing doth it therefore follow that all sorts of Baptisms Dippings or Washings are formally Christ's Ordinance of Baptism Mr. Burkitt a great Pedo-baptist and all other learned Men assert that to the true Form and Requisites of Gospel-Baptism these several things are necessary 1. The Person baptizing or the Administrator ought to be a lawful Minister one authorized and commissionated by Christ so to do 2. The Party baptized must be a Subject fitly qualified for Baptism 3. The Element in which the Party is baptized must be Water 4. True Gospel-Baptism must be administred in the Name or into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Now Sir was there any Person either young or old
should be in all the members of the true Gospel Church and not of God's taking under the Gospel whole Families into Covenant with himself either into an outward external Covenant or into a spiritual or new Covenant relation with himself 'T is true God perhaps hath sometimes called whole Families both Parents Children and Servants and converted them all but alass how many Families are there where may be but one is called and in sacred Covenant with God may be the Husband and not the Wife the Wife and not the Husband the Child and not either of the Parents are so called and taken into Covenant with God Pray worthy Brittains consider well what God speaks of his Promise under the Gospel I will take one of a City and two of a Family and will bring you to Zion Jer. 3. 14. Not in Gospel times whole Families no no this God may do but 't is more then he hath promised or as to matter of Fact is so he doth frequently speak in another I may speak here as the Apostles speaks in another Case you see your calling Brethren how not many whole Families are called 3. Because God made a Covenant with Abraham and his natural Seed as such as a Covenant of peculiarality and also with him made or renewed the Covenant of Grace setting him up as a covenanting Head on a double respect doth it follow that every believing Man is set or placed by the Lord as a like Covenant head to all his natural Off-spring Till Mr. Owen hath proved this he saith nothing to the purpose In the Covenant of Circumcision that appertained to all Abraham's natural Seed were many external Priviledges and Promises made of which Circumsion was given as a Sign or Token as particularly the Land of Canaan c. But what Priviledges and Promises hath God granted to Believers Children as such in Gospel times which Baptism gives them an assurance of the sign is nothing without the substance or thing signified Believers have the substance or the things signified in Baptism so have not Infants in their pretended Baptism nor many of them ever after 4. Whereas you call for a plain Scripture to prove that the Children of the Faithful are rent from the Head of the Family you mistake the Business you must prove that in the Gospel Dispensation Children and Servants or whole Housholds are taken with the Heads of those Housholds into Covenant with God What whole Nation is taken into Covenant with God as the whole House or Nation of Israel was under the Law prove that there is such a Nation and we will grant that all the Families in that Nation are also in Covenant for in that universal Family all particular Families must needs be comprehended You proceed to the Gospel times and mention Zacheus who as soon as converted the Lord Jesus said this day is Salvation comé to this House for as much as he also is a Son of Abraham Luke 19. 9 10. 1. Ans I answer you do your Business effectually if you can prove that so soon as the Father believes Salvation comes to belong to all that are in his House I thought you argued for some external Priviledge only for the Children upon their Parents Faith but it appears 't is no less then Salvation it self even eternal Salvation for it was such a Salvation that came to Zacheus that day O happy Children of Believers if this were true For then it follows that all the Children of the faithful must of necessity be saved whether they in their own Persons believe or not nay and happy Servants too for they must all be saved because part of the Family but what credit is there to be given to a Man that talks after the manner as you do is this true or false for what do you mean less then what I say and doth Eternal Salvation come to all in that Family or House when the Head of it doth believe you ought to repent for spreading such grand errors among the People Christ you say explaineth Abraham's Covenant in Gen. 19. which God made with him and his Family or his Seed because he was a Son to Abraham as if he should say though this Man hath been a great Sinner and though he hath been chief Publican yet because he did repent and receive the mediator of the Covenant of Grace Abraham's Covenant and the Priviledges thereof do belong unto him and to his Houshold He is a Son of Abraham therefore Abraham's Covenant belongs to him in the same Latitude to him and his Seed many judge that Zacheus was one of the Gentiles for usually such were Publicans and this they gather from these words of Christ 〈◊〉 so much as he also is a Son of Abraham he also though he is not a natural Seed to Abraham yet he is one of his Spiritual Seed and therefore Abraham's Covenant belongs unto him and his Houshold c. Ans I answer your own explanation of this Text overthrows all you strive to prove were it but considered 1. For you grant he was not one of the natural Seed of Abraham now we say that all that do believe are the Spiritual Seed of Abraham and so such to whom the Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham and consequently eternal Life doth belong for the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham cannot miss of eternal Salvation the promise is sure to all the Seed Rom. 4. 16. Now then if your Eyes were opened you might quickly see that Abraham was a two-fold Father and that he had a two-fold Seed you know that all Abrahams natural Seed and the natural Seed of Believers are not the Spiritual Seed of Abraham nor have the promise of Salvation sure to them 2. From hence it appears Salvation could not come to Zacheus Children if he had any unless they as well as himself did believe and receive by Faith the Blessing of the Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham because none are Abraham's Sons or Spiritual Seed but Believers only whether Jews or Gentiles if you be Christs then you are Abraham's Seed 3. Therefore if Salvation came to every individual Person in Zacheus Family they all did believe as well as himself though it be not expressed But 4. Salvation might be said to come to his House because the Saviour and means of Salvation was that day come to his House 5. Salvation might be said to come to his House that day though it came only to Zacheus himself it coming to the head of the Family it may be said to come to his House and yet not to every particular Person in that House but you bring in this Objection viz. but what is this to Baptism You answer if Salvation came to his House or Family then Baptism belonged unto them 2. It is probable that Zacheus and his Houshold were baptized before by John for the Publicans came to be baptized of him Luke 3. 12. and 7. 29. 1. Ans I answer you may be
they will you do not speak of any external Covenant right to Baptism but of Salvation it self 2. You do not speak of Infants as such but of all in the Family or Houshold viz. comprehending adult Sons and Daughters Men Servants or Maid Servants adult persons it appears from hence in the primitive times were baptized by virtue of the Parents Faith as well as Babes nay and were saved also by the Faith of the head of the Family 3. Doth it not also follow that your ignorance of God's Covenant with Abraham is very great for if it be as you say then all Abraham's Seed according to the Flesh must be saved because he as the Head of his Family believed but doth not the Scripture say in opposition to this that though the number of the Children of Israel be as the Sand of the Sea yet but a Remnant shall be saved 4. May not this Doctrine of yours also corrupt and tend to ruine many poor Souls both Children and Servants who live in Families where the Heads of those Families do believe and are Godly may not they say we shall be saved though we believe not because we dwell in a Family where the Head viz. our Father our Master doth believe Mr. Owen assures us we shall all be saved because our Father or Master believes be astonish'd Oh ye Heavens is this your proof for Infant Baptism Worthy Brittains this may sufficiently shew you that the Covenant that God made with Abraham namely the Covenant of Circumsion which was made with him and his natural Seed as such was no Covenant of Salvation and so not the Covenent of Grace 't is so plain you need not doubt of it because multitudes that were in that Covenant perished though Circumcision was a Seal of Abrahams Faith yet not a Seal of the Covenant of Grace to his Seed as such because if it were it would have Sealed to them all the righteousness of Faith and eternal Life which we know it never did to multitudes of them But very remarkable 't is to see how Mr. Owen doth in the very next place both conhimself and overthrow his Argument as to the purport of it he brings in this Objection Object All his Family believed vers 34. Take his Answer Ans I answer saith he so were the adult the whole House sometimes signifies those of the adult in a Family it is said of Sampson that all his Fathers House buried him that is saith he those that were of age in his Fathers House for the little Children could not go into the Land of the Philistines to bury his Body c. It is said saith he of Cornelius that he was a devout Man fearing God with all his House that is all the adult in his Houshold so the Goaler believed with all his Houshold viz. all that were of age to believe 2. And we are not to think saith Mr. Owen all these Housholds to be barren which were baptized by the Apostles there were not many Housholds in those Ages without Children in them for the greatest part of their Riches was their Bond Servants and the Children born of them and those Children were in God's Covenant even as free-born Children Gen. 17. 13 23. so are they also under the Gospel they are Abraham's Seed through the Faith of their Parents and Heirs as before Col. 1. 12. Gal. 3. 29. Ans 1. I need give no further Answer touching this argument concerning what you say of whole Housholds you have effectually answered your self you affirm that by whole Housholds or Families in the Scripture sometimes none but the adult are comprehended or meant and that Instance of Sampson doth sufficiently prove it little Children could not go to bury his dead Body though 't is said all his Fathers House buried him So say we by whole Houses that were said to be baptized none are meant but those adult Persons who believed 2. You say and confess that Cornelius and all his House feared God and that the Goaler and all his House believed that is all the adult say you believed or that were at age to believe this may serve to clear up the matter touching all the other whole Housholds that were said to be baptized God constrains you to speak the Truth here though it be to overthrow your whole Argument 2. But what you speak in the next place is not true viz. that Parents and their Children and Bond Servants and their Children were under the Law and under the Gospel times also in the Covenant of Grace through the Faith of their Parents For notwithstanding the Bond-men and their Male Children were commanded to be Circumcised that were in Abraham's Family and that were as Proselytes received into other Families of the Jews under the Law yet they were not Heirs of the Land of Canaan none but the natural Seed of Abraham could haue any possession therein according to that Covenant of peculiarality God made with the fleshy Seed of Abraham as such which typified forth that none but Believers or the elect of God who are the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham were the true Heirs of the Promise and of the Heavenly Canaan will you say that all the natural Seed of Abraham and Bond-Men and their Children as such and also all the natural Seed of Believers as such are the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham sure God will take of this Vail from your Eyes and open your understanding if you look to him by Prayer and search the Scripture with a canded desire after the knowledge of this matter 3. You will find a great difference between the Covenant that peculiarly did appertain to the natural Seed of Abraham as such and the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham and his true Spiritual Seed as such 4. I have proved that neither Abraham's Faith nor the Parents Faith intitles any of their natural Seed as such to the inheritance or blessings purchased by Jesus Christ viz. Justification Adoption Pardon of Sin and eternal Life no no the Children of the Flesh as such these are not the Children of God but the Children of the promise are counted for the Seed viz. those that are the elect of God only Rom. 9. 6 7 8 9. are the Children of the premise and Heirs of Glory the promise runs Gal. 3. 16. not to Seeds as of many but to thy Seed which is Christ i. e. Christ personally considered primarily and then to Christ mystically considered that is all that are spiritually united to him therefore the Apostle saith Verse 29. if ye be Christs then are you Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to the promise or according to the Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham 5. This must be so because the Covenant of Grace is well ordered in all things and sure see once again Rom. 4. 14. for if they which are of the Law be Heirs Faith is made void and the promise of no effect no need of Faith if the legal Covenant can save
any Man but if a personal Obedience to the Law could not save the Parent besure the Faith and Obedience of the Parent cannot save the Child But observe vers 16. therefore it is of Faith that it might be by Grace to the end the promise might be sure to all the Seed Now consider well the promise is eternal Life this all understand here and this saith Paul is sure to all the Seed 't is confirmed not only by the word of God but by the Oath of God also Heb. 6. 13 for when God made promise to Abraham because he could swear by no greater he swore by himself to shew the Heirs of the Promise the immutability of his Counsel he confirmed it by an Oath that so the Heirs of the promise might have strong Consolation vers 17. 18. all that are the true Heirs or spiritual Seed of Abraham must be saved for 't is impossible for God to lye or fail in his Promise to any one of rhe true Seed of Abraham therefore if all the natural Seed of Abraham were in this Covenant and all the natural Seed of Believers 't is impossible that any one of them should perish eternally or miss of eternal Life They are all born of God and Heirs as Isaac was they are all chosen from Everlasting to Salvation they are all given to Christ and all Members of his mystical Body or are but one mystical Christ and are even Flesh of his Flesh and Bone of his Bone and therefore this Covenant and free promise of God cannot appertain to Abraham's natural Seed as such nor to the natural Seed of Believers as such for alass how many of them do perish eternally For though the number of the Children of Israel be as the Sands of the Sea yet but a remnant of them shall be saved as was hinted before But say you if the keeper of the Prison had no Children or if they were the adult it is the same thing the Apostle offereth Salvation to him and to his Houshold even to little Children if there were such with him and that is sufficient to confirm the present matter i. e. that by this Houshold we are to understand principally his Children as the word frequently is taken in Scripture Gen. 30. 30. and 45. 19. Num. 3. 15. 1 Tim. 5. 8. Ans It appears you question whether the Goaler had any Children or not beside you tell us that whole Housholds comprehend the Adult only some times from whence I infer according to the Scripture whole Housholds may be said to be baptized when none but the Adult in those Housholds are baptized 2. If the Apostles offering Salvation to People gives them a right to Baptism then all the World may be baptized because all the World ought to have Salvation offered to them go into all the World and preach the Gospel to every Creature Mark 16. 15. but this offer gives none a right to Baptism simply in it self no none but such that believe as the next Words prove he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved verse 16. they must first believe or be made Disciples and then be baptized the Parents must believe and the Children must first believe not the Parents for the Children but the Children must believe for themselves before they ought to be baptized according to the Commission and the nature of the Administration of Gospel Baptism 3. 'T is strange the Apostles should preach to little Children oâ—…er Christ to them what preach Christ to the Infant in the Cradle that knows not its right Hand from it â—…t But say you the Children are the chief part of every Houshold therefore when Paul saith to the Keeper of the Prison believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt 〈◊〉 saved and thy House it is as much as if he should say if thou wilt believe in Christ the Covenant oâ— Spanâ—d and the Seal of Baptism appertaineth to thee aâ—… Children c. Ans 〈◊〉 Children I grant are part of those 〈◊〉 there are Children but not of every 〈◊〉 because there are many Housholds wherein 〈◊〉 no Children in non-age and they cannot be part of those Housholds in which there is no Infant 2. Believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved that is do thou believe and thy whole House that are capable to believe let them believe also and you shall all be saved no more is intended for according to your own argument the Servants and Adult Children were under the same promise with his Infants if he had any now will you say that his Servants and Adult Children could be saved by his Faith I tell you again the Covenant of peculiarality God made with Abraham's natural Seed as such was gone and abolished when Paul preached to the Goaler and the Covenant of Grace or Covenant of Salvation God made with Abraham I have proved appertained to none but the elect only or his true Spiritual Seed 3. Besides if the Parents believing brings the Children into the Covenant of Salvation then it will follow that the Parents non-believing keeps the Children out of the Covenant and so hinders them of Salvation and if so the Children may be damn'd for their Parents Sin in not believing You proceed and say the Apostle planted the Church of the Corinthians by baptizing whole Housholds 1 Cor. 1. 16 17. as the House of Stephanas and Crispus and the Jews with one accord rose up against Paul at Corinth and accused him that he perswaded Men to worship God contrary to the Law verse 13. by how much the more would they have accused him then say you for casting out their Children from the Covenant of Abraham if he had so done c. Ans I answer how do you know but that might be one thing which they charged upon him no doubt Paul according as John Baptist did did declare that their being the Children of Abraham according to the Flesh as such now availed them nothing he 'tis plain denyed their Childrens right to Circumcision to give them a right to Baptism he received none of them to Baptism who professed not their Faith in Christ the Covenant of peculiarality with Abraham's natural Seed as such being abolished Moreover Paul told these Corinthians all things were now become anew a new Church and a new Church Membership and a new right to that Church Membership and now there is no knowing of Men after the Flesh this Doctrine he preached to these Corinthians 2 Cor. 5. 16. 17. and you force me to urge this matter often wherefore henceforth know we no Man after the Flesh yea though we have known Christ after the Flesh yet now henceforth know him no more what doth the Apostle intend here by these words but this viz. now henceforth or from the establishment of the dispensation of the Gospel we know no Man after the Flesh know to know here is to prefer or to esteem no Man above others upon the account of their fleshly descent
and twelfth and last Argument YOU say Infant Baptism is an excellent means which God hath ordained for to plant and continue the Church of God Christ thus commanded his Apostles to gather Churches among the Gentiles by teaching and baptizing them in the Name of the Father c. Mat. 28. 29. Answ I answer The way it appears that Christ commanded his Apostles to gather Churches among the Gentiles is first to teach them and then baptize them you say right whilst you repeat the Text but God hath not commanded to baptize Infants and that way to plant his Church You add It is an excellent means for this end making Children to be Disciples of Christ let none marvel at this because Infants are of the number of Disciples Acts 15. 11. Why tempt ye God to put a yoke on the necks of the Disciples Those Disciples were say you the Faithful and their Seed Answ This is not true The Disciples in the Text you cite refer only to Believers among the Gentiles those false Teachers would have the Brethren be circumcised and they were they only that are called Disciples These Brethren being Gentiles were never circumcised and therefore these false Teachers taught them so to be see Acts 15. 1. 2. Sir I will appeal to your Conscience in this matter Is not a Disciple one that is taught or instructed and can Infants be called Disciples who are not capable of being taught Mr. Baxter saith Such that are made Disciples by teaching are the Subjects of Baptism according to the Commission and he is in the right 3. Doth the baptizing of Infants make them Disciples Doth Christ say baptize and so make them Disciples Or is it not make Disciples and baptize them Mathetusate disciplize and then it follows baptize them You say Christ knoweth how to administer a secret Doctrine to Infants according to his promise Thy Children shall be all taught of the Lord. Answ 1. No doubt but Christ is able to do it But doth he in a secret way administer Instruction to Infants prove it and also how you come to know it for they must be known Disciples visible Disciples that are to be baptized 2. Are they little Infants that Promise refers to i. e. Thy Children shall be all taught of God They are Sion's Children or such that are born of God that are under that Promise not Infants or our Children as such for are all Believers natural Offspring taught of God when Babes or adult either O abominable abuse of the holy Text Baptism say you setteth little Children under a particular obligation to be the Lord's doubtless they can receive such an obligation now as formerly they did Deut. 29. 11 12. And it is as certain that this Bond is a great advantage to make them willing when they come to age God hath presented them by the Grace of his Covenant c. Answ 1. 'T is you pretend to lay them under an obligation but not by Christ's authority prove he hath commanded you so to do 2. Doth Baptism confer Grace you seem to assert this for else how hath God by Baptism prevented them Your sprinkling them with water doth not cannot prevent them I affirm therefore 't is an obligation of man's devising for you cannot prove it is of God's appointment therefore to refuse to bring them under such an obligation is no fantastick thing as you intimate it is You say the mark of the Spirit is upon them Answ Baptism is no mark of the Spirit to any but to such who have the Spirit and what a Mock-Baptism is it to give the Sign where appears no demonstration of the thing thereby signified You say on the other side Satan hath not such an advantage against those that are baptized in their Infancy Answ How doth it appear that Satan hath not such an advantage against your Children as he hath against ours that were never baptized as you call Rantism I am sure our Children generally are as sober and helped to escape Satan's snares as far forth as yours generally are VVill God own or bless an humane Tradition The Woman that Luther mentioned no doubt might think she was obliged to fear God by that sort of Baptism she had when she was an Infant yet God never obliged her to come under that obligation but may be she was baptized when a Believer However the Papists may argue for their voluntary Vows after the same manner viz. it is a great help and an advantage to them to preserve them from sin and temptations of the Devil Infant-Baptism is an excellent means you say to plant the true Religion and to continue the Church by giving an advantage for the Ministers of the Gospel to reason with such when they come to age far better than they can with those that are not baptized that they might call them to remembrance of their baptismal Vow c. Answ This is certainly a grand mistake for instead of its being an advantage to Ministers to reason with such that were baptized in their Infancy to remember their baptismal Vow and so to believe and turn to God 't is apparent it may â—inder them for if those persons when grown up do call to remembrance what you Pedobaptists have taught and told them touching those Blessings and Privileges they then received it may rather take them off from seeking after either Faith or Repentance 1. For you tell them when their Parents believed and were saved they were made partakers of the same Privilege and Blessing also if so what need they concern themselves about getting personal Faith you believe and teach them the Doctrine of final Perseverance no doubt such who are in a state of Grace can never finally fall out of it 2. The Obligation and Vow that lies upon baptized persons according to the Scripture is not that they seek after Regeneration no for it necessarily supposeth that they had that before baptized but it doth bind or oblige them to persevere in Holiness that as they have been buried in Baptism as persons dead to sin so they should walk in newness of life Rom. 6. 3 4. Now you would have your Baptism to oblige your baptized Children to become dead to sin they were not it appears dead when buried with Christ in Baptism but you bury them alive if you baptized them To shew them they must die Sir God never ordained Baptism to such an end or to oblige persons thus to do see Rom. 6. 3. 4 5 6 7 8. Col. 1. 12 13. 3. The Church of England saith That the Child which they baptize is thereby that is in Baptism regenerated and made a Child of God a Member of Christ and an Inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven And what you say implies as much for it must needs be thus if when the Parents believe and are regenerated and saved the Child partakes of the same privilege then the Child believed and was regenerated and saved also Now if this be so what
for I challenge you and all pedobaptists in the World to prove God hath any where directly or indirectly required any such thing at your Hands 2. Consider that 't is not only a reformation of Life or a bare refraining from the gross acts of sin that you assert is comprehended in this Baptismal Covenant you cause Infants to enter into but it is Regeneration it self i. e. a change of Heart and savingly to believe in Christ this you oblige your poor Babes to perform Now what Arminianism is here fomented if once you say or think they are capable to perform this Obligation but if they do not do it wo be to them Moreover what guilt do those of the Church of England bring their poor Sureties under unless they stand obliged no longer then the Child abides in Infancy and if so what need of their Obligation at all if they intend no more 3. Consider you brought them into this Covenant without their knowledge and conseâ—t they never subscribed to it nor knew any thing of it nor were they capable so to do 4. Consider that whatsoever you think that such is the pravity of their natures by means of our first Apostacy from God or Original 〈◊〉 that they do and must of necessity break it as I 〈◊〉 before unless God should by supernatural Grace change their Hearts and Nature and remove the vicious habits thereof which you had not the least ground to believe he would do or leastwise to all or the greatest part of them God having made no such promise and by woful experience we daily see many or most of those Children are never converted but from the Womb go astray and are guilty of almost all manner of abominable sins and so live and dye As to the Adult 1. Consider as I said before 1. That all Believers God himself doth require or Command in his Word to enter into this Baptismal Covenant 2. And they before they enter into it have a principle of divine life infused into their Soul or Grace implanted in their Hearts having passed under the work of Regeneration being dead to Siâ— of which Baptism is a lively Symboll or is as your Church says an outward sign of an inward spiritual Grace Not as Mr. Baxter observes a Sign or Simbol of future but of present Regeneration which is confirmed by what St. Paul Teaches Rom. 6. 3 4. 2. How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein not may be dead but are dead and so Buried with Christ in Baptism verse 3. 4. If you say all Adult Persons Baptized are not Converted I answer they appear so to be and as such voluntarily enter into this Covenant Besides God does not require them without Faith to do it Baptism doth not only represent the Death and Burial of Christ but also signifies our Death to Sin or that Blessed work of Mortification or the remainder of the Body of Sin and Death by which means Believers who enter into this Baptismal Covenant are putinto a Gracious and Meet Capacity to perform that Sacred Obligation but so are not Infants 3. That every true believer baptized considers ponders upon and weighs with all seriousness and deliberation Imaginable the nature of this Covenant before he Signs it And 4. That he doth it freely and voluntarily and with his full liking approbation and Consent neither of which do nor can do those poor Infants you force to enter into this Covenant These things consider'd it appears as it is a sinful Act in you to bring them into this Covenant since 't is done without Command or Authority from God so 't is cruelty also towards your own Babes by making them to become guilty of Perjury and thereby damning as Mr. Williams says their own Souls 5. Consider every true Believer that is listed under Christ's Banner by entring into this Baptismal Covenant is by Christ compleatly armed i. e. he hath the Christian Armour put upon him Ephes. 6. He hath the Brest-plate of Righteousness the Shield of Faith and for a Helmet the hope of Salvation and the Word of God like a Sword in his Hand to cut down all his Enemies Thus by the help of these Sacred Graces of the Spirit he is enabled to fight against Sin the World the Flesh and the Devil But alas you list your poor Babes into this War and make them Covenant and Vow to forsake the Devil and all his Works the Pomps and Vanities of this wicked World and all the sinful lusts of the Flesh but Arm them not Did Baptism confer Grace and Arm their Souls it was something but who dares assert that Or if he does who will or can believe him 6. God hath also promised to assist stand by help and enable all Believers Baptized with farther supplies of Grace nay they being actually United to Christ have his blessed influencies flowing to them besides the promises of God the Death Resurrection and Intercession of Christ and the everlasting Covenant of Grace which is ordered in all things and sure firmly secures all their Souls But thus it is not with those poor Babes you bring into this Covenant You are like Pharoabs Task-masters Command the making Bricks but allow them no Straw 4. Again consider how hereby great part of the Nations are perjur'd I will appeal to the Consciences of all thinking and understanding People whether according to your principle and practice it is not so Mourn O England and lament sad is thy Case If these Men speak right or truly what a multitude in thee have been made to enter into this Covenant who never performed it O Perjur'd Nation Perjur'd People and Perjur'd Pastors for so are all thy Debauched Drunken Swearing and unclean Teachers are not these Perjur'd also Have they kept their Vow and Covenant Alas instead of Mourning for this Sin we may conclude they never thought of it But let them break off their sins by Righteousness I mean repent and leave those gross acts of Wickedness of which many both Priests and People are guilty and get renewing Grace and never let them fear this new devised sin of Perjury For if God's Word convinces of all Sins and doth not convince of this sort of Perjury this is no Perjury I mean the simple breaking of that Covenant tho' those sins by which they are said to break it are horrid Treason and Rebellion against the God of Heaven and provoke him to wrath every day But God's word doth convince of all Sin but doth not convince of this sort of Perjury as is affirmed 'T is not this which is the Self killing Murther the damnable Sin No no but 't is their unbelief and contempt of God's Grace or neglecting the great Salvation offer'd unto us by Christ in the Gospel 5. Baptism administred in Infancy hath saith Mr. Burkitt this singular advantage above that which is administred at riper Age in that it gives the pious Parent a good Ground and Hope that his Children
have put some of the Texts of Scripture down at large that you cite and doth that Text in Psalm 72. 13. not relate to Jesus Christ personally considered if not only so yet Christ mistical viz. the elect Seed and not to all the Members of the visible Church as such and so also in the other Scriptures and dare you thus abuse the Sacred Scriptures applying these prayers and promises to all your Infants 2. Do your Children as such walk according to that Rule Gal. 6. 16. are they all new Creatures read the Context or do you not falsly apply and interpret these Scriptures 3. And if all unbaptized Persons be without any share in those prayers you your self are without them for you was only Rantized But what stress do you lay upon Baptism Are none Membes of Gods Mystical and Spiritual Sion but such who are baptized 4. Also how do you go about to blind and deceive the Souls of your Children in causing them to believe they are Members of Gods Sion and have part in those prayers when it may be 't is false or no such thing they being some of them when grown up wicked or ungodly 3. Say you as you are Members of the Church of God you have a particular right unto the promises the inheritance of the Church are the promises they belong unto her and not to others as formerly the promises belonged to the Visible Church of the Jews so now to the Visible Church of the Gentiles Rom. 9. 4. Gal. 4. 23. 1. Answ I have proved that our Children as such are not Members of the visible Church no nor ought any of the Children of Believers to be taken into it but such that believe that repent or that are born again 2. If any others viz. such that are not regenerated are taken into the visible Church whether Infants or Adult Persons 't is not by God's appointment and therefore such have no right to the Special and Spiritual promises of God which are the peculiar inheritance of the elect of God 3. The visible Church of the Jews as so considered had many external promises belonging to them that is not deny'd which the Gentile Church hath no right unto but the whole Jewish Church or all her visible Members had not a right to the Spiritual Promises of God They are not all Israel that are of Israel Rom. 9. 6. neither because they are Seed of Abraham are they all Children vers 7. that is they are the Children of the Flesh these are not the Children of God but the Children of the Promise are counted for the Seed vers 8. You mention the 4 Verse but mention not the Verses I have cited which open the 4th verse and thus you go about to give a false Exposition of the Scripture and deceive the understanding of your poor Children and others also But say you though the whole Members of the visible Church be not partakers of the Grace of the Promises Heb. 4. 1. which are given to the elect only yet all the Members of the visible Church have more right to this Grace then others that are without it being their own Fault if they refuse it Answ You in the first place speak right here but what you speak in your next Words are utterly false 1. You say the whole Members or all the Members of the Visible Church be not partakers of the grace of the promises this is right but why do you say that all the Members of the Visible Church have more right to the promises then those poor Souls who are enquiring the way into the Visible Church in all sincerity of Heart 'T is I fear dangerous for people to set under such a Teacher I affirm that the State of such that are let into the Visible Church who are unsound or carnal Persons is worse then the State of others neither are they under the promises of grace above others for 1. First they conclude perhaps all is well with them and that they are converted because the pastor of the Church nay and the Church her self so judgeth of them and from hence they look not after regeneration or true Convertion but look upon themselves to be Holy or Saints of God now the promises of Grace do not run to these as they do to those that see themselves lost and undone Sinners being far from God and out of the pail of the visible Church therefore you do your Children great Mischief and hurt in taking them into your Churches unless they are Converted and truly gracious 't is no blessing nor benefit to be false Members of the visible Church but what do you mean by the last Clause is it the Sinners sault if he is not elected or can Men obtain Grace if they will True they ought not to refuse God's Call Say you your baptized Children seek a clear understanding of that Obligation and the Vow of your baptism Learn of your Parents and Ministers to know the signification and need of your Baptism ye are given unto Christ and are not your own ye are bound to renounce the Devil and all his Works to renounce the pomps and vanity of this wicked World to renounce the pleasure and lusts of the Flesh you are bound to take God the Father to be your God and chief end taking the Son to be your Lord and Saviour unto you and God the Holy Ghost to be your Sanctifier c. 1. Answ Those that are baptized should understand the Nature of that Obligation before they enter into that Covenant 2. The end of Baptism was Ordained by Christ to shew that the Person baptized is born again is dead to sin not that he ought or is bound afterwards to be Born again no no but after he is baptized he is obliged thereby to walk in newness of life You by baptizing Infants invert the design and end of Baptism how should your Children understand this Obligation when their Parents and Ministers are so ignorant about the nature of that Obligation themselves 3. Believers do thus take God the Father Son and Holy Ghost in baptism to be their God but so do not Infants by any appointment of God 4. It appears that you approve of the Church of Englands Catechism if so all your Baptized Infants are according to your Doctrin in Baptism regenerated and have thereby renounced the Devil and all his Works c. 3. As soon as ye come to Age and Understanding renew your Covenant with God the Lord hath received in his Covenant the Faith of your Parents for you in your Infancy but now ye are of Years if ye your selves will not believe and repent and take God to be a God unto you your baptism will not longer benefit you c. Answ I answer if it be thus your Children are not much beholding to their Parents Faith nor to Covenant Grace you tell them when their Parents believed and were saved all their Children were saved and in covenant with them
but it appears now this only served for their Infant State they may fall out of the Covenant of Grace and be damned notwithstanding their being once in the covenant of Grace and saved with their Parents unless they do actually believe c. 2. But if they had dyed in their Infancy perhaps they would have perished had not their Parents believed is this your meaning certainly if they are such that are Elected they shall be Saved tho' they had dyed in Infancy tho' their Parents believed or not believed doth the Parents believing procure their Salvation and the Parents not believing obstruct their Childrens Salvation and so bring on them Damnation if so the Salvation and Damnation of their Children in Infancy is put into the hands or Faith of their Parents 3. And if this be so wo to the poor Babes of unbelievers must they be all Damned Can 't Christ save such Children by his Merits and Righteousness nor Sanctifie them that die in their Infancy unless their Parents do believe and baptize them and dare you say he will not what strange Doctrine is this and by what authority do you assert those things which your Doctrine leads you out to do 4. True all our Children are Obliged by the Lord when they come to Years of understanding to remember their Creator and to Fear Love Believe and Serve him by the Authority and Command of his Blessed Word but not by virtue of any Baptismal Vow he hath appointed for them in Infancy to come under or enter into the State of Children in Infancy may through Christs Merits be fast enough if they Die then whether their Parents believe or not and it apppears the Priviledges and Blessings of their Parents Faith doth them no good any longer but only whilst they continue in Infancy 4. You bid your Children that are grown up to live answerable to their Covenant 5. Say you give not place to Temptation in denying your First Baptism Answ Let your Children take heed that they are not blinded by your pretended baptismal priviledge so as to think they are any ways the better for that Young Men and Women 't is not your Patents Faith will interest you in the Covenant of Grace there is a twofold being in that Covenant 1. Decretively 2. Actualy all Gods Elect ones are Decretively in the Covenant of Grace but no one Soul either Man or Woman is actually in it untill they have by Faith Union with Christ O! labour after this Union you are all the Children of Wrath by Nature and your Infant Baptism alters not your State nor had you any right to baptism when you were Infants but if you do believe you may and ought to be Baptized by vertue of Christ's Commission or Authority of God's Word Let not your Faith stand in this matter in the Wisdom of Men but in the Power and Authority of the Word of God to walk according to the Rule of the Holy Scripture herein is not to give way to Temptation but to the dictates of God's Spirit let Mr. Owen say what he will You bid your Children to ask such who deny Infant baptism these following questions 1. Say you ask them Can they prove from the Scripture that the Children of the Faithful were cast out from the Covenant of Grace Let them shew us a plain Scripture for that for if they are not cast out of the Covenant of Grace then baptism the Seal of the Covenant belongeth unto them 1. Answ Young Men and Women pray ask Mr. Owen whether all the Children of the Faithful or their Children as such were and are in the Covenant of Grace 2. If he says they all were and still are in that Couenant ask him whether then it doth not follow that they shall all be saved because the Everlasting Covenant of Grace is well ordered in all things and sure 2. Sam. 23. 5. and the promise of the eternal Life sure to all the true Seed of Abraham Rom. 4. 16. confirmed by the Promise and Oath of God Heb. 6. 13. to the 19th verse 3. Ask him whether the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham are not all Elected to Salvation or the Elect of God 4. Ask him whether there is any final falling away out of the Covenant of Grace or possibility for one of God's Elect eternally to perish 5. Ask him if God did not make a Covenant with Abraham's fleshly Seed as such that peculiarly appertained to them in which the whole House of Israel were taken into an External Legal and Typical Church State and so was a National Church and had many External Priviledges which our Children have not 6. Ask him whether the whole House of Israel both Parents and Children were all in the Covenant of Grace and so God's People by way of Special Love and Eternal Election 7. Ask him whether the Carnal Seed of believers as such are to be taken into the Visible Church in the times of the Gospel as they were under the Law If so ask him why John the Baptist did refuse them 8. Ask him how he can prove that the fleshly Seed of believers as such are the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham Tell him that Mr. Airsworth a Man that he Quotes and a Man of great Learning and tho' a a peao-baptist saith on Gen. 12. 7. thy Seed That is all the Children of the promise the Elect who only are accounted Abraham's Seed Rom 9. 7 8. And in Christ and Heirs according to the promise Gal. 3. 29. And tell him that Dr. Owen in his Book called The Doctrin of the Saints perseverance cap. 4. saith that the effectual Dispensation of the grace of the Covenant is peculiar to them only who are the Children of promise the Remnant of Abraham according to Election with all that in all Nations were to be blessed with him and in his Seed i. e. Jesus Christ Ishmael tho Circumcised was cast out Thus Dr. Owen and say I as Ishmael was cast out tho' Circumcised so Paul saith the bond-woman and her Son is now cast out that is the Old Covenant and Carnal Seed of Abraham as such See Gal. 4. 30. Tell him that Amelius de spraedest chap. 8. Serm 6. A Learned Man saith There are many of the Seed of Abraham to whom the word of promise did not belong then the rejection of many Jews who are of the Seed of Abraham doth not make void the word of promise from whence may we not safely conclude That if the Natural posterity of Abraham were not within the Covenant of Grace by Vertue of the promise Gen. 17. 2. then much less are our Natural Posterity but the former is true therefore the latter 9. Ask him whether the Covenant of Grace simply in its self gave right to Circumcision if so why was not Lot and Melchisedec Circumcised were they not in the Covenant of Grace This being so ask him if he can prove that the Covenant of Grace simply considered in its self gives any
being the Children of Abraham as such gave them a right to Circumcision or rather the meer positive Command of God to Abraham To this they gave no Answer Query 2. Whether Circumcision could be said to be a Seal of any Mans Faith save Abraham's only seeing 't is only called the Seal of the Righteousness of his Faith and also of the Faith which he had being yet uncircumcised To this the Athenian Society answer amongst the Ancient Hereticks they never met with such a strange position as this viz. that the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith was the priviledge of Abraham only Is this an answer Besides they mistake it is not a Position but a Question Furthermore 't is said that Abraham received the sign of Circumcision not only as a Seal of the Righteousness of that Faith he had being yet uncircumcised but also Mark that he might be the Father of all that believe Was this the priviledge of any save Abraham only Query 3. What do you conceive Circumcision did or Baptism doth seal or doth make sure to Infants since a Seal usually makes firm all the blessings and priviledges contained in that Covenant 't is affixed to The Athenians answer It Seals and did seal to all that did belong to Christ Life and Salvation but to such as do not it Seals nothing at all To which I reply How dare any Man Seal the Covenant of Salvation to such who have not that Faith Abraham had before he received that Seal It was not a Seal of that Faith he might have or might not have afterwards but of that Faith he had before he received it Secondly I affirm Baptism is no Seal at all of Salvation for if it was and of God's appointment all that are Sealed would be saved even Simon Magus but many who are Baptized may perish eternally and do no doubt Query 4. I demand to know what those external priviledges are Infants partake of in Baptism seeing they are denyed the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and all other external Rites whatsoever If you say when they believe they shall partake of those priviledges and blessings so say I shall the Children of unbelievers Turks and Pagans as well as they The Athenian Society answer We insist not upon external priviledges 't is forrein to the Matter 1. Ans If you insist not on internal priviledges nor on external priviledges that are Sealed to Infants that are Baptized what does their Baptism signifie Just nothing but which is worse 't is a prophanation of Christ's Holy significant Ordinance of Baptism and this indeed is worst of all Query 5. If the fleshly Seed or Children of believing Gentiles as such are to be counted the Seed of Abraham I Query whither they are his Spiritual Seed or his Natural Seed if not his Spiritual Seed nor his Natural Seed what right can they have to Baptism or Church Membership from any Covenant Transaction God made with Abraham The Athenians answer They are his Spiritual Seed Visible for so far only belongs to us to Judge and therefore they have a right to the Seal of that Covenant Reply What they say cannot be true because the Scripture positively saith that such who are the spiritual Seed of Abraham have the Faith of Abraham and walk in the Steps of Abraham and are Christ's Gal. 3. ult But Infants of Believers as such cannot be said to have the Faith of Abraham nor to walk in Abrahams Steps c. 2. Such who are Abrahams Spiritual Seed are in the Election of Grace and are always his Seed not for so long but for ever we can judge none to be Abraham's Spiritual Seed but such only in whom these Signs appear before mentioned but none of those Signs appear nor can appear in Infants therefore we cannot judge they are his Spiritual Seed to whom the Seal of the Covenant of Grace of right does belong Query 6. Whither the Children of Believers are in the Covenant of Grace absolutely or but conditionally if only conditionally what further priviledge have they above the Children of unbelievers Query 7. Whither those different Grounds upon which the right of Infant Baptism is pretended by the Ancient Fathers of Old and the Modern Divines doth well agree with an Institution that is a meer positive right wholly depending on the Sovereign will of the Legislator and whether this doth not give just cause to all to question its authority 1. Some Pedo-baptists asserted it took away Original Sin and such who denyed it were Anathematized 2. Some affirm that Children are in Covenant and being the Seed of Believers are Faederally Holy therefore to be Baptized 3. Another sort of Pedo-baptists say they ought to be baptized by vertue of their Parents Faith 4. Another sort Baptize them upon the Faith of their Sureties 5. Others say by the Faith of the Church as Austin Bernard c. 6. Others say they have Faith themselves i. e. Habitual Faith and therefore must be baptized 7. Some say it is only an Apostolical unwritten Tradition But others deny that and say it may be proved from the Scripture 8. Others say 't is a Regenerating Ordinance and Infants are thereby put into a savable State Others say the Infants of Believers are born therefore safe before in Covenant with their Parents To this Query they say nothing pretending they had answer'd it before Query 8. Whither that can be an Ordinance of Christ for which there is neither precept nor example nor plain and undeniable Consequences for it in all God's Word nor promise made to such who do it nor threats pronounced on such as neglect it Their answer is there About Womens Receiving the Sacrament c. Query 9. Whether in matter of meer positive Right such as Baptism is we ought not to keep expresly and punctually to the Revelation of the Will of the Law-giver They answer yes Reply Then your Cause is lost for God's Word expresly directs us to Baptize only such who are first Taught or made Disciples by Teaching or who make a profession of their Faith and Dipping is the express Act of Baptizing as practised in the New Testament which a great Clound of Witnesses testifie Query 10. Whether the Baptism of Infants be not a dangerous Error since it tends to deceive poor Ignorant People who think they are thereby made Christians and Regenerated and so never look after any other Regeneration or Baptism that represents or or holds forth the inward work of God's Grace They answer They never tell them they are made Christians throughly c. Then I Appeal to all Men who have Read the Old Church Catechism In my Baptism wherein I was made a Child of God a Member of Christ and an Inheritor of the Kingdom of God 11. Since we read but of one Baptism in Water and that one Baptism is that of the Adult i. e. such who profess Faith c. How can Infant Baptism or rather Rantism be an Ordinance of Christ 12.
be Baptized Arg. 2. If Infant Baptism was never Instituted Commanded or Appointed of God Infants ought not to be Baptized But Infant baptism was never Instituted Commanded or Appointed of God Ergo they ought not to be baptized As to the Major if one thing may be practised as an Ordinance without an Institution or Command of God another thing may also and so any Innovation may be let into the Church As to the Minor If there is an Institution for it c. 'T is either contained in the great Commission Mat. 28. Mark 16. or somewhere else But 't is not contained in the great Commission nor any where else Ergo c. The Major none will deny The Minor I prove thus None are to be baptized by virtue of the Commission but such who are Discipled by the Word as I said before and so the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies If any should say Christ Commanded his Disciples to Baptize all Nations and Infants are part of Nations therefore ought to be baptized I answer Arg. 3. If all Nations or any in the Nations ought to be Baptized before Discipled then Turks Pagans unbelievers and their Children may be Baptized because they are a great part of the Nations but Turks Pagans and unbelievers and their Children ought not to be baptized Ergo c. Besides That Teaching by the Authority of the Commission must go before baptizing we have proved which generally all Learned Men do assert If the Institution is to be found any where else they must shew the place Arg. 4. Faith and Repentance are required of all that ought to be baptized but Infants are not required to Believe and Repent nor are they capable so to do Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized The Major is clear Acts 2. 8. 10. 16. Chapters and it s also asserted by the Church of Ergland What is required of Persons to be baptized that 's the Question the Answer is Repentance whereby they forsake Sin and Faith whereby they stedfastly believe the promise of God made to them in that Sacrament The Minor cannot be denyed Arg. 5. That practice that tends not to the Glory of God nor the profit of the Child when done nor in aftertimes when grown up but may prove hurtful and of a dangerous Nature to him cannot be a Truth of God but the practice of Infant Baptism tends not to the Glory of God nor 〈◊〉 profit of the Child when Baptized nor in aftertimes when grown up but may be hurtful and of a dangerous Nature to him Ergo See Levit. 10. 1 2. Where Moses told Aaron Because his Sons had done that which God the Lord Commanded them not That God would be Sanctified by all that drew near unto him intimating that such who did that which God Commanded them not did not Sanctifie or Glorifie God therein Can God be glorified by Man's Disobedience or by adding to his Word by doing that which God hath not required Mat. 16. 9. In vain do you Worship me Teaching for Doctrine the Commandments of Men. And that that practice doth profit the Child none can prove from God's Word And in after times when grown up it may cause the Person to think he was thereby made a Christian c. and brought into the Covenant of Grace and had it sealed to him nay thereby regenerated for so the Athenian Society in their Mercury December 26. plainly intimate and that Infants are thereby ingrafted also into Christs Church Sure all understanding Men know the Baptism of Believers is not called Regeneration but only Metonymically it being a Figure of Regeneration But they Ignorantly affirm also that Infants then have a Federal Holiness as if this imagined Holiness comes in by the Parents Faith or by the Childs Covenant in Baptism which may prove hurtful dangerous to them and cause them to think Baptism confers Grace which is a great error How can water saith Mr. Charnock an external thing work upon the Soul Physically nor can it saith he be proved that ever the Spirit of God is tied by any promise to apply himself to the Soul in a gracious operation when Water is applyed to the Body If it were so then all that were baptized should be saved or else the Doctrine of Perseverance falls to the Ground Some indeed says he say that Regeneration is conferred in Baptism upon the Elect and exerts its self afterwards in Conversion But how so active a Principle as Spiritual Life should lye dead and a sleep so many years c. is not easily conceived On Regen page 75. Arg. 6. If the Church of England says that Faith and Repentance are required of all that ought to be baptized and in so saying speaks truly and yet Infants can't perform those things then Infants ought not to be Baptized But the Church of England says that Faith and Repentance are required of all such c. and speak truly and yet Infants cannot perform these things Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized Obj. If it be objected That they affirm they do perform by their Sureties Ans. If Suretiship for Children in Baptism is not required of God and the Sureties do not yea cannot perform those things for the Child then Suretyship is not of God and so signifies nothing but is an unlawful and sinful undertaking but Suretiship in Childrens Baptism is not required of God and they do not cannot perform what they promise Ergo c. Do they or can they cause the Child to forsake the Devil and all his works the Pomps and Vanities of this wicked World and all the sinful Lusts of the Flesh In a word can they make the Child or Children to repent and truly believe in Jesus Christ for these are the things they promise for them and in their Name Alas they want power to do it for themselves and how then should they do it for others Besides we see they never mind nor regard their Covenant in the case and will not God one day say who has required these things at your hands Arg. 7. If there be no president in the Scripture as there is no precept that any Infant was baptized then Infants ought not to be baptized But there is no president that any Infant was baptized in the Scripture Ergo. If there is any precedent or example in Scripture that any Infant was baptized let them shew us where we may find it Erasmus saith 'T is no where expressed in the Apostolical writings that they baptized Children Union of the Church and on Rom. 6. Calvin saith 't is no where expressed by the Evangelists that any one Infant was baptized by the Apostles Instit cap. 16. lib. 4. Ludovicus Vives saith None of Old were wont to be baptized but in grown Age and who desired and understood what it was Vide Lud. The Magdeburgenses say That concerning the bapâ—…ing the Adult both Jews and Gentiles we have sufficient proof Acts. 2. 8 10. 16. Chap.