Spiritual We say not For it is plain there was no such Inquisition concerning the good or bad qualities the Fruitfulness or Unfruitfulness of the Members of the former Church in 〈◊〉 to Admission thereinto It was enough barely to be of Abraham's Seed or Family to be so esteemed But now saith John the Axe is laid unto the Root of the Trees And they must all be hewn down under the Gospel that have nothing else to pretend unto but that of a Godly Parentage which plainly excludes Infants as well as all other unfruitful Branches from the Gospel Church And to this same purpose is it that he doth further assure them ver 12. That Jesus Christ was now resolved with the Gospel Fan to Purge thoroghly the Floor of the Gospel Church and to gather the Wheat into His Garner Under the Law and before also even in Abrahmam's time the Chaff and the Wheat remained together unsevered but now the Fan must go to Work We read of no such Fanning Work in the former Church state And to what purpose is it else that Christ told the Woman of Samaria as he doth Jo. 4. 23. The Hour cometh and now is when the true Worshippers shall Worship the Father in Spirit and in Truth For the Father seeketh such to Worship Him Which plainly sheweth that God expecteth now greater Purity Exactness and Spirituality in such as were to approach His Presence in the Celebration of Gospel Worship And indeed of this the whole fifth of Mat. is a sufficient and convincing Proof giving clear evidence concerning the refinedness and spirituality of the Gospel Administration above and beyond that of the Law For then saith our Saviour it was thus and thus but I am come to tell you a New Doctrine and do call you up to greater Purity and Strictness § 4. Secondly We Answer That that Holiness which was ascribed unto the whole Body of the Jewish Nation was a Typical Ceremonial Holiness and was no other than was ascribed to the whole Land City Temple Altar and divers other things and is therefore now Abolished For if all things under the Law were but a Figure and Shadow of good things to come then such was the Holiness of the Jewish Nation and People also Now this the Apostle in the 9th and 10th Chapters to the Hebrews proves at large shewing that all things under the Law all the Priviledges of the Old Covenà nt with all the Perquisites Dependancies and Appurtenances thereunto belonging are called by such Names as make them evidently appear to be Typical As First they are called a Figure Heb. 9. 9. Which was a Figure for the time then present So verse 24. For Christ is not Entered into the Holy Place made with Hands which are the Figures of the true Secondly They are called a Pattern Heb. 9. 23. It was necessary that the Pattern of things in the Heavens c. Thirdly They are called a Shadow Heb. 10. 1. For the Law having a Shadow of good things to come and not the very Image of the thing◠c. Now the Holiness of the Jewish Nation being an Appurtenance belonging to the Law or the Old Covenant It was but a Figure Pattern or Shadow of all good things to come and was therefore Typical and is now Abolished And if we will know what the Holiness of the Jewish Nation did serve to Typifie or Represent unto us It is evident that as it Typified the Holiness of Christ himself So of all Abraham's Spiritual Seed who are made Holy by Believing in Christ § 5. The Time of Reformation therefore spoken of in the forementioned Scripture Heb. 9. 8 9 10. being come wherein those Imperfect Gifts and Sacrifices with all those Carnal Ordinances which were for a Season Imposed on the Jewish Nation were to be done away and the Gospel-Church taking place in the Room thereof It cannot rationally be supposed but the one doth far exceed the other at least in Purity and Inward Glory For by how much Christ hath now obtained a more excellent Ministry than that of Moses and by how much also he is the Mediatour of a better Covenant Which is Established upon better Promises as the Apostle affirmes Heb. 8. 6. By so much of necessity must the gospell Church exceed in lustre beauty Refinedness and Spirituality the former Administration SECT VIII THE Second Argument in Mr. Allen's Book remaining to be Answered is this That all Persons and so little Children that were of the Legal Church must needs in one Respect or other have been Persons of a Religious or Spiritual Consideration And this considered saith he I know not upon what better to place the Visible Church-Membership of Infants or to Attribute it to than God's Electing and Calling them to his People and their Parents Dedicating and Devoting them to God and his Service And the Scripture useth to reckon little Children as having begun to do this or that when they are but placed in Circumstances that will bring them to it Actually in the Issue And thus the Children of the Kohathites of a Month Old were numbred with their Fathers as with them keeping the charge of the Sanctuary when they were but in a way of being trained up to it And for the same Reason little Children were said to enter into Covenant with God when their Parents did so Deut. 29. 11 12 § 2. To this we Answer First By granting that it was in a Religious Consideration that Children were then Admitted Members of the Legal Church But yet it doth not therefore follow that they are to be admitted Members of the Gospel-Church for the Reasons before rendered The Terms of Admission into that being far more strict and Spiritual than were those under the Law Secondly Whereas he tells us That the Reason of their Admission into the Legal Church was God's Electing and Calling them to that Priviledge This we also grant But then we also say that though the Call and Election of God in Reference to the Inward Substance of the Covenant of Grace or to an Invisible Membership in the Invisible Church is Invariable It doth not follow that the Gifts and Callings of God in Reference to External Membership are therefore also Invariable or Irrevokable as is afterward by Mr. Allen Asserted and unto which we have already in the Second Part of this Discourse given a sufficient Answer For we find by undeniable Evidence that those External Gifts and Priviledges that the Natural Posterity of Abraham were once Invested with are now Rescinded Repealed and Repented of and it cannot be affirmed that in any Religious Capacity whatsoever they are now at all owned by God as his Church and People as once they were neither Parents nor Children But for the most part remain broken off and Unchurched to this Day And if you say That they and their Children being broken off We and our Children are Ingraffed in their Room This is that which remains to be proved and indeed the
is certain God would not have this the Rule according to which outward Ordinances are to be Administred But it is Urged That our Graffing into the Olive Tree the Church is Answerable to that of the Jews Now their Infants were Graffed in by Circumcision and therefore ours are to be Graffed in by Baptism Reply Can we indeed think that the Apostle here means by Graffing in Baptism or Circumcision or an Incision by an outward Ordinance If that were the meaning then breaking off must be meant of Vncircumcising or Vnbaptizing The whole Context speaks of the Election of some and the Rejection of others Of the Breaking off by Vnbelief and the Standing by Faith And therefore the Graffing must be meant of the Invisible Church by Election and Faith which Invisible Church was first among the Jews and therefore called the Olive out of Abraham the Root who is therefore said to bear them And because Abraham had a double Capacity one of a Natural Father and the other of the Father of the Faithful In respect of his former Capacity some are called Branches according to Nature In respect of his latter Capacity others are called Wild Olives by Nature yet Graffed in by Faith And therefore when it is said that some of the Natural Branches were broken off the meaning is not that some of the Branches in the Invisible Church may be broken off But it is plainly to be understood in reference to the Natural Branches only that is of such alone who had nothing but their Natural Pedigree or descent from Abraham as a Natural Father to insist upon And in this respect it is expresly told us that some of the Natural Branches only were broken off For some of them were Branches in both respects and accordingly were not broken off but we Believing Gentiles are said to be Graffed in amongst them and with them are partakers of the Root and Fatness of the Olive Tree If you say then that the Gentiles have now the same Graffing into the true Olive which tho Jews formerly had We must Remember that known and allowed Distinction Concerning the Substance of the Covenant and the Administration of it Now it is true that in respect of the Substance of the Covenant we have the same Graffing in to the Olive the Church of the Faithful of which Abraham is the Root that the Believing Jews had And so we by Faith are said to be made Partakers of the Root and Fatness of the Olive Tree Or in plainer Terms as the Apostle Phraseth it Eph. 3. 6. We are now made Fellow Heirs and of the same Body and partakers of his Promise in Christ through the Gospel In respect of which all Believing Gentiles are Abraham's Seed the Israel of God One in Christ But if you mean it of the Outward Administration of this Ingraffing by Circumcision or Baptism nothing is more untrue For indeed the Outward Administration which then was is utterly taken away removed and changed It being that which whilst it stood was the Ground of a Separation between the Jews and the Gentiles And it is therefore taken away on this very purpose that the Enmity betwixt Jews and Gentiles might be removed and they made One in Christ by his Death And if you say that our present Graffing In must be answerable to their present Casting Out It is true our present Graffing In is answerable to their or rather for their Casting out That is GOD would supply in His Olive Tree the Church the casting away of the Jews by the Calling of the Gentiles who are now by Faith Graffed in among the Remaining Believing Jews who continued as yet unbroken off But it doth not therefore follow that the Infants of Believing Gentiles are Graffed In together with themselves as the Jewish Infants were because uncapable of making that Profession of Faith which the Gospel now requires But it is further Urged that if the Fruit be Holy the Lump is also Holy And if the Root be Holy so are the Branches As for that of the Root it is variously Conceived by Interpreters some understanding thereby the Covenant to be meant some Abraham Isaac and Jacob and some Abraham only which last in its proper Sense I Conceive to be most Genuine Whereas therefore the Apostle tells us that the first Fruit is Holy the Lump Holy The Root Holy and the Branches Holy From whence some would Infer a derivative Holiness from the Parents to the Children that is the Father being Holy and accepted in Covenant with GOD the Children are so too being Beloved for the Fathers Sake The Truth is the Holiness the Apostle speaks of is First in respect of GOD's Election Holiness Personal and Inherent in GOD's Intention He hath chosen us that we should be Holy Eph. 1. 4. Secondly It is also Holiness derivative or descending but not from any Ancestors but from Abraham only and that not as a Natural but as a Spiritual Father or the Father of the Faithful wherein he was a Lively Image or Figure of Christ Himself and is derived from the Covenant of Grace which passed in his Name to him and to his Seed And Lastly It shall be Inherent being actually Communicated by the Spirit of GOD when they shall be actually Called And this is such a kind of Holiness as is more than a bare Adherent or Relative Holiness being also inherent by Faith whereby they are Holy as the Root is Holy Now whereas you understand it to be the Case of any Believers to be a Holy Root to their Posterity This is not true For in the Apostles Resemblance Abraham only is a Holy Root in whose Name the Covenant runs No other Man though a Believer being the Father of the Faithful but Abraham only And the whole Body of Believers is compared to the Olive and each Believer to a Branch that partakes of the Root and Fatness of the Olive Tree not in outward Dispensations only but in Saving Graces also which indeed is mainly here intended For it cannot rationally be Supposed that by the Fatness of the Olive Tree we are to understand any External Priviledge whatsoever in its self belonging to us or ours For that of it self would be but a dry a barren and a sapless Advantage But by the Fatness of the Olive Tree we are certainly to understand that Spiritual Benefit and Advantage that from Christ is to be Communicated or Derived unto us who was indeed herein Represented by Abraham who is to this purpose therefore called the Friend of God and the Father of the Faithful And whose Prerogative herein no other Man though a Believer whether before or since could ever justly pretend unto But whereas it is yet further Urged That the Church of the Jews and that of the Gentiles is still the same that is It is still the same Visible Church now that it was then And so much say you the Apostles Simile or Metaphor of Ingraffing will bear or it signifies nothing
being the peculiar Work or Office of the Holy Spirit as hath been already proved 'T is true Abraham's Circumcision in his own Person is by the Apostle Rom 4. 11. Termed A Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had yet being Vncircumcised that he might be the Father of all them that believe But so it cannot be said of Infants that had no Faith much less could any of them pretend to that Prerogative that Abraham had Indeed from hence to conclude that Circumcision was appointed by God as a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith or of the Covenant of Grace to the Generality that were the Subjects thereof is groundless For neither Isaac nor Jacob nor any besides had before or after their Circision such a Faith which Entituled them to such singular Promises It cannot be justly affirmed of Isaac Jacob David or any of the other Patriarchs That they received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which they had yet being Vncircumcised that they might be the Fathers of all them that believe as it is of Abraham This being a peculiar Honour that is by the Spirit of God conferred on Abraham alone and is indeed Incommunicable to any else how famous soever for Faith and Holiness much less can it be affirmed of the Generality of the Jewish Infants that were the ordinary Subjects of Circumcision We deny not that the Circumcision of others than Abraham was a Token as the Spirit of God himself expresly terms it of the Covenant then made with Abraham But it doth not therefore follow that every ones Circumcision was to him a Seal of his Right to any of the Promises thereof as is evident in the Case of Ishmael and many others the Servants born and bred in Abraham's Family and Strangers bought with Money who were all to be Circumcised to whom nevertheless none of the Promises in that Covenant were made as is plain from Gen. 17. 7 8 20 21 23 27. Much less was Circumcision a Seal to all that received it of their Interest in the Righteousness of that Faith that Abraham had for then they had been all saved It was therefore intended only as the Restipulation of the Covenant made with Abraham and his Seed after him on their Part or as a Sign or Token of their Duty to God not as a Seal of God's Promise to them Gen. â—7 9. Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations Ver. 10. This is my Covenant or this is the sign of my Covenant which ye shall keep every Man Child among you shall be Circumcised Besides it is evident that by Circumcision they were obliged unto a perfect and universal Obedience to the whole Revealed Will and Law of God Gal. 5. 3. For I testifie to every Man that is Circumcised that he is a Debtor to do the whole Law And that under the Penalty of the Curse upon the least Transgression or Disobedience Gal. 3. 10. Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them which perfect Obedience was yet impossible to be performed Gal. 3. 11. Rom. 3. 19 20. So that Circumcision was so far from being a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith or of the Gospel Covenant to the Generality that were under it that it was rather a Token of Servitude and Bondage and such a Yoke that as the Apostles tell the Jews Neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear it Acts 15. 10. Gal. 5. 1 2 3 4 5. Which yet it had not been had it been to them as well as to Abraham himself a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith For that brings with it true Christian Liberty and Freedom Notwithstanding the Promises made in the Covenant of Circumcision faith Mr. Cox in his Discourse of the Covenants p. 152 153 154. and the Separation of Israel to be the peculiar People of God in pursuance of them yet that Covenant did not confine the solemn Worship of God by Sacrifices or otherwise to Abraham's Family Nor were other Holy Men then living under any Obligation to Incorporate themselves thereinto by Circumcision or at all to take upon them that Sign or token of that Covenant that God then made with Abraham which yet without doubt they should have done if it had been a Seal of the Covenant of Grace For then by reason of their Interest in that Covenant both in point of Duty and Priviledge it had equally belonged unto them as to the Seed and Family of Abraham But from the sacred History it is evident that the command by vertue of which Circumcision was Administred extended no further than to Abraham and his Family And therefore we have no ground to conclude that Lot though nearly Allied to Abraham was Circumcised Seeing there is nothing in the Command of God or first Institution of Circumcision that obliged him thereunto or interested him therein and yet there is no doubt to be made of his Interest in the Covenant of Grace Neither was Lot the only Righteous Man then living in the World besides those of Abraham's Family For of the Patriarchs Heber Salah and Shem were then living and as they had their distinct Families and Interests so there is no question but the pure Worship of God was maintained in them and they promoted the Interest of true Religion to the utmost of their Power while they lived Yea Melchisedeck was in being about this time whether he were Shem before named or another it concerns not us to determine but this is certain that it was he who was the Priest of the most High God and King of Salem and in both these Respects the most Eminent Type of Jesus Christ that ever was in the World a Person greater than Abraham For Abraham paid Tythes to him and was blessed by him Now considering that he was both King and Priest there is no doubt but there was a Society of Men that were ruled by him and for whom he Ministred For a Priest is ordained for Men in things pertaining to God And this Society was at this time as much a Church of God as Abraham's Family was and as truly interested in the Covenant of Grace as any therein yet were they not concerned as Parties in the Covenant of Circumcision nor to be signed thereby From whence it is manifest that Circumcision was not applied as a Seal of the Covenant of Grace nor did an Interest therein render a man the proper subject of it Again It is no ways difficult saith he to conceive that Circumcision might have a different Respect according to the differing Circumstances and Capacity of its Subject It was to Abraham a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had c. But this arose from the peculiar and extraordinary Circumstances and Capacity that he was in For it is not possible to conceive that Circumcision should be a Seal
the sprinkling of a little Water upon the Face Thirdly It appears to be so from the Practice and Usage we find hereof in Scripture and the Opinion of the Learned upon it First in the Story of Christ's Baptism we read Mat. 3. 5. That Jesus came from Galilee to Jordan unto John to be Baptized of him And ver 16. When he was Baptized he went up straitway out of the Water The Learned Cajetan upon the place saith Christ ascended out of the Water therefore Christ was Baptized by John not by sprinkling or by pouring Water upon him but by Immersion that is by dipping or plunging in the Water A Second Scripture considerable is that of John 3. 23. And John was Baptizing in Aenon near Salim And the Reason why he pitch'd upon this place is given because there was much Water there Piscator upon the place tells us This saith he is mentioned to signifie the Ceremony of Baptism which John used in Dipping or Plunging the whole Body of a Man standing in the River Whence he saith Christ being Baptized by John in Jordan is said to ascend out of the Water A Third Scripture worthy our notice is Acts 8. 36. 38. As they went on their way they came unto a certain Water and the Enuch said See here is Water and they went down both into the Water both Philip and the Enuch and he Baptized him And when they were come up out of the Water c. Upon which place Calvin saith We see what Fashion the Ancients had to Administer Baptism for they Plunged the whole Body into the Water The use is now saith he that the Minister casts a little Water only upon the Body or upon the Head A Fourth Scripture we shall mention is Rom. 6. 4. Buried with Him in Baptism Where the Apostle elegantly alludes to the Ceremony of Baptizing into Death and Resurrection with Christ Cajean upon the place saith Thus we are Buried with Him by Baptism into Death by our Burying he declares our Death from the Ceremony of Baptism because he who is Baptized is put under the Water and by this carries a Similitude of him that is buried who is put under the Earth Now because none are buried but dead Men from this very thing that we are buried in Baptism we are Assimulated to Christ buried or when he was buried Keckerman Syst Theol. l. 3. c. 8. Says that Immersion not Aspersion was the first Institution of Baptism as it doth plainly appear from Rom. 6. 3. The Assemblies Annotations upon the place do say That in this Phrase the Apostle seemeth to allude to the Ancient manner of Baptizing which was to dip the Party Baptized and as it were to bury them under Water for a while and then to raise them up again out of it to represent the Burial of the Old Man and our Resurrection to newness of Life The like saith Piscator and Diodate upon the place Dr. Cave also a great Searcher into Antiquity in his late Book called Primitive Christianity saith p. 320. That the Party Baptized was wholly Immerged or put under Water which was the almost constant and universal Custom of those times whereby they did most notably and significantly express the great end and effect of Baptism c. And most remarkable is the Testimony that Mr. Baxter himself gives to this Truth As to the manner saith he It is commonly confessed by us to the Anabaptists as our Commentators declare That in the Apostles times the Baptized were dipped over Head in Water though we have thought it lawful to dis-use the manner of dipping and to use less Water In his Third Argument against Mr. Blake All which Arguments from the Genuine Sense of the Word Nature of the Ordinance usage of the Ancients were excellently Inculcated by the Learned Dr. Tillotson in a Sermon Preached at the Lecture in Michael's Cornhill London April 15 1673. From Rom. 6. 4. Therefore we are Buried with Him by Baptism into Death c. Proving from thence that Dipping or Plunging was the proper Ceremony and Rite in the Ordinance And how naturally Arguments did arise from that Sign in Baptism to inforce Holiness and Mortification the Thing Signified thereby Therefore to alter this Rite from Dipping to Sprinkling spoils quite the Symbole and makes it another thing And you may as well take a Wafer Cake or a whole Loaf to represent Christ's broken Body as sprinkling a little Water to represent or figure out his and our Death Burial and Resurrection by And how cometh it to pass that many are so exactly curious about that other Ordinance of the Supper so as to make the gesture of Kneeling a ground of Separation and yet to be so Negligent and Inconsiderate in this And if it be Evil in Papists not to break Bread nor to Eat but to lift up shew and Swallow down whole the Host when Christ did break Bread and bade eat it then it necessarily follows that it is as Evil when He bids Baptize not to do it but to Rantize and instead of Baptizing into the Name of Christ Dead and Risen to Water him that hath no Understanding thereof So that when the Minister saith I Baptize thee to an Infant and doth no more he speaketh that which is not true and deceives those that take it at his Word for Christian Baptism So that thus then we have distinctly and plainly proved you to be defective both in respect of the Internal and External Constituent parts of this great Ordinance that is both in Matter and Form both which are Essentially requisite to the true Constitution or Being of it by which it is manifest that Infants Baptism is a meer Nullity and that which Christ will not own And if it be said that the right Words of Baptism were used it being done in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit We Answer that so there was also in Baptizing of Bells and Churches which yet in your own Judgment is so far from making it a right Ordinance the true Subject being wanting that it is no less than a great Prophanation thereof and a miserable taking the Name of God in vain And therefore certainly Jesus Christ one Day will discover that he takes it not kindly at the Hands of his Professed Friends that of their own Heads and without his Warrant upon a Presumptuous Supposition of unwritten Indulgence having taken it upon them to alter the Subject as well as the manner of the Administration of an Ordinance so Sacred and Venerable as Baptism is As for the Cavils of unseemliness and hazarding of Health to the weak in the way of our present Practice as they are the Fruits of Carnal Wisdom and Vnbelief so it is no other than to reproach the Wisdom of Christ that so Ordained it telling us however the World may call it undecent yet that thus it becometh us as it did himself to fulfill all Righteousness And as they that have or shall see the
§ 2. But then Mr. Sidenham contradicts himself and spoils all again afterward when he tells us That whereas Christ took up those Infants in his Arms and laid his Hands upon them it cannot be understood but in one of these 3 Senses either First in order to the Cure of Diseases by a Miraculous Power Secondly for Consecration of any to any Divine Work and Service or Thirdly for Confirmation after Baptism And to this purpose saith he may we apply Christ's Act to these Infants to confirm the Promise solemnly after Baptism For saith he It was most generally used after Baptism and presupposeth baptism to Precede And saith he Let any that differ from us shew any where in the Gospel when Christ laid his Hands upon any Person in this latter Sense Vnbaptized Wherein he doth expresly take it for granted or at least he doth strongly suppose that these Infants had been already Baptized and that this Act of Christ was for their Confirmation after Baptism Now if those Infants had been already Baptized it must have been Administred to them either by Christ himself or his Disciples Not by Christ himself who as Mr. Sidenham grants Baptized noâ—e And if they had been already Baptized by the Disciples which must be by vertue of some Special Order or Commission from Christ Then how doth this agree with what Mr. Sidenham had said before When he tells us p. 91. That the reason why the Disciples forbad and rebuked those that brought these Children unto Christ must needs be from some such Principle which those of a contrary Judgment take up that they were not capable and were first to be Taught that only grown Men and Professors of Faith were fit for Ordinances For if they had been already Baptized upon Christ's special Order to that purpose to them which must be supposed if they had been Baptized at all there had been then no room for such Scruples as these Neither is it any way likely that they would have at all Rebuked those that brought them but rather have encouraged them so to do and have been helpful themselves to have Introduced them into Christ's Presence in order to the obtaining his Benediction on them after the Administration of so Solemn an Ordinance § 3. So that this doth clearly demonstrate to us That at least these little Children were not then Baptized nor indeed can this Scripture be intended at all as a Rule unto us to that purpose where nothing of Baptism is at all mentioned or can at all rationally be Supposed to have been Practised either by Christ or his Disciples upon this Occasion That they had not been Baptized by Christ himself is evident from the very Letter of the Text He Himself Baptizing not And that they had not been Baptized by the Disciples is also as plain for otherwise they had not express'd the unwillingness they did that such should be brought unto Christ for their Confirmation after Baptism which as we see Mr. Sidenham doth so ungroundedly suppose had been already Administred unto them Let us then bring our Infants to Christ in the way that himself hath appointed But let us not of our own Heads Administer such an Ordinance as Baptism to them without his special Warrant lest we incur the guilt of Will Worship and lest he say unto us at leaò as he did unto the Jews upon another Account Who hath required these things at your Hands But whereas Mr. Sidenham tells us p. 99. That as for grown visible Professors they are but probable Members themselves and yet must we with scorn poor probable Disciples our selves deny a little Water to Infants § 4. To this we Answer We do not with scorn deny a little Water to Infants or with scorn reject them from Christian Baptism but it is the meer Conscience of our Duty and Allegiance to Christ that makes us refrain without his special Warrant so to do as being afraid of Prophaning so Sacred an Institution as Baptism is by misapplying it to a wrong Subject And whereas Mr. Sidenham calls grown visible Professors but probable Members We acknowledg that it is at best but a Judgment of Probability or Charity that we can at all pretend unto in our admission of any such to Baptism But then it cannot be denied but that we are upon the surer ground when according to Christ's Rule we admit only grown visible Professors thereto who besides that Birth Priviledge which you so much insist upon which they may equally pretend unto as well as Iâ—faâ—ts are capable of making also a verbal Profession of their Love to Christ with an answerable Conversation So that it cannot be denied but that we have a greater ground of hope that unto such belongeth the Kingdom of God who have this double Advantage than we can have in respect of Infants who have only a pretended Birth Priviledge to be insisting on and concerning whom there is no Word of God that gives the least Warrant for their admission to Baptism upon that Account For however some of them may belong to the Election of Grace and though our Saviour doth assure us that of such is the Kingdom of God yet this is no sufficient ground to Administer Baptism to them 'till capable of making an answerable Profession as the Gospel directs And therefore we do not refuse to Baptize them from a Principle of Scorn as Mr. Sidenham suggesteth but because we dare not take the Holy and Dreadful Name of God in vain as it useth to be by those who presume to sprinkle Water upon the Face of an Infant in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit without his special Direction or Appointment in that respect For as we have seen that the present Scripture doth not prove it So neither doth any other that we can meet with give any Warrant or Countenance at all unto such a Practice SECT VI. § 1. MR. Sidenham Arguing from the Institution Mat. 28. 19. tells us p. 128 129 130. That if that place be the Prime Institution of Baptizing from which place we Exclude Infants where Christ useth such universal and Comprehensive Expressions We shall desire saith he but to deal with them on their ground and the same Text will Serve to prove our Positions more demonstratively than theirs And this Text saith he shews that Christ gave Commission to the Apostles and Ministers to Preach and Baptize but in what order to do it or what should be required or the qualification of the Subject as absolutely Necessary is not at all discovered in this Scripture They must look for another Text to Exclude Infants besides this Ele give up their Confidence Either saith he this place is the full and Exact Rule or Institution of Baptizing or it is not If they say it is then it would discribe the Persons and the maner The matter and the form of Baptizing and that in the usuall Phrase with other Scriptures But here is only a General Commission to
Gentiles are not at all concerned in that Covenant as being no way concerned in Circumcision the Condition thereof The Promise therefore that Peter intends must needs be the Free Promise or the Gospel Covenant before mentioned Whereof as Christ is the Alone and Only Mediator So he is also the only Seed therein immediately concerned From and by whom all Gospel Blessings must be derived unto all his Spiritual Offspring And in this Covenant the Gentiles are indeed concerned as well as the Jews For therein all the Kindreds Families and Nations of the Earth are promised to be Blessed even in Christ the Promised Seed And therefore well might the Apostle tell them as he doth That the Promise he now spake of to them was not only to them and to their Children but to all that were afar off also even as many as the Lord our God shall call For so Paul tells the Galatians also That Christ hath Redeemed us from the Curse of the Law that the Blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ Gal. 3. 13 14. Not upon the Jews only but the Gentiles also § 2. And that this is the Gospel Covenant that Peter here Preacheth unto these Bleeding Jews is yet further evident from what he tells them in Chap. 3. 25 26. You saith he there are the Children of the Prophets and of the Covenant which God made with our Fathers saying unto Abraham And in thy Seed shall all the Kindreds of the Earth be blessed unto you first God having raised up his Son Jesus sent him to bless you in turning away every one of you from his iniquities Where we have the very Words and Terms of the Gospel Covenant recited as it was at first made with Abraham Gen. 12. 2 3. and Gen. 22. 16 17 18. You saith he are the Children of the Covenant What Covenant Doth he mean the Covenant of Circumcision in which God Promised Abraham saying I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed after thee upon Condition that thou and they be Circumcised c. No saith Peter I do not mean that Covenant but the Covenant which God made with our Fathers saying unto Abraham And in thy Seed shall all the Kindreds of the Earth be Blessed The Covenant of Circumcision concerned your selves alone and was plainly Conditional and therefore failable But the Covenant that I speak to you of is a Free Covenant Sure and Certain and that which concerns not you alone but all the Kindreds of the Earth Wherein we are duly to observe that instead of directing them to the Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham Gen. 17. 7 8. whereof there is not the least Word or Syllable expressed in Peters present words to the Jews nor in all the New Testament besides that being no other than a Bondage Covenant Gal. 5. 1 2 3 4 Acts 15. 1 5 10. as the Covenant at Sinai was and so no Proper Remedy for the Removal of their Present Miserie he rather directs them to that most Comfortable Promise first mentioned Gen. 12. 2 3. And afterward by Solemn Oath Confirmed Gen. 22. 16 17 18. That in Abrahams Seed should all the Kindreds of the Earth be Blessed And this was home to the Point it being botâ— a free and a full Promise and therefore an Answerable Remedy for their present Malady For if God hath freely promised that in Christ who is Abraham's Seed all the Kindreds of the Earth shall be Blessed Why then there is ground of hope for you even for you also though you have been the Betrayers and Murderers of the Lord of Glory And not only is there ground of hope for you but even for your Children also on whom as well as on your selves you have wished his Blood to be And accordingly he Preaches Christ unto them in the very next words Vnto you first God having raised up his Son Jesus sent him to bless you in turning away every one of you from his iniquities wherein we are to note That as the Gospel Covenant is a Covenant of Blessing full of Blessings Heaps upon Heaps of Blessings Innumerable Blessings I will Bless thee saith God to Abraham and thou shalt be a Blessing I will Bless them that Bless thee And again Surely in Blessing I will Bless thee and in thy Seed shall all the Nations of the Earth be Blessed So in pursuance of the same Evangelical Promise and Covenant of Blessing saith Peter here God having raised up his Son Jesus sent him to Bless you in turning away every one of you from his iniquities Wherein that which was required before as a Condition is now become a Main Branch of the Promised Blessing For before the Promise was unto them that turn from Transgression in Jacob But God saith he hath sent his Son Jesus to Bless you by turning away ungodliness fom Jacob even in turning away every one of you from his iniquities § 3. It is undeniaby evident therefore that Peter instead of directing them to the Covenant of Circumcision for their present Relief He rather directs both them and theirs to have recourse to that Evangelical Covenant which God had made with their Fathers saying unto Abraham And in thy Seed shall all the Kindreds of the Earth be Blessed For this as it was every way full and extensive so it was as free and absolute And therefore the most Proper Remedy for the Relief of their Wounded Spirits Whereas had he directed them to the Promises contained in the Covenant of Circumcision that had left them still in Despair for that obliged them to Perfect Obedience as the Condition of obtaining the Mercies therein Promised which was impossible to be Performed To tell them therefore of the Promises contained in that Covenant was altogether beside his present Design which was to give I â—elief to their Wounded Spirits which the Promises of that Covenant thus Bounded as they were could never Accomplish SECT XII AND whereas Peter tells the Jews That the Promise was unto them and to their Children We are not to understand it as if the Gospel Covenant that Believers are now under was at all made with Abraham and his Natural Seed and consequently with them and their Natural Seed Or that any of the Promises thereof were immediately made unto him as the Promises contained in the Covenant of Circumcision were In which respect it is highly observable that aâ— the Spirit of God himself doth plainly inform us of a twofold Covenant made with Abraham the one a Covenant of Grace and the other of Works So he is pleased accordingly also to make a plain distinction between them as to the Persons or Parties therein respectively concerned For if we look into Gen. 12. We shall there find that the former is made between God and Abraham only and that with respect unto his Seed Christ and his Spiritual Offering Whereas the latter is plainly made between God and Abraham and his Natural Posterity The first account