all Mosaical Rites ended so did the Covenant of Circumcision also God never said he would be the God of Abraham's natural Seed as such as he gave himself to him and to all his true spiritual Seed for to them he gives himself or an Interest in all God is or has so far as communicative even for ever and ever or to all Eternity the Covenant of Grace being ordered in all things and sure 2 Sam. 23.5 'T is impossible this Covenant and Covenant Blessings which is comprehensive of all Grace here and Glory hereafter should referr to a certain Period of time and since he was not thus in Covenant with Abraham's carnal Seed as such 't is evident the Covenant of Circumcision tho' called an Everlasting Covenant was not the Covenant of Grace And so much to this Objection 8. Obj. There was never but one Covenant of Works and that God made with Adam and in him with all his Postâ—rity therefore the Covenant of Circumcision did not appertain in the Covenant of Works See Mr. Flavel Answ. First Our Controversie lies not so much about the Covenant of Works as given to Adam but about the Nature of Sinai Covenant since Circumcision appears to be of the same Nature with that I do not say in every respect there is no difference between the Covenant of Works made with Adam and that made with the Peopâ—e of Israel though theâ— differ not Essentially in Substance 't is all one and the same Covenant viz. Requiring compleat and perfect Righteousness 2. Therefore tho' there is but one Covenant of Works yet there was more than one Addition or Administration of the said Covenant This is evident although given upon a different end purpose and design by the Lord. Adam's Covenant I grant had one end and design and the Sinai Covenant of Works had another yet may be both as to the Essence and Substance of them but one and the same Covenant Which doubtless is all Mr. Cary intends 1. Adam's Covenant had Happiness and Justification in it by his perfect Obedience thereto and he being able in the time of his Innocency to keep it he was thereby Justified 2. But the Second Edition or Ministration of the Covenant of Works given to the People of Israel tho' in its Nature and Quality it was a Covenant of Works and one with the former yet it was not given for Life or to Justifie them nor was it able so to do by reason of their Weakness through the Flesh Rom. 8.3 But it was added because of Transgression 1. To restrain Sin or as I said before to regulate their Lives under those external Covenant Transactions of God with them as his People as before expressed 2. To make Sin appear exceeding sinful 3. To discover to them what Righteousness it is God doth require in order to the Justification of the Soul in his Sight 4. To make known to them thereby what a Righteousness Man originally in the First Adam had and lost and 5 thly It did discover their woefull Condition to them and might put â—hem upon seeking Relief and Justification by the promised Seed and so be as a School-Master to bring them to Christ. 6. That in their Conformity to it to their utmost Power to continue â—ll those outward Blessings and Privileges to the House or Church of Israel as God promised to Abraham upon that Account for 't is evident the Promises made to them upon their Obedience were Earthly and Temporal Promises and not Spiritual Hence the Apostle saith the New Covenant is established upon better Promises And Now that the Sinai Covenant was a Covenant of Works as considered â—n it self notwithstanding the end and design of God therein I find many of our sound Protestant Divines do affirm tho' given with a merciful and gracious intention or in subserviency to the Gospel 1. It commanded or did require perfect or compleat Obedience 2. On these Terms Do and Live 3. It gave no strength nevertheless to perform what its just Demands were Hence the strength of Sin is called the Law it did Condemn but could not Save 4. Nor was there any Pardon or Remission of Sin by that Covenant for any Soul that broke it for He that despised against Moses's Law dyed without mercy under two or three witnesses Heb. 10.28 Moreover 5. It cursed all that did not continue in all Things that were contained in the whole Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3.10 6. The Holy Ghost calls it the Old Covenant in contra distinction and direct Opposition to the Covenant of Grace or Gospel Covenant The law is not of faitâ— but the man that doth those things them shall live in them Gal. 3.12 And tho' Moses was the Mediator of that Covenant yet he was but a Typical Mediator and stood between God and them to plead for the Blessings of that Covenant and to prevent the Threatnings of Temporal Judgments for there was never but one Mediator between God and us upon a spiritual Account i. e. To stand between eternal Wrath and us or to make Peace with God for our Souls Take what the Learned Bishop Usher hath said about the Law as a Covenant of Works viz. Quest. How doth this Covenant i. e. The Covenant of Grace differ from that of Works Answ. His Answer is much every way for first in many Points the Law may be conceived by Reason but the Gospel in all Points is far above the reach of Man's Reason Secondly the Law commandeth to do good and giveth no strength the Gospel enableth us to do good the Holy Ghost writing the Law in our Hearts Thirdly The Law promised Life only the Gospel Righteousness also Fourthly The Law required perfect Obedience the Gospel the Righteousness of Faith Fifthly The Law revealeth Sin rebuketh us for Sin and leaves us in it but the Gospel doth reveal unto us Remission of Sins and freeth us from the Punishment belonging thereunto Sixthly The Law is the ministration of Wrath Condemnation and Death the Gospel is a ministry of Grace Justification and Life Seventhly The Law was grounded on Man's own Righteousness requiring of every Man in his own Person perfect Obedience Deut. 27.26 And in default for satisfaction everlasting Punishment Gal. 3.10 12. But the Gospel is grounded on the Righteousness of Christ admitting Payment and Performance in another in behalf of so many as receive it Gal. 3.13.14 Bishop Usher's Summ and Substance of Christian Religion p. 159. A multitude of Protestant Writers I might produce who all assert the same Doctrine And if the Sinai Covenant was not a Covenant of Works Why do all our Brethren say as it was a Covenant of Works 't is done away and Why doth the Apostle say Christ is the end of the Law as touching Righteousness It is not abolished or done away as 't is a Rule of Righteousness for as so it abides as a perpetual Rule and Law to us Therefore I wonder at Mr. Flavel's Out-crys against
Water is applyed to the Body If it were so that all that were Baptised were Regenerated then all that were Baptised should be saved or eâ—se the Doctrine of Perseverance falls â—o the Ground And again he says That some indeed say That Regeneration is conferred in Baptiâ—m upon the Elect but how so active a principle as a spiritual Life should lye dâ—aâ— and sleep to loâ—g even many Years which intervene between Baptism and Conversion is not easily conceivable Charnock on Regen p. 75. Sir Do but prove what you here affirm and I will write no more against Infant-Baptism and till that 's done all you say is nothing in my Judgment But to proceed Such a Commission you speak of would not in your sense Authorize those Twelve Elders of Israel to go and Teach and Circumcise the Jews and their Children only but all others in all Nations of the World this would be an easie way of making People Christians But Sir The Gospel whatsoever you think according to our Doctrine is more extensive then was the Law to the Jews for that was restrained to that People He sheweth his word unto Iacob his statutes and judgments to Israel He hath not dealt so with any nation for his judgments they have not known them Psal. 147.19 20. But the Gospel is not restrained or limited to any one particular People or Nation but it is to be preached to all the World and whosoever are made Disciples i. e. Do believe and are baptised shall be saved Mark 16.16 Not that we suppose Men can't be saved without Baptism for that makes no Person a Christian or a Disciple of Christ neither Young nor Old though 't is the Duty of Believers to submit thereto We doubt not but that the same spiritual and eternal Blessings which the Jewish dying Infants had by the Death and Merits of Christ then the dying Infants of Christians have now according to the Election of Grace But as touching the legal and external Privileges of the Jews we have proved in this Tract and elsewhere that they had many more in divers respects under the Law than those we Christians and our Children have under the Gospel As to those great Advantages Blessings and Privileges of the Covenant of Works which you talk of I wonder what they were for the Covenant of Works could not give Life no Justification nor Righteousness that could save by that Covenant no pardon of Sin but contrarywise Death Wrath and the Curse is denounced upon every Soul of Man for the breach of it How vain then are your Arguments in the Gospel is Life is Justification is Pardon of Sin to every Man that believeth To the Iew first and also to the Gentiles Rom. 1.16 Time would fail me to shâ—w how absurd your Notions are to what almost all our Learned Protestant Divines have wrote about the Covenant of Works The Jewish Infants received no Soul Spiritual and Eternal Advantage by Circumcision What the chief Advantage or Profit was which they hâ—d thereby St. Paul tells us Rom. 3.1 2. Tho' it was commanded of God for the Ends and Designs I have already mentionâ—d and if so What Benefit can any Infant receive by Baptism or rather Rantism which is a mere humane Innovation You confess it was instituted by the Church as a needful Thing p. 37. And the Church hath Instituted it because it is needful it was indeed never Instituted or Appointed by our Lord Jesus And as to that Custom among the Jews you speak of p. 7 8 of their Baptising Proselytes I have fully Answer'd it in my Treaty called The Rector Rectified p. 24 25. and in my Answer to the Athenian Society Sir you go upon a Mistake all along taking it for granted That Circumcision and other legal Rites were great spiritual Privileges for 't is no such Thing It was a Yoke of Bondage not to be born and a great Mercy it was to them that they were delivered from it Act. â—5 And therefore the Jews did they believe in Christ and see the Nature of and Tendency of Circumcision would never speak after that manner as you mention in p. 9. Viz Obj. I will rather be a Iew then a Christian because as soon as I own and profess their Faith my Child after such a Declaration is in covenant as well as my self and hath a Right to the Sign c. Answ. Sir The Jewish Childrens Right to Circumcision was not deferred till their Parents made a profession of Faith but as they were the natural Seed of Abraham as such it was the Command of God to Abraham that gave them that Right and nothing else Obj. So that by this account it plainly appears That denying Infants Baptism is an hindrance to the progress of the Holy Gospel Answ. True if Infant-Baptism doth make them Christians you say right it must follow That the denying them Baptism hinders the progress of the Gospel but this is false which you assert Baptism makes them not Christians we say none but Christ by his Spirit can Regenerate the Souls of Men or make them Christians True you may thereby give them the Name of Christians but can't give them the Nature of Christians you may deceive them and make them believe they were so made Christians and thereby undoe them eternally by relying upon a mere Cheat and Delusion This is a way to make false Christians counterfeit Christians What a Christian is he whose vile Nature was never changed You would do well to get a great Number of Ministers if Baptism does make Christians as I said before to go into the Heathen Nations and Baptise them and so make all the World Christians but if you know no other way for the progress of the Gospel then this of making Christians by Baptism God deliver the World from your way of Christianing the Nations You will not see That the Gospel Church is not National but only Congregational the Jewish Church in that differ'd from the Christianâ— For What is more clearer than this Christ's Church is called a Garden inclosed Christ's Flock is a little Flock Those who were added to the Church were separated either from the Jewish People or Heathen Nations were commanded to separate themselves and not to touch the unclean Thing Ye are not saith Christ of the World You would make whole Nations the Church and from the Commission inferr such a false Conclusion I have consider'd what you have said in p. 10 11. Sir When all the Pagan World are instructed and believe in Christ we will say they have a Right to the Sign i. e. Baptism but not till then hath one Soul a Right thereto prove what you say if you can i. e. That the Children of Christians as such are Christians as the Children of Iews were Iews or that Baptism makes any either old or young True Christians or regenerates their Souls 'T is not your bare Assertions or your Saying it that is worth any thing what Authority
Mr. Cary as if it was impossible for the Saints to be under the Covenant of Works under the former Dispensation and yet in the Covenant of Grace for I would know Whether or not they were not at that time under the Ministration of that Covenant but what tho' no sooner did they believe in Christ the Promised Seed but they were delivered from the Curse of the Law Nor is this any strange Thing For are not all now in these Days under the Dispensation of the Gospel yet untill Men and Women believe in Christ they abide still under the Curse of the Law of the First Covenant for Christ is not the end of the Law to all the World so as some erroneously assert i. e. all are justified in God's sight from the Curse of the Law but he is only the end of the Law touching Righteousness to every one that beleiveth to them and to no other Adult Person Therefore Men might be under the outward Dispensation of the Law of Works and yet through Faith be Justified and also others may be and are now under the Dispensation of the Gospel and yet for not believing in Christ be Condemned and under the Curse of the Law For the Gospel is not the Cause of our Sickness but our Cure none believing is the refusal of the Medicine So that there 's no Reason for him to say because we assert this That the Godly under that Dispensation hung mid-way betwixt Life and Death Justification and Condemnation and after Death mid-way betwixt Heaven and Hell p. 180. Therefore as all that lived under the Dispensation of the Law or Covenant of Works were saved by Faith in the Promise of Christ or by the Covenant of Grace Abraham saith our Saviour saw my Day and was glad so without Faith or Interest in Christ such that live under the Dispensation of the Gospel cannot be saved nor are they delivered from the Curse of the Law or Covenant of Works Therefore to conclude with this 't is evident the Covenant of Works though but one as to the substance of it yet there was several Ministrations of it as it was given also upon different Ends and Designs by the Lord And therefore because the said Covenant of Works was first given to Adam by vertue of which he was accepted and justified in his Innocency Could not God give forth a Second Addition Ministration or Transcript of his Righteousness and Holy Law requiring perfect Obedience though not to Justification yet to aggravate their Sin and so to their just Condemnation And doth not the Apostle assert the same Thing Rom. 3.19 20. compared with Rom. 7.13 Gal. 3.19 But saith Bishop Usher Quest. Doth not God wrong to Men to require of him that he is not able to perform Answ. He Answers No for God made Man so that he might have performed it but he by Sin spoiled himself and Posterity of those Gifts Therefore To proceed I do affirm That always generally when the Apostle speaks of the Old Covenant or Covenant of Works he passes by in silence the Covenant made with Adam and more immediately and directly applies it unto the Sinai Covenant and to that of Circumcision as all careful Readers who read the Epistles to the Romans Galatians and to the Hebrews may clearly find And farther to evince the Truth we contend for 't is evident That although there is and ever was but one Covenant of Grace yet nothing is more plain then that there were several distinct Additions of it altho' we say the Promise or Gospel Covenant was one and the same in all Ages in respect of the Things promised with the Nature and Quality thereof which is a free and absolute Covenant without Works or Conditions of foreseen Acts of Obedience or Righteousness done by the Creature whatsoever Rom. 4.5 The Substance and Essential Part of this Gospel Covenant as to the Promises of it is Christ Faith a New Heart Regeneration Remission of Sins Sanctification Perseverance and everlasting Life Yet this Evangelical Covenant had divers Forms Additions or Transcripts of it which signified those Things and the various Sanctions by which it was given forth and confirmed To Adam the Promise of it was under the Name Of the Seed of the Woman bruising the Head of the Serpent To Enoch Noah c. in other Terms 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 among his Brethren and it was signified also unto him under dark Shadows and Sacrifices Unto David under the Name of A Successour in his Kingdom To other Prophets more clearer still made known Unto as a Child is born a Woman shall compass a Man a New Covenant I will make c 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 or Ministrations of the Gospel or New Covenant Doth it follow there are so many New Covenants This being so Mr. Flavel hath done nothing to remove Mr. Cary's Arguments but they stand firm For he says not That the Sinai Ministration of the Covenant of Works was ordained to justifie Mankind nor was it possible it could after a Man had sinned and yet in its Nature an absolute Covenant of Works or do for Life or Perish The Man that doeth these Things shall live in them Obj. 9. Circumcision could not oblige the Iews in its own Nature to keep the whole Law because Paul Circumcised Timothy If in the very Nature of the Act it had bound Timothy to keep the Law for Iustification how could it have been Paul's Liberty so to do saith Mr. Flavel which he asserts it was Gal. 2.3 4. p. 226. Answ. 1. That Circumcision did oblige the Jews to keep the whole Law is evident Gal. 5.3 and as I hinted before our Learned Annotators on the said place speak the same Thing positively Take more largely their very Words They were obliged to one Part of the Law they must be obliged to all other Parts of it besides that Circumcision was an owning and professing Subjection to the whole Law c. Obj. But did not the Fathers then by being Circumcised acknowledge themselves Debtors to the Law he Answers Yes they did acknowledge themselves bound to the observation of it and to endure upon the breaking of it the Curse of it but they were discharged from that Obligation by believing in Christ who was made a Curse for them that he might redeem them from the Curse of the Law Thus Pool's Annotations 2. But as to Paul's Circumcising Timothy it was when he knew Circumcision was abolished and therefore it could not oblige him Paul well knew to keep the Law Sith no Law in its own Nature can oblige any Person according to the Nature and Quality of it when 't is abrogated and in no force tho' he saw
Infants have from thence a Right to Baptism they have also as much Right to the Lord's Supper great part of your Book is answered in these preceding Sermons But to proceed 2. Is it not said he Preached the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of Sins Mark 1.4 Do you suppose he did not require of such that came to his Baptism first to repent or that he would Baptize them for Remission of Sins without manifesting their Repentance nay and did he not refuse to baptize such he found who did not bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance or Works that were the proper Product of true Repentance Mat. 3.8 you would with your Brother Rothwell have Persons be first made Christians by Baptism and then afterwards bring forth Fruits of Repentance but this 't is evident was not the Doctrine nor Practice of Iohn the Baptist nor of Christ and his Apostles If thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest Act. 8. He that truly repented and did believe might nay ought to be Baptised and none else Obj. May be you will say that respects the Adult Answ. I Answer There is no Account given of any Infant that was Baptised no Precept no President and that is forbidden which is not Commanded or for the Practice of which there is no Ground or Rule â—rom God's Word for all humane Innovations and Inventions of Men are forbid and sinful I doubt not but if a Man would try his Wit he might say as much for Infants to receive the Lord's-Supper as you have said for the Baptising of them Pray consider what you your self speak in p. 1. And if all must be Acccepters or Rejecters then all and every individual Persâ—â— are under and must have as great Express particular and authoritive Command to accept and receive Christ and every Thing of Christianity in its Right Order and Manner as another p. 1. Tho' you bring this for to prove Infants must be Baptised and so receive Jesus Christ yet I must tell you it quite overthrows all you strive to do For 1. Where is there an express particular and authoritive Command for them to receive Christ by Baptism or any Ordinance or Principle of Christianity whilst Infants And where is there any Rule or Order in all the New Testament that the Adult must first Believe and then be Baptized but Infants must be first Baptised and then Believe Sir God's Word knows nothing of the last and the Right of Baptism only depends upon Christ's positive Precept and Example of the Apostolical Church 2. I affirm That Infants cannot be said as such to be Receivers of Christ nor Rejectors of him because they are capable to do neither nor is there any other way taught in the Gospel of receiving Christ but by Faith He that is Baptised who hath no Grace no true Grace true Faith is but a Baptised Infidel Obj. You Object Infants have the the Habit of Faith or the Habit of Grace Answ. We deny it see how you can prove it i. e. That Infants as such have the Habit of Faith Who is able to know that What tho' God may change the Hearts of some dying Infants or some who did live were sanctified in the Womb Doth it from thence follow all Infants in common or as such haâ—e their Hearts changed or are so sanctified 2. You are to prove That sacred Habits infused by the Holy Ghost may be utterly lost for 't is evident Infants that live when grown up tho' Baptised have no other Habits then such have who never were Baptised How can you prove There can be the Divine Habits of Grace in Infants and yet those Habits lie still as dead in them for so many Years as 't is from the time they are Baptised to their Conversion A sacred Habit is a Principle of divine Life yea a most active and lively Principle Can the weakness of Nature hinder the Operations of the Holy Ghost in Infants when the Power of the Devil can't in the Adult When God works who can let Can there be fire and no heat Sure such a mighty Cause would have like weighty Effect on the Souls of Children were it as you suppose Obj You say p. 10. we must prove no Infant is Converted or else grant some Infants to be there that is John did Baptise Infants Answ. You mistake your Work it is to prove what you affirm We are not to prove a Negative yet I shall now prove that Iohn the Baptist did Baptise no Infants but only the Adult Arg. 1. If Iohn Baptist required Repentance of all those that came to be Baptised by him and Infants are not capable to Repent then he did not Baptise any Infants But Iohn Baptist did require Repentance of all such that came to be Baptized of him Ergo He bad them Repent Repentance was his grand Doctrine and he also exhorted them to bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance Mat. 3.8 Arg. 2. If the being the Seed of Abraham as such or the Off-spring of Believers would not give the Jews a Right to Iohn's Baptism then Iohn Baptised no Infants But the former is true Ergo I have proved largely in this Treatise That the Covenant made with Abraham's natural Seed as such would not give any of his Off-spring Right to Gospel Baptism Think not to say within your selves ye have Abraham to your Father If you Answer this Argument you must Answer this small Treatise Arg. 3. If the Covenant for the external In-Covenanting of Infants as such is Abrogated and the Fleshly Seed cast out by the Establishing the Gospel Covenant then Iohn Baptist Baptised no Infants But the former is true Ergo This Argument is largely proved in the precedent Discourse Arg. 4. If Infant-Baptism does them no good there being no Promise of Blessing made to them in their Baptism then Iohn Baptist Baptised no Infants But Infants Baptism does them no good there being no Promise of Blessing made to them in their Baptism Ergo. If it does them good or there is a Promise of Blessing made to them in their Baptism prove it since 't is deny'd But to proceed Arg 5. If the Baptism of the Adult who have no Faith no Grace doth them no good nor can convey Grace to them then it cannot do Infants as such any good But the former is true Ergo What good did Simon Magus his Baptism do him or Iudas's who no doubt was Baptised If you can prove Baptism conveys Grace to Infants or makes them Christians do it for I utterly deny it and have a cloud of Witnesses on my side among found Protestant Writers Consult with Mr. Rothwell on this Point Arg. 6. If all those Iohn Baptist Baptised confessed their Sins and Infants can't confess their Sins then Iohn Baptist Baptised no Infantâ— But the former is true Ergo This Argument you endeavor to Answer p. 36.37 You would know what Confession it was which they made of their Sins whether Verbal or Moral 'T is
said With the heart Man believeth and with the Mouth Confession is made to Salvation Therefore say I it was Verbal Obj. You intimate that some may want Speech or Weakness which may be an Impediment to them c. Answ. If they can any ways signifie or make it known to the understanding of the Administrator they are True Penitents 't is no doubt sufficient if it be by Writing 't will do but Man knows not the Heart What appears not is not Your Arguments in p. 37. about their being in Abraham's Covenant I have fully Answered already That will do you no good Iohn Baptist denies that Plea when he said Think not to say within your selves we have Abraham to our Father Do you think Baptism turns People to the Lord for so you intimate at the close of your 37. Pag. Prove it 't is denied Obj. 4. You say such a Confession would overturn the Constitution or Institution of God by Moses and casting Infants out of that Floor Answ. I have shewed you That the Gospel Dispensation has overthrown the Mosaical Constitution or Legal Church of the Jews and that Christ has thrown out the Fleshly Seed as such i. e. No Infant is to be a Member of the Gospel Church and I have given my Reasons why I have so said which you may Answer if you please 7 thly Because it was Repugnant to the End and grand Design of Iohn's Ministry to receive and Basptise every body even Men Women and Children without distinction his Ministry being most strict and severe as 't is acknowledged by all Men. His Ministry of Preaching and Baptising was held forth by the Prophet in these Words Mal. 4.1 The Day shall come which shall burn as an Oven He lays the Ax at the Root he Preached no such easie way of making Men Christians nor Church Members as these Paedo-Baptists speak of his Ministry seemed like to Fire in him was the Spirit of Burning kindled as Mr. Cotton On the Covenant observes p. 21. The Lord also prepared his People by a Spirit of Burning which as a Spirit of Bondage he doth shed abroad into the Hearts of Men This we read of Mal. 4.1 It is spoken of Iohn the Baptist which did burn as an Oven against the Scribes and Pharisees and left them neither the Root of Abraham's Covenant nor the Branch of their own Good Works He cutteth them off from the Covenant of Abraham Mat. 3.9 Think not to say within your selves we have Abraham to our father and so by cutting them off from the Root he leaveth them no Ground to trust to But this Man renders Iohn's Ministry to be of a quite contrary Nature even the most easiest flesh-pleasing Doctrine that ever was Preached If he received all to his Baptism certainly he has made sad Work for Repentance for abusing the Ministry of this Great and Holy Prophet Arg. 7. If Iohn the Baptist was to prepare Christ's Way i. e. fit Persons as proper Materials for Christ's New and Spiritual Temple which consisteth only of living Stones viz. Believing Men and Women then Iohn did not Baptise Carnal Persons nor Ignorant Infants But the former is true Ergo Arg. 8. Iohn upon their unfeigned Repentance Baptised all that he did Baptise for the remission of Sins and no Persons have remission of Sins without such Repentance Ergo Can Baptism it self give remission of Sins or Is thete any promise of Pardon without unfeigned Repentance By this Man's Reasoning all the Carnal People of the Jews that were willing to be Baptised Iohn was to Baptise and he did Baptise them as well Unbelievers as Ignorant Babes for all his Arguments are as strong to prove that as for Iohn's Baptising of Infants Which if so all Pagans and Infidels in the World are to be baptised and by Baptsm be made Christians and Members of the Gospel Church O What a Doctrine does this Man Preach Do but see what Work he would fain make of that Confession of Sins which was required of all those that came to Iohn's Baptism in Pag. 37 38. to p. 50. i. e. It was such a Confession that excludes no ungodly or unbelieving Person that was willing to be baptised so far as I can see All that were of the Church of Israel or in the Legal Covenant God made with Abraham he intimates might be baptised nay he tells us in pag. 44. A Confession made when Iohn Baptised was not a Commanded Duty Men after this rate may even say what they please Arg. 9. If Iohn the Baptist baptised all the People of Ierusalem and Iudea and all those of the Regions round about then he baptised Unbelievers Prophaned and Impenitent Persons as well as Penitent Persons but he did not Baptise Unbelievers Prophaned and Impenitent Persons Therefore he did not Baptise all the People of Ierusalem and Iudea and all those of the Regions round about Arg. 10. If Iohn the Baptist Baptised all the People of Israel as before mentioned then he left none for Christ nor his Disciples to baptise but Iohn did leave some nay more People for Christ or his Disciples to baptize than he baptized Ergo he did not baptize all the People of Israel or all of Ierusalem and Iudea That Iohn left some nay more People to Christ and his Disciples to be baptized than he baptized is expresly asserted by the Holy Ghost John 4.1 When Iesus knew how the Pharisees heard that Iesus made and baptized more Disciples than John c. see John 3.26 And they came unto John and said unto him Rabbi he that was with thee beyond Jordan to whom thou bearest witness behold the same baptizeth and all men come to him How did Iohn baptize all and yet all come to Christ to be baptized This is strange what People were these and where dwelt they if Iohn baptized all the People of Ierusalem and Iudea c. Arg. 11. If Iohn's Baptism and the Baptism of Christ was but one and the same Baptism as to the Nature Quality and Subjects thereof then he baptized none but such who were first made Disciples or who were first taught to believe and repent but the Baptism of Iohn and the Baptism of Christ was but one and the same Baptism as to the Nature Quality and Subjects thereof Ergo he baptized none but such who were first made Disciples c. That the Nature Quality and Subjects thereof were one and the same all generally affirm I know no difference but that after Christ was dead and risen they that were then baptized were baptized into him that was come dead buried and raised again but Iohn baptized them as such that believed in him that was to die c. Christ having then not actually suffered 'T is evident that Christ's Commission Impowers his Disciples to baptize only such who were discipled or such who did believe is plain Mat. 28.19.20 Mark 16.16 and this was his Practice Iohn 4.1 Arg. 12. If Iohn baptized all the People of
be baptized for no doubt there were many Thousand Families that lived either in Ierusalem Iudea or in the Regions round about that were not Jews broad is the Way to Heaven if this Man's Doctrine be true or into the Church at least The Man's mistake lies here i. e. because great Multitudes went out either to see or hear Iohn Baptist he therefore concludes Iohn baptized them all because 't is said he baptized them not observing the severe Doctrine he Preached and what a holy Sight and Sence of Sin and godly Repentance he enjoyned on all those he admitted to Baptism for they he baptized confessed their Sins i. e. their hearty Sorrow for Sin and were turned to the Lord for that was his Work and the grand Purport of his Ministry and evident it is that there were but a few comparatively baptized by Iohn because Christ by the hands of his Disciples baptized more Disciples than he Ioh. 4.1 and 't is said Christ's Flock was but a little Flock and after Christ's Resurrection the whole Number of his Disciples were about One hundred and Twenty Act. 1.15 tho' may be some few more there might be in some orher places Mr. Baxter tho' a great Asserter of Paedo-Baptism contradicts this Man Iohn Baptist saith he received and judged of the Profession of his Penitents before he did baptize them Baxt. Confirmat Restor p. 68. It was such a Confession that Iohn required of those that he baptized that gave him Ground to believe they had Right to Remission of Sin for he baptized with the Baptism of Repentance for the remission of Sin Read the late Annotators on Luk. 3.3 The Summ of Iohn's Doctrine say they was the necessity of Repentance and Faith in Christ in order to the Remission of Sin his pressing Faith in Christ is most clearly declared by the Evangelist Iohn Matthew Mark and Luke insist more upon his Preaching the Doctrine of Repentance for the Remission of Sins Baptism was an Evidence of it Iohn did not Preach that Baptism was Repentance or that Remission of Sin was infallibly annexed to it but that the way to obtain the Remission of Sins was by Repentance and Baptism was an External Sign and Symbol of it It was no doubt such a Confession that Philip required of the Eunoch Act. 8.37 See here is Water what doth hinder me to be baptized Philip answered If thou believest withal thine Heart thou mayest This Man would render Iohn Baptist less Faithful than any ordinary pious Minister I believe saith Gullespy No consciencious Minister would adventure to baptize any who hath manifested infallible Signs of unregenerations Gil's Aaron's Rod. blossom Obj. But saith Mr. Exell to conclude that this Confession mentioned Mat. 3.5 was a Confession with the Mouth or Tongue without considering any thing of the words when there is no such discovery in the Text is somewhat too quick and too bold for what is expressed is expresly asserted of all the Regions and all Judea and Jerusalem and those called Multitudes and these general Expressions contain and comprehend Men Women and Children c. Answ. I must needs say 't is a hard case you dare so boldly affirm all both Men Women and Children were baptized by Iohn whereas 't is positively said that they he baptized confessed their Sins You conclude against the express Words of the Text and assert plain Scripture proof that Iohn Baptist did certainly baptize Infants and yet give neither Scripture nor Reason to demonstrate what you say is true you can draw Consequences to build an Ordinance upon that which naturally rises not from the Texts you refer to nay which is more when the Text is expresly against such a Conclusion 't is said They that gladly receive the Word were baptized You may say that some of them were Infants as well as to affirm some of these Iohn baptized were such for Infants are as capable to receive the Word as to confess their Sins nay when 't is said Acts 20. The Disciples came together to break Bread you may affirm that Infants came then with others together to break Bread or to eat the Lord's Supper for you know how to prove them to be Disciples no doubt on 't if you have not been too quick in asserting what you with boldness have asserted I am greatly mistaken You make Baptism a very insignificant Sign what good can Baptism do that Parson that has no Grace If you can prove what your Brother Rothwell affirms do viz. That Baptism does regenerate Infants or is a Converting Ordinance Certaintly but very few of that great Multitude you suppose Iohn baptized received any Spiritual benefit by their Baptism and I challenge all the World to prove if they can that ever one Infant received any kind of Internals Spiritual or Eternal Advantage by being baptized as you call it or External either by the Word of God He adds an Induction of Twenty particulars to shew what a Confession it was not that those Iohn Baptist baptized made but they need no further Reply being all remote to the Purpose brought for Then he proceeds into ten more to shew it could not be a verbal Confession of Actual Faith and Repentance the most of them follow here Obj. There is nothing of a Command requiring such a Confession neither declared by John nor revealed by any other Messenger of God This contains his two First Answ. Did not Iohn require it when he said bring forth Fruits meet for Râ—pentance c A Confession is a Fruit of Repentance And did not Philip require it of the Eunuch Is not Faith required and as a Man believes with his Heart so a Confession is required with the Mouth to make known that Faith unto Salvation Obj. If such a Confession was commanded it must be gained by their own personal Obediâ—cence and so the Gospel is a Covenant of Works 2. If commanded then it was not voluntary 3. If commanded then it must not be to shew the Grâ—ce they had but their Obedience these are three more of them Pag. 44. 1. Answ. I answer if what God commands us to do those Vertues so commanded are gained or merited by our own personal Obedience then all our Evangelical Duties must be meritorious and the Gospel is a Covenant of Works indeed For that the Gospel doth command many Duties is evident Can't God give Grace and then command us by the Assistance of his Spirit to cause those Graces to appear in exercise to the Praise of his own Glory 2. Or cannot that which God commands us to do be done freely and voluntary by us Or doth free Grace destroy the Noble Faculty of the Will because it over-powers its vitious Habits and strongly inclines it to that which is good Do not Saints freely and voluntarily by the help of the Spirit and Grace of Christ will that which is good and well-pleasing to him Or is a Confession of Sin not good or an Evangelical Duty 3. Do we