Jews if you Repent and Believe and to your Children if they Repent and Believe and to those that are afar off even as many as the Lord our God shall call to wit if they Repent and Believe For those words As many as the Lord our God shall call being according to this Interpretation the exegesis exposition and limitation of all that went before and in your sence taken for effectual Calling only it must necessarily be added And then this must needs follow that one may be effectually called and yet not Repent and Believe whereas Repentance and Faith are infallible fruits of effectual Calling Besides here is another absurdity will also follow that the Promise and Covenant of Grace as we have shewed it is doth not belong unto them until they were also Baptized for that also is mentioned together with Repent And then it will follow that one must be Baptized before he hath any Way Right and Interest in the Covenant of Grace which indeed is according to the Proverb to put the Cart before the Horse Having thus opened and cleared that Scripture Acts 2.38 39. I shall now argue from it Prop. That part of Mankind which was once by God's appointment Externally in the Covenant of Abraham and sealed with the ordinary Initiatory Seal of that Covenant and were not cast out by Christ at his coming but on the contrary confirmed therein have still by God's appointment an External-Interest both in the Covenant of Abraham and in the ordinary Initiatory-Seal thereof now in these Gospel-days Assump But Children of Inchurched-Parents are a part of Mankind which was once by God's appointment Externally in the Covenant of Abraham and sealed with the ordinary Initiatory Seal of that Covenant and were not east out by Christ at his coming but on the contrary confirmed therein Conclusion Therefore Children of Inchurched-Parents have still by God's appointment an External Interest both in the Covenant of Abraham and in the ordinary Initiatory Seal thereof now in these Gospel-days The Assumption is apparent as hath been already shewed And if you deny it we require of you in the name of the Lord to shew us out of the Holy Scripture when or where Christ by his coming cast them out either by himself in person or by any otherimployed by him I have already shewed that he did it not by John Baptist nor by his Apostles For by them in Acts 2.39 he hath confirmed it And that he did it not in his own person appears by his courteous Reception of Infants brought unto him and rebuking his Disciples for hindering them to be brought That they were once Externally in Abraham's Covenant by God's appointment is plain I will be thy God and the God of thy Seed Gen. 17.7 That they were Sealed you your self instance in Esau pag. 206. who you say was not in the Covenant and yet Sealed viz. with Circumcision See your Margin there with that in the line We shall add more in replying to the fourth Question The Proposition is plain and clear If they were once interessed Externally by God's appointment in Abraham's Covenant the Seal of it not cast out by Christ but by him Confirmed therein they must still have an Interest in them Thus much to your third Question and your Answers to it Now to your fourth Question and your sence of it Quest 4. Whether Circumcision was a Seal of the New Covenant to the Children under the Law so pag. 205. But in pag. 216 you use other terms viz. To the Believers and their Seed You roundly deny it to be a Seal to the Children and much less a Seal to them of the New-Covenant It was only say you a sign put into the flesh of the Infant but a Sign and Seal only to Abraham c. And in p. 218. Your humane Testimony which you approve of saith It was a sign to the rest of the Jews that they were Abraham's Seed That is only that they were Abraham's Seed must be your meaning or else you speak fallaciously To which I Reply 1. Of what was it a sign to Abraham's Seed was it indeed only that they were Abraham's natural Seed was it not a sign unto them of the Circumcision of their heart to love their Covenant-God with all the heart and all the Soul which God promised Deut. 30.6 and called for from them Jer. 4.4 that they might improve it by seeking to God to do it for them And were not their Parents to make the same use of it in reference to their Children How can you evade this Nay do not you your self afterwards grant p. 223. that Circumcision signified Heart-Circumcision 2. And why not a Seal unto them also Not that they did already Actually-Believe as Abraham did before he was Circumcised But 1. That God was their God Externally in that Covenant Gen. 17.7 and would continue to be so if they did not afterwards reject him 2 Chron. 15.2 2. And that in particular God would be found of them if they sought him 2 Chron. 15.2 and would not only Communicate the outward and Temporary Blessings of the Covenant to them but also means of Grace and not only so but Converting-Grace by those means 1 Chron. 28.9 Thou Solomon my Son know thou the God of thy Father and serve him with a perfect heart and a willing mind If thou seek him he will be found of thee but if thou forsake him he will cast thee off for ever You grant pag. 217. that Circumcision was a Seal or Confirmation of that Faith which Abraham had before and to assure him of those special Promises made to him and his Seed both Carnal and Spiritual It seem's then you made not a full enumeration of all the particulars of which Circumcision was a Seal to Abraham in pag. 216. I would here ask you Were not those Spiritual Seed Carnal before they were Spiritual If so as you cannot deny was not Converting-Grace for them promised and Sealed to Abraham in his Circumcision according to this your Assertion And seeing Abraham could not know the particular persons that should be so made his Spiritual-Seed nor any Man else in after-Ages did not God therefore make the Promise of their Conversion Externally in general and Indefinitely Deut. 30.6 and Sealed it to Abraham and his Seed that so those that were in Gods Eternal purpose to be converted and saved might through Grace lay hold of it and others that wickedly slighted it might be left without Excuse If this were Sealed to Abraham and the same Promise came along to his Seed and they also had the same Seal that Abraham had how then comes it to pass that it should not be a Seal to them also who were so deeply-concerned in it to assure them that God would Circumcise their hearts if they sought him in his own way for he saith He will yet be inquired of by the House of Israel to do it for them Ezek. 36.37 with v. 26 27.
and is of use to Children when come to Understanding to mind them of their Duty We are Children of the Covenant that God made with our Fathers Acts 3.25 And Sealed it unto us in our Infancy and shall we turn our backs upon God far be it from us 4. Circumcision of old and Baptism of Infants now is for the use of the Parents as well as the Children and they are supposed to have the use of Reason You grant that Abrahams Circumcision was to assure him of the Promises made to him and his Seed p. 217. It seems then that Godly Parents have need of something to help their Faith concerning their Seed their poor Children and the Initiatory Seal of the Covenant to their Child is such a help to them Besides the Church have an use of it as hath been shewn before and they are supposed to understand 5. The present ability to make use of Baptism is not the Ground upon which it is to be dispensed to an Infant but the Gracious Covenant of God under which the Infant of an Inchurched-Parent Externally and Visibly is together wiih his command in the like case of old which as to the substance was never yet reversed You say Baptism is not as Circumcision which was a Sign not improper for Infants and you add the reason to wit because it left a Signal impression in their flesh to be remembred all their days but so cannot Baptism say you be to any Infants And why I pray is not Baptism also a Sign not improper yea very proper for Infants It seems it is because it leaves no signal impression in their flesh to be remembred all their days I shall examine your reason and then you will see the weakness of it 1. How could circumcised-Infants tell when they came to Age whether they were not born without a praeputium or foreskin Experience shew's that there are often very strange defects and obliquities in Generation Some are born Eunuchs Math. 19.12 2. Or if it were cut off when they were Infants how could they tell by what means Some Children as Paracelsus that famous Chymist and Physician have had their privities or some part of them bitten off by a Swine or some other Creature And what could assure them that they were not so 3. Suppose it were cut off by Men yet how could they tell that it was done in way of an Ordinance of God They could have no assurance of all or of any of these things but from humane Testimony only unless you will say They had it from Divine Revelation for which you have no ground Hence then an Infant Baptized in Infancy hath as good ground of assurance from a humane Testimony and may as well remember all his days that he was Baptized though he hath no signal-impression in his flesh as an Infant-Circumcised might have that had that signal-Impression in his flesh that he was Circumcised in his Infancy The one hath a humane Testimony or Tradition to assure him and the other in conclusion hath no more which is sufficient in this which is only a matter of fact 4. Even an Adult-person when he is dipped hath no more than a humane Testimony that he was Baptized for he cannot hear the words of the Baptizer when he is under the water Yet he takes it for granted that he was Baptized into the name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and remembers it all his days By these I hope you will see the weakness of your Reason And so I come to your fift Question and Answer Quest 5. Whether Circumcision was administred to Believers as Believers and to their Seed only p. 205. which you alter p. 218. and say to their Seed after them and add as such to which Baptism was to correspond Your Answer is By no means And your Reason is because Circumcision was an Ordinance which by the Institution belonged to all the natural Lineage of Abraham good or bad c. I Reply 1. Circumcision was by God's appointment administred to those Males that were of the Church in Abraham's Family and afterwards that were of the Church of the Jews and so continued and to their Male Children also Gen. 17. And Baptism now in these Gospel-days is by the appointment of the same Gracious God to be administred to such persons as are of a Gospel-Church and so continue and to their Infants also Go ye and Disciple all Nations Baptizing them c. Matth. 28.19 As Children of Inchurched-Parents were Discipled into the Church of the Jews and were Circumcised so now Children among all Nations that are Discipled by means of their Discipled-Parents should be Baptized by Christ's Commission as hath been proved And were not those Inchurched-Parents to Believe in Christ to come as now Inchurched Parents are to Believe in Christ already come Was not their attendance upon the Sacrifices and Ceremonial-Worship a profession of their Faith in Christ to come at least in the judgment of Charity What if many of them did not savingly Believe Is it not so now also Are all that are Baptized in your way true Believers do all of them Believe with all their heart I Believe you dare not say so You grant Abraham was a Believing-Parent and a Father to them all but you say He was a publick Common-Father which reacheth not the Case in hand To which I Reply Abraham may be considered in a twofold capacity 1. As an Inchurched-Believer and the natural Father of Children 2. As the Father of the Faithful then and also in all after-Ages and as Heir of the World In this latter sence no Believer ever was or shall be such a Father as Abraham was But in the former sence Every Inchurched Believer that hath an Infant or Infants is to be such a Father as Abraham was Abraham as an Inchurched-Believer was such a Father to his natural Children as by God's appointment did Externally interess his natural Children in God's Covenant and the Visible Initiatory-Seal thereof I will be thy God first and then the God of thy Seed therefore Circumcise them And this Priviledge the Children of Inchurched-Parents have now under the Gospel But you say if that were granted that Priviledge would not stand the natural Children of Abraham in any stead to admit them to Baptism Matth. 3.7 9. John rejects them calling them a Generation of Vipers who said they had Abraham for their Father For Answer 1. These were not Infants to whom John spake but gross notorious Hypocrites who carried their Hypocrisie in their foreheads so as that John could perceive it and continued obstinate and Impenitent 2. The Baptism of John was an Ordinance now newly-instituted and belonged to the New-Testament-Dispensation Mark 1.1 2. c. And those Pharisees being Adult-persons and notoriously corrupt standing in opposition to Christ and to the purity of the Gospel and power of Godliness there was good Reason why John should require them to repent before they
the same Argument we may as well conclude that it cometh in the Room and stead of the Ark Manna Rock c. It is a grand mistake for Circumcision was one of the two Ordinary Sacraments and Seals of God's Covenant given to Abraham and the Church in his Family about four hundred years before the Ark Manna or that Rock you speak of Gal. 3.17 There were many extraordinary Sacraments that God appointed to that Nonage-people or Heirs under Age to use the Apostles phrase Gal. 4.1 2 3. which God in mercy gave to help their Faith upon special occasions and emergencies besides some that you mention to wit the Brazen-Serpent for one which was but occasional Jo. 3.14 15. But Circumcision was one of the standing Sacraments and Seals annexed to the Covenant under a Church-dispensation all along into the place of which Baptism by the Lord's-appointment is come which holds proportion with it in all the main things it signified and Sealed And hence 5. You will easily have an Answer to those Popish absurdities and abominations you would fasten upon our Tenent We do not affirm meerly from the Analogy that Baptism is come in the room of Circumcision for if we had not something out of Scripture to warrant it we durst not pin it upon a meer Analogy If therefore Papists or other superstitious wits by arguments drawn from Analogies bring-in Jewish Rites as High-Priesthood National Churches Orders of Priesthood and other innumerable Rites and Ceremonies without any Institution of Christ or New-Testament Authority we have as good ground left us in Scripture to convince them as you have and I hope should be as ready to do it as occasion shall be offerred And thus I have done with your sixth Question propounded long before and your Answers to it now come to the seventh Quest 7. Whether the not-Baptizing Infants makes the Priviledges under the Gospel less than the Circumcising them under the Law p. 205. which you somewhat alter p. 228. saying less than under the Law who had then Circumcision Your Answer is not at all and give your reasons why Not-Baptizing of Infants makes not Gospel-priviledges less than legal First they were not say you Circumcised because Children of Believers or sealed with a New-Covenant-Seal as being in the New-Covenant but upon the account of a Birth-Priviledge as of the natural lineage and Seed of Abraham as a Typical Shadowy thing c. I Reply 1. Were not their Parents professing-Believers at least under such a profession as suited that Dispensation Did they not attend upon the Sacrifices which pointed their Faith at Christ to come And were not they as they grew up to come before the Lord and say A Syrian ready to perish was my Father c. See Deut. 26.5 to v. 12. and there they were to worship before the Lord And afterwards v. 27. to avouch the Lord to be their God as he also avouched them to be his People v. 26. Was there no profession of Faith in all this 2. Were they not Sealed with the Seal of the Covenant of Grace under an external and Ecclesiastical Dispensation I suppose you will not say it was the Covenant of Works though when it became National it was given in somewhat a legal manner 3. What was that Birth-priviledge Did it not depend upon the Covenant Ecclesiastically dispensed and submitted to I will be thy God and the God of thy Seed Gen. 17.7 And did it not run in the natural Lineage and Seed of Abraham as they were his Church-Seed as hath been shewn I pray consider what were the Proselytes and their Children who were also Circumcised they were not at all the Natural Seed of Abraham but they were his Visible-Church Seed 4. You say Circumcision was to distinguish them from the Nations and to keep that line clear from whence Christ according to the flesh should come Suppose this last to be true of Abraham's natural Seed what was this to the Proselytes and their Seed from whom Christ was not to come yet they were to be Circumcised 5. You say there is no such thing in the Gospel the Body and Substance being come the shadow was to vanish and pass away no Birth-priviledge but the new Birth c. I Answer 1. There is no such thing as Bodily Circumcision in the Gospel that is indeed abolished But 2. That there is no Birth-priviledge of the Children of Inchurched-Parents under the Gospel but the new-Birth that I must deny and have already proved that there is And that that Birth-priviledge is a means and help tending to the New-Birth if it be rightly improved Christ is the common Father of Inchurched-Parents and their Seed now in these Gospel-days and they are Externally and Ecclesiastically Christ's and Abraham's Seed and in the same sence Heirs of Promise as hath been already proved And this Priviledge is not a Bondage and a returning to the Type and Shadow as you term it but a blessed Fruit of the Covenant made with Abraham who hath a church-Church-Seed now as well as heretofore What else is the Hypocrite that you admit if he be not one of Abraham's Church-Seed He is not one of Abraham's Seed Spiritually and Savingly nor hath the New-Birth indeed yet you judge him to have it Ecclesiastically and hence you Baptize him So much to your first Secondly neither ought such a thing say you to be any more esteemed the loss of a priviledge than our not enjoying literally a Holy-Land City Temple Succession of a High-Priest c. I Answer 1. The loss of Baptizing the Infants of Inchurched-Parents under the Gospel would be the loss of a great priviledge both to Parents and Children which under the Law they did enjoy For it would be a loss of that which signified and Sealed God to be their God and the God of their Seed and to Circumcise their hearts to love the Lord and to signifie their initiating into the Church by your own concession and this would be the loss of no small Priviledge and therefore we cannot easily bear this loss 2. It is the loss of a Priviledge also in reference to Temporal Blessings and External Ordinances and means of Conversion As Canaan was an External Blessing signified and Sealed to them by Circumcision so Temporal Blessings are to us and our Infants by Baptism Psal 111. For it is a Sign and Seal of God's Covenant wherein Temporal Blessings are also implied and in the Explanation of it by other Scriptures expresly promised So also for External means of Grace 3. It is the loss of a Priviledge also in reference to Heaven and Eternal Happiness there of which Canaan was a Type unto them that if they did truly Believe in the Messiah then to come and walk in the ways of God Eternal Salvation was Sealed unto them thereby All those we must lose and yet esteem the loss of them the loss of no Priviledge 4. There is not the like Reason of the loss of Baptism
ye Abraham's Seed c. Men may be said to be Christ's and also to be Abraham's seed 1. Spiritually and Invisibly 2. Ecclesiastically and visibly only 1. Spiritually and Invisibly as to Men In foro Dei before God alone who is the only knower and searcher of the heart and Tryer of the Reins And so none are Abraham's seed but such as do truly and savingly-believe as Abraham did This is the Faith of God's Elect and peculiar to such as shall be saved 2. Ecclesiastically and visibly In foro Ecclesiae before Men only to the visible-Church And in this sence all such as make a rational and credible profession of Faith in Christ to the judgment of Rational-Charity in a Church-way they are Christ's and Abraham's Seed And then it amounts to this to wit If ye be Christ's spiritually then are ye Abraham's Seed spiritually and shall be Eternally-blessed with faithful Abraham And if ye be Christs Ecclesiastically-only and in the judgment of Men of the Church-only then are ye also Abraham's Seed Ecclesiastically only and in the judgment of Men only and may expect only an External and Temporal blessing and so we have the Exposition also of Gal. 3.9 And that this is the Apostles sence is plain in this chapter and in other places of this Epistle Ye are all saith he the Children of God by Faith in Christ Jesus Gal. 3.26 Were they indeed all of them True Believers and so all of them Children of God spiritually and savingly Doth not the Apostle tell them He was afraid of them some of them at least that would be under the Law lest he had bestowed upon them labour in vain And that he travelled with them in Birth again till Christ was formed in them Gal. 4.11.19 They made a better shew once Chap. 3.1.3 4. and Chap. 4.15 but now he was in doubt of them yet these he calls the Children of God by Faith in Christ Jesus They were yet so Externally being yet a Church of God though at present troubled and seduced by false Teachers from whose errors he hoped and laboured to recover them Take another Text like unto this Gal. 3.2.7 As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ And v. 28. Ye are all one in Christ Jesus Undoubtedly if they had put on Christ Spiritually and savingly they would never have put him off again And had they been once in Jesus Christ Spiritually and savingly they would never have gone out of him again It 's manifest therefore that some of them put him on and were in him Externally only and in outward profession only before Men. For such branches there are found in Christ the true Vine considered as head of the visible Church John 15.2.6 And our Brethren must experimentally acknowledge that it is so in their Congregations too often What you say pag. 37. That nothing short of the Spirits-Birth can orderly-admit to Water-Birth i. e. Baptism I suppose you mean and Spiritual Ordinances is fully answered to before as to the substance of it Persons making a credible profession of the Spirits birth to the judgment of Rational-Charity guided in judging by the Rules of of the Word may orderly be admitted to Water-Birth as you phrase it and spiritual-Ordinances as appears by Simon Magus and others who yet had but a shew of the Spirits-Birth not the truth and reality of it Acts 8.8 with v. 22.23 The reason is because Men who cannot see directly immediately and infallibly into the heart are to judge of them The same answer will serve to that of Christ to Nicodemus and to that which is cited out of Dr. Owen And as to that of Dr. Taylor it is suitable to his boldness and design gratis dictum and there may rest till he give us some Scripture-proof CHAP. VI. YOur assertion and proofs in your sixth Chapter have respect only to immediate and grown-Members who alone we acknowledge are capable of the Directions and priviledges you mention Children of such are but Mediate-Members as hath been shewn and are such as to whom those things do not belong The Apostle therefore mentions the duties priviledges of Immediate Adult-Members only I do not hold that a Gospel-Church is constituted of Infants but of grown-Persons professing visible Saints and to such the Apostle speaks yet the Infants of such are also Members though of another kind The Church may be a Church though there be at present never an Infant in it but I question whether it be so if there be no men grown-persons in it I would ask whether Women were capable of all those directions given by the Apostle to those Churches you may as well say they were not Members of the Church because they were not subjects capacitated for those directions Women were not capable of Church-judging and some other Church-Acts therefore are not members of the Church I suppose you will not like such arguing If Infants are not Members because they are not capable of the Apostles directions to the Churches then Women must not be Members because they also are uncapable of them If it were granted to be true that those first inventers of Infant-Baptism as you stile them did so miserably miss it in the Subjects applying the Spiritual Ordinance to ignorant Babes yet Childishly ridiculous is too slight an expression for so miserable a mistake But you have not yet proved that there were such Inventers of Infant-Baptism The Scripture gives us ground to conclude that it was on foot long before those Inventers you intimate and that God in Christ was the Inventer of it The ground of which we have shewed in Christ's Commission already As for some that hold Paedo-Baptism let them maintain their own Principles and Practices if they can I think some can never justify them by Gospel-Rules and I believe it hath been an occasion to many Beza in 1 Cor. 7.14 to turn against Paedo-Baptism for my own part I am of Beza's mind that they are to be confuted that admit all Infants to Baptism a thing saith he unheard of in all the Ancient Church Yea I shall add nor any but such one of whose Parents at least is of a Gospel-Church and so the Child a Mediate-Member thereof who afterwards must not be admitted as an Immediate-Member and partake of all Church-Ordinances without his own credible profession of Faith and Repentance and entring into Covenant in his own Person This would remove many scruples and objections which they cannot well free themselves from that practise otherwise CHAP. VII To your seventh Chapter Testimonies of Councils and learned Men. YOu say you produce not humane Authorities for any proof but by way of Illustration c. To make manifest that not only Scripture-Authority but even Antiquity it self is altogether for Believers and not for Infant's-Baptism In Answer to which I shall at present return these things that follow 1. That we build not Infants-Baptism on humane Authority
I shall acknowledge that Circumcision whiles it lasted as Gods Ordinance did testifie that the partition-Wall still stood between Jew and Gentile and Baptism after the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ testified that it was broken down but not so when it was first instituted and Administred by John Baptist nor by Christs Apostles before his Death For the Partition-Wall stood then Math. 10.5 6. They might not go into the way of the Gentiles c. Secondly But how do you prove that Baptism testified that Barbarian Scythian Jew and Gentile were all one in Christ Baptism indeed after the death of Christ was a Seal of the New-Covenant under the New-Testament-Dispensation wherein the God of Grace extended it not only to the Jews but the Gentiles also giving a free offer of it to the unconverted-Gentiles to bring them in and an assurance of the enjoyment of the blessings of the Covenant to those that were brought in as well as to the Jews But this is accidental to Baptism to signifie or testifie that they were all one in Christ it was Christs Commission enlarged to which Baptism was annexed which properly and immediately testified that the difference between Jew and Gentile was removed And by this Dispensation of the Covenant they were all one in Christ though Baptism had never been annexed to it Thirdly But suppose it were as you assert must not Baptism succeed into the place of Circumcision because it hath more Ends and Uses than Circumcision had Or because it hath some Ends and Uses that Circumcision had not Will you deny the Soveraign Lord God the Liberty to enlarge his Grace in these Gospel-days Both Circumcision and Baptism are Seals of God's Covenant and each of them suitable to that manner of Dispensation of it unto which they are appropriated Your reasoning therefore is ex falso supposito to wit That that cannot succeed into the Room and Place of another thing whose Ends and Uses differ in some circumstances though for the main substance they signifie the same When you have proved it solidly you may expect it may be Embraced and not before This general Answer will reach the rest of your Ends and Uses wherein you say they differ Now to the third This is as if one should say the Ammonites did not succeed the Zanzummims and dwell in their stead because they were not Gyants as they were Contrary to Deur 2.20 21. 3. Circumcision say you Initiated the Carnal Seed into the Carnal Church and gave them right to the Carnal Ordinances but Baptism was to give the Spiritual Seed an orderly entrance into the Spiritual-Church and a right to partake of spiritual-Ordinances To which I Answer 1. They were initiated Externally by the Covenant into the Church before they were Circumcised and thereby they had a right to Circumcision as hath been proved before which was the Sign Seal of their Initiation 2. It seems to be a carnal Expression to call the Church in Abraham's Family a carnal Church The Church of the Jews indeed when they became National had a worldly Sanctuary Heb. 9.1 and carnal Ordinances v 10. but that it was a Carnal Church is an Expression that I find not in the Holy Scripture and I dare not call it so By Worldly Sanctuary he means the Tabernacle and all the External glory of the Levitical Service only as it was the Earthly-Representation of Heavenly things by which Earthly shadows they were by Faith to look at Heavenly things which were the substance And Carnal Ordinances Either because the Levitical Ceremonies were severed from the things they signified as the Carnal Jews took them and rested in them Or because carnal things were used in those Ordinances to represent Spiritual But as they were joyned with their significations so See Mr. Dick. son on Heb. 9. there were Promises of Atonement made and annexed to them which True Believers did enjoy If it were a Carnal Church and no Spirituality in it how then could any be saved in it The faithful then no doubt did look at Christ in those Carnal Ordinances to wit the Bulls and Goats and other things that were offered in Sacrifice and Christs Spirit was among them Hag. 2.5 Isa 63.11 3. Baptism was not to give the Spiritual Seed an orderly entrance into the Spiritual Church as hath been proved before but was to signifie and Seal the Entrance they had by God's Covenant before they were Baptized even as Circumcision was by your own Confession p. 223. 4. You do not here plainly tell us who those Spiritual Seed are but by the Current of your discourse it appear's you mean only True Believers in Christ and then what makes an Hypocrite in any of your Congregations Why was he Baptized 5 Nor do you here tell us what you mean by Spiritual Church and Spiritual Ordinances I conceive you mean a visible Gospel-Church and Gospel-Ordinances which if opposed to Carnal-Ordinances must signifie the plain and simple Ordinances of the Gospel representing Christ as in a Looking-Glass 2. Cor. 3. ult and not under the Veil of Ceremonies where the Blood of Bulls and Goats and other Carnal things were used by God's appointment to signifie and set forth Christ unto them Let us now gather up the sum of your Argument If Circumcision Initiated the Carnal Seed into the Carnal Church and gave them right to the Carnal-Ordinances But Baptism the Spiritual Seed into the Spiritual Church and gave them a right to Spiritual Ordinances then the End and Use of both is not the same and so Baptism doth not succeed into the Room of Circumcision At Ergo Besides the flaws in the Antecedent I deny the consequence of the Proposition For 3. By your own arguing the End and Use of Both is to enter them as you say into the Church and the Church in Abraham's Family where Circumcision began was the Church of God a Spiritual and not a Carnal Church as you term it and their Ordinances then were few and fit to represent Spiritual things unto them suitable to that time And as for Circumcision it was not one of those Legal Ceremonies but a Seal annexed to God's Covenant in Abraham's Family long before the Ceremonial Law consisting of Carnal Ordinances was given Yea afterwards when the Ceremonial Law was brought in whose Ordinances in some sence are called Carnal yet it appears they had a Spiritual signification led to Christ Gal. 3.24 therefore in a right sence Spiritual Ornances as to their signification and tendency Hence the End and Use of both as to the main substance is the same and therefore Baptism may well succeed into the Room of Circumcision by your own Argument And so I come to your fourth Use 4. Circumcision say you was to be a Bond and Obligation to keep the whole Law of Moses but Baptism witnessed that Moses Law was made void and that only Christ's Law was to be kept I Answer Your Assertion is doubtful for want
judg the Baptism a Nullity dispensed by the Papists notwithstanding it were clogged with divers humane Inventions and therefore they require not a Renouncing their Baptism as Null but Repentance for what hath been amiss therein To your seventh They Baptize the Children of Inchurched-Believers because they are Externally and Ecclesiastically in the Covenant of Grace and not because they have true sanctifying Grace in them from which alone they hold that a man cannot fall from the other he may fall and be rejected and yet their Doctrine of not falling from Grace stand firm This Argument I must again return upon you for you Baptize a professing Believer because you count him Savingly in the Covenant of Grace but afterwards he appears not to be so and you reject him It is you therefore that hold a falling from Grace and not we For we Baptize because they are Externally in the Covenant and that we can know but you Baptize because they are Spiritually and Savingly in the Covenant else you would not Baptize them and afterwards you come to see they are not so Therefore you Baptize upon uncertainties and your Tenet holds falling from Grace Nor doth the Baptizing of Inchurched-Infants make the Traditions of Men of equal Authority with the Law of God In this we are accounted down-right Pharisees Nor doth it overthrow the Covenant deriving a Title by Natural-Generation but on the Contrary it is according to the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17.7 9. Thee and thy Seed after Thee in their Generations that is Abraham and his Church-Seed as well as his Spiritual-Seed now in these Gospel-days The blessing of Abraham being come upon us Gentiles Gal. 3.14 And that Blessing of Abraham must of necessity be a Covenant-Blessing Nor doth it make Religion to lie in the deed done This is for Formalists and Papists who rest in opere operato and doth not of it self follow from Paedo-Baptism Did Circumcision of Infants of old of its own Nature and per se make Religion to lie in the deed done It is the personal sin of formal Parents and Children when grown to abuse their Baptism and take occasion thence to place their Religion in the deed done Suppose some that are Baptized in your way take occasion thence to place their Religion in the deed done as some have Reason to suspect too many do you will not I presume lay the blame upon the Ordinance it self but upon them for abusing it You will say It is accidental to the Ordinance and would no doubt blame them that would destroy the Baptizing of professing-Believers upon that Ground And why then should the Baptizing of Infants be cried down upon the same Ground I suppose you have seen that people seriously-Godly do not through Grace rest in the deed done what-ever Hypocrites may do but do ply the Throne of Grace with Prayers and Tears that God would Baptize their Children with the Holy-Ghost and are careful to train them up in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord. And do not Children themselves to whom God begins to bless instructions seek him for the Grace of the Covenant and of the Seal of it I have known it I bless the Lord. And how then must it needs be a placing Religion in the deed done Again it doth not revive Judaism and Ceremonial Typical-Holiness of the natural Seed which you have so much spoken-of which did end at Christ's coming No but it keeps alive that Ancient-Covenant-Interest of the Inchurched Seed of Abraham promised to him Gen. 17. and such Judaism we shall not be ashamed to own It 's said Gal. 3.9 They that are of Faith are blessed with faithful Abraham And the great Blessing of Abraham was that God would be his God and the God of his Seed to wit not only of his Spiritual Seed Savingly but of his Church-Seed Ecclesiastically Those then that are of Faith are thus blessed with faithful Abraham God is the God of them and of their Seed in both senses respectively as he was to Abraham and his Seed then Again in v. 16. when he saith To Abraham and his Seed were the Promises made by Seed there is meant Christ as considered not personally but Mystically Christ with his Body the Church Beza in Loc. The name Christ being the proper name of that whole collected-Body whose head and Life Christ is and the Members of it are the faithful gathered together partly of the Jews and partly of the Gentiles And Christ being the bond of the Members of that Body it 's no wonder that he calls it Christ himself by which name he denoteth not only the Head but also the Members conjoined with the Head Now Christ being the Head not only of his Church considered as Invisible but also as Visible in which there be some only Externally and that are not true Believers indeed Hence Hypocrites and also the Children of Inchurched-Parents are Abraham's Church-Seed to whom there are Promises made So that here is not one word to prove that the Natural-Seed of Inchurched-Believers which indeed are the Church-Seed of Abraham were excluded at Christ's coming or afterwards or that the Holiness of the Natural-Church-Seed of Abraham was Typical or that Paedo-Baptism revives Judaism If it be said that Christ is there taken for the Church of Jews and Gentiles considered only as Invisible consider then where you will rank your Inchurched-Hypocrite who made a new External performance of the consent and was Married to Christ in his Visible-Church for base Ends. I suppose you held his Marriage good or else you would not have Baptized him Yet he failed both in the Manner for he professed the consent of his Will to Marry Christ but did lie and in the End also for he had no Sanctifying and saving Grace neither before nor in that Ordinance of Baptism And as for Acts 10.28 and Eph. 2.14 15. They indeed shew that the Ceremonial Law was now abolished and way made for the Gospel and Salvation thereby to come among the Gentiles which plainly proves an enlargement of the Grace of God and not a straitning and therefore that the natural Seed of Inchurched-Parents are not excluded by Christs coming Neither doth the Baptism of Infants destroy separation keep us upon the Old bottom or make us symbolize with the Church of Rome Let the experience we have of reformed Congregational Churches that keep close to their Rule speak for us whether Infant-Baptism destroys such a separation as the Gospel requires Children are Mediate Members of a distinct kind and species from their Inchurched-Parents And this Membership though it intitle them to Baptism which is the Seal of their ingrafting into the Visible Body and Church of Christ yet it cannot entitle them to those Church-Ordinances and Priviledges which are peculiar to Adult and Immediat Members If therefore they would enjoy them they must profess their Faith and Repentance to the Church and come and Marry the Church by their Solemn entring personally
natural Seed of Inchurched-Parents be now ceased in these Gospel-days what then mean's that Scripture Rom. 11.28 spoken of the Israelites to be called in these latter days That they are beloved for the Fathers sakes It would be sad and lamentable if believing-Parents now under the Gospel should have no such Priviledge left them in reference to the eternal Estates of their poor Children Heretofore Church-Members had a promise that God would be the God of their Seed and Circumcise the hearts of their Seed to love the Lord with all the Heart and all the Soul Gen. 17.7 Deut. 30.6 but now by the coming of Christ it is ceased This is sad indeed What visible grounds of hope of any saving Grace or Mercy have Inchurched-Christians now in reference to their Children more than Turks and Pagans have Durus Sermo yet some have been so bold as in plain terms to say so But are they ceased indeed when and where hath God repealed them Not by John the Baptist as we have made appear Nor could I yet ever see that he hath done it by any other hand Hence therefore they must be in force still Hath God given his people promises of food and raiment and other temporal things for their encouragement and comfort 1 Tim. 4.8 and left them no promise at all now in Gospel times to help their faith concerning their poor Childrens eternal Estate whose souls they prize more than their own lives The Apostle saw something in it when he said we that are Jews by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles Gal. 2.15 And why not also in a safe sence Christians by nature and not sinners of the Turks or Pagans who are yet strangers from the Covenants of promise Eph. 2.12 as the Gentiles generally then were You will say we are all by nature Children of wrath Eph. 2.3 And was not Paul and those Jews so too and yet the Apostle makes that distinction between them And whence was it but from God's Covenants in which they externally were even before their Coversion And why there should not be the like Priviledge of Children of Inchurched-Parents I never yet could see And hence such a child may go to God and plead Lord thou art my Fathers God Exod. 15.2 and hast promised to be my God And a Parent may go and plead Lord thou hast promised to be my God and the God of my Seed and to circumcise their hearts to Love thee Deut. 30.6 with Gen. 17.7 O! let it be so according to thy promise Thou hast said I will pour my Spirit upon thy Seed and my blessing upon thine offspring Isa 44.3 and then one should say I am the Lord 's c. see v. 5. they should engage themselves to the Lord and to his Church by the strongest bonds And this is a Gospel-promise and belonging to Gospel-times and a great part of that blessing of Abraham that is come upon the Gentiles Gal. 3.14 Why then should any contradict it Is not the second Commandment still in force to parents in Church-Covenant with God in reference to their Children whom they have given over to God in his Covenant Hath he not there said He will have mercy on thousands of them that love him and keep his Commandements That is on such Parents as give up themselves to God in the Commands of his Instituted Worship in reference to their Children Psal 112.1 2. even to a thousand Generations Deut. 7.9 But repayeth them that hate him to wit in a sinful neglecting or rejecting his instituted Worship to their face v. 10. And this is one way whereby God doth testifie it even by rejecting their Children so as not to vouchsafe them the External Priviledge of his Covenant and means of Grace See an eminent instance of it in Esau and his posterity who sold his birth-right Heb. 12.6 which was then a Church-Priviledge and is therefore called a profane person and so lost the blessing from himself and his see the like in Ishmael and his Generations I conclude then that John Baptist did not upon that change discharge the Church-Seed of Abraham which I shall yet a little further explain by opening the Children of the Flesh and the Children of the Promise which are accounted for the seed Rom. 9.6 7 8. 1. Negatively 1. By Children of the flesh cannot be meant the natural Children of believers as their natural Children Nor 2. Their Children that have only sin and corruption in them for then Isaac must have been a Child of the flesh For he was the natural Son of Abraham and by nature sinful 3. By Children of the promise cannot be meant only such as are really-converted For many that were of Isaac's Posterity and so Children of the Promise were not so and some in Gospel-Churches are not so now 2. Affirmatively First by Children of the Flesh are meant 1. Of old Ishmael and his Posterity begotten by strength of nature which was the Type 2. Now in Gospel-times all such as look for righteousness and life by their own personal performances or abilities whether in whole or in part and that not only invisibly but visibly and Ecclesiastically also as the Apostle said of Jerusalem in his time Gal. 4.25 Jerusalem that now is the Antitype of the other in bondage with her Children Secondly by Children of the Promise are meant 1. Of old Isaac and his Posterity in the line of Jacob which was the Type 2. Now in Gospel-times all such as look for righteousness and life alone by faith in Christ his righteousness only according to the Covenant of Grace And these again are either 1. All such as are true believers indeed who look by a true and lively-Faith to Christ and his Righteousness only 2. Or such as profess only and pretend to do so but indeed do not These latter seem and appear to be Believers to Men to the visible-Church but are not really-such before God Yet even these are Children of the Promise in the genuine sence of the Scripture and not Children of the Flesh in the Apostles sence Gal. 4.21 22 23 c. God doth and will indeed distinguish between the spiritual seed and those that are meerly the Church-seed of Abraham but Men cannot unless by some miscarriages they discover themselves and appear to be what they are as Simon Magus did Acts. 8.23 And thus under one we have an exposition of that Eâdem fideliâ duos parietes Gal. 3.7 They which are of Faith the same are the Children of Abraham they which are of Faith to wit true Believers indeed as Abraham was are Spiritually and savingly the Children of Abraham And they which are of Faith to wit Believers in appearance only before the Church only they are only Ecclesiastically the Children of Abraham And this is sufficient to entitle them to Church-Ordinances and their Children to Baptism the initiatory Seal of the Covenant And this also helps us to expound Gal. 3.29 If ye be Christ's then are