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
granted by GOD in lieu of Circumcision Object 6. But Circumcision was a Seal of the New Covenant to Believers and their Seed under the Law and therefore so is Baptism to the Seed of Christian Parents under the Gospel the denial therefore of Baptism to Infants is the denial of a great Priviledge which of right belongs unto them To this We Answer in the Negative That neither was Circumcision a Seal to them nor much less a Seal to them of the New Covenant for then they had been all Saved It is true it was a Seal Confirmation or Ratification of the Faith that Abraham had long before he was Circumcised But so it could not be said of Infants that had no Faith It was indeed a Sign put into the Flesh of the Infant but a Sign and Seal only to Abraham Witnessing to Him that he not only had a Justifying Faith but to the Truth of the Promises viz. That he should be the Father of many Nations Rom. 4. 17. Gen. 12. 2. 3. The Father of the Faithful Rom. 4. 11. Heir of the World Rom. 4. 13. Which was no way true of any Infant that ever was Circumcised for none had before their Circumcision such a Faith that entituled them to such singular Promises and Prerogatives The Scope of that place Rom. 4. being to shew that Abraham himself was not Justified by Works no not by Circumcision but by Faith which he had long before he was Circumcised and so but a Seal or Confirmation of that Faith which he had before and to assure him of the Truth of those special Promises then made to him So that though Circumcision is rightly termed by the Apostle A Seal of the Righteousness of Abraham 's Faith which he had yet being Vncircumcised of which see further p. 51. 52. 53. but more especially from p. 205 to p. 206. Yet the Scripture no where affirms that so it was to any others neither indeed could it be a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to Infants that had no Faith Besides diverse others who as it appears from the Scriptures were utterly destitute of that Saving Grace For some were Circumcised to whom no Promise in the Covenant made with Abraham did belong Of Ishmael GOD had said that His Covenant was not to be Established with him but with Isaac and yet he was Circumcised Gen. 17. 20 21 25. Rom. 9. 7 8 9. Gal. 4. 29 30. The like may be said of Esau Together with which it must be considered That all that were in Abraham's House whether Strangers bought with Money or Born in his House though not of his Seed were to be Circumcised To whom nevertheless none of the Promises of that Covenant were made as is plain from Gen. 17. 7 8 20 21 23 27. So that as far as appears to us from the Scriptures Circumcision was a Seal of the Rightcousness of Faith only to Abraham not so to the rest as all the Jews also were not called the Fathers of the Faithful or the Fathers of many Nations as Abraham was Secondly Neither is Baptism more than Circumcision called a Seal It is indeed called a Figure 1 Pet. 3. 21. And it is a Sign also but a Sign and Figure proper only to Men of Vnderstanding not as Circumcision which was a Sign not Improper for Infants because it left a signal Impression upon their Flesh to be remembred all their Days But so cannot Baptism be to any Infant To affirm Baptism therefore to be a Seal of the Covenant of Grace is groundless for that is the peculiar Work and Office of the Holy Spirit Eph. 1. 13. and 4. 30. And since neither hath GOD any where Commanded Infants to be Baptized the denial therefore of Baptism to Infants cannot be the denial of any Priviledge due unto them Object 7. But Circumcision was Administred to Believers as Believers and to their Seed after them as such to which Baptism was to correspond We Answer That Circumcision was an Ordinance which by the Institution belonged to all the Natural Lineage and Posterity of Abraham good or bad without any such Limitation as was put upon Baptism If thou Believest with all thine Heart thou mayst Acts 8. Or any such Qualification that an Infant capable to receive it must of necessity have a Believing Parent For we know that the Servants Born in Abraham's House and Strangers Bought with Money were also to be Circumcised as well as those proceeding from Abraham's Loins who yet surely could not pretend to be all of them the Off-spring of Believing Parents Which clearly shews that Circumcision was not Administred to Believers as Believers and to their Seed after them as such But though the Natural Posterity of Abraham whether they were Believers or no were to be Circumcised because God had so Commanded it yet this was not sufficient for their Admission to Baptism The main Plea indeed of the Jews in John's time was That they had Abraham to their Father But notwithstanding this he rejects them and bids them bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance as that which alone would give them Admission to the Baptism of Repentance And if you say that this concerns the Adult only We say that it concerns Infants as much who are uncapable of that Faith and Repentance which the Gospel every where requires in those to be Baptized From what hath been already said therefore it clearly appears that the not Baptizing Infants makes not our Priviledge under the Gospel less than theirs under the Law to which Circumcision was annexed inasmuch as they were not Circumcised because they were the Children of Believers but because GOD had Commanded it neither were they by Circumcision Sealed with a New Covenant Seal as being thereby Interessed in the Mercies of God's New and Everlasting Covenant many being then Circumcised as Ishmael and others who had no right or title at all thereunto But they were Circumcised by the Command of God to distinguish them from the Nations and to keep that Line clear from whence Christ according to the Flesh should come and to oblige them to keep the Law c. but no such thing in the Gospel The Body and Substance being come the shadow was to vanish and pass away No common Father now but Christ and if Christâ— then Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to Promise No Birth Priviledge but the New Birth therefore to go back to the National Birth Priviledge is so far from being a Priviledge that it is a Bondage rather and no other than to rtâ—urn to the Type and Shadow the Anti-type and Substance being come Neither ought such a thing to be any more esteemed the loss of a Priviledge than our not enjoying litterally a Holy Land City Temple a Succession of a High Priest and a Priest-hood by Generation or Lineal Descent as it was with them since all these Types are Spiritualized to us the Believers under the Gospel who are now the Holy Nation City Temple and Royal Priest-hood
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
of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had while Uncircumcised that he might be the Father of all them that believe in Uncircumcision to one that never had Faith either before or after his Circumcision nor ever had or should have the Relation of a Father to all Believers as Abraham had In which respect it is equally absurd to say that Circumcision was a Seal unto all its Subjects of the Righteousness of the Faith which they had while Uncircumcised as to affirm that it was the Seal of a Paternal Relation to all Believers unto every one that received it And therefore both these must necessarily be resolved into the particular Circumstances of Abraham the particular Relation he had in the Covenants made with him and not into the Nature of Circumcision considered simply and in it self What Circumcision was directly and in its immediate use is one thing and what it was as subordinate to a better Covenant and Promise that had Precedency to it is another And it is easie to conceive that it was that to the Father of the Faithful in its extraordinary Institution that it could not be to the Children of the Flesh or carnal â—â—ed in its ordinary Use Page 189 190 191. 194. Upon the whole therefore it clearly appears That Circumcision was never appointed by God as a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith or of the Gospel Covenant to the Generality of the Subjects thereof It was indeed a Token of the Covenant then made betwixt God and them but a Seal only to Abraham and that in respect of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had being yet Vncircumcised that he might be the Father of all them that believe which cannot be affirmed of any others And so for Baptism it is indeed called a Figure 1 Pet. 3. 21. But a Sign or Figure proper only for men of Understanding not as Circumcision which was a Sign not improper for Infants because it left a signal Impression upon their Flesh when they came to understand the Reason of it But so cannot Baptism be to any Infant And indeed if Baptism be as you say it is a Seal of being already ingrafted into Christ and consequently into the Church then it is a Seal only to Believers who alone are capable thereof Since it is by Faith that men are in Christ and Christ in them 2 Cor. 13. 5. Rom. 11. 20 29. Eph. 3. 17 And therefore it cannot be any Seal at all to Infants that have no Faith But as it is evident that a Profession of Faith is required of all to be Baptized Mark 16. 16. Act 8. 37. which Infants are uncapable of so it is as evident that though Baptism is indeed a Sign or Figure of Regeneration to the Baptized 1 Pet. 3. 21. yet a Seal it cannot be that being the Work which the Holy Scripture assigns unto the Holy Spirit only Eph. 1. 13. In whom also after ye believed ye were Sealed by that Holy Spirit of Promise And no where is it assigned unto Baptism Besides as the true Seal of the Gospel Covenant is not at all at Man's dispose Jo. 3. 8. as Baptism is if that be it So it is as certain that God never sets his Seal to a Blank Which yet it must of Necessity follow that he doth if Circumcision or Baptism either were appointed by God as Seals of the Gospel Covenant or as Seals of their Interest in the Righteousness of Faith to whom soever they were to be Administred 'T is true both serve to represent Spiritual Things and Mysteries and therefore may be justly enough termed Signs Tokens or Figures But yet in a different Respect as well as also in a different manner For though Circumcision might and did signify the Duty of Regeneration or the Necessity thereof to Infants when they came to Years of Understanding Yet Regeneration in Actual being before their Circumcision could not be signified by it for then they had been all saved as it ought to be in the Baptized at least in Profession Mar. 16. 16. Acts 8. 37. Which is all the Baptizer is to require which cannot be expected of Infants However by the Secret Operation of God the great Work of Regeneration may be wrought in them from which they are not excluded by us though they are from Baptism for want of an Institution And if you say you have as much Reason to look upon Infants of Believers to be Sanctified as we have to esteem grown Christians to be such because our owning of these as such depends upon their own Testimony only in a Verbal Profession which may be Counterfeit We Answer That this is not Cogent forasmuch as we have no Testimony of Infants that they are Regenerate but Visible Profession of grown Per sons being Free and Serious is not only in the Judgment of Charity buâ— also of Ministerial Prudence to be taken for a Sign of Regeneration though it may be in God's Sight Counterfeit which belongs to us to examine Eighthly But then at last you tell us That though it cannot be made out that God hath promised to be a God by Regenerating and Justifying every Believer's Child which cannot be affirmed of all the Natural Posterity of Believing Abraham himself without contradicting Rom. 9. 6 7 8. Yet say you they are in Covenant in Respect of outward Priviledges But this we also deny Nor do the Scriptures any where give any Countenance at all unto such a conceit No Scripture in the whole New Testament doth affirm it neither by their Profession nor any other way as a Nation or by solemn Oath or by having Prophets sent unto them or by any other Revelation of Gods Mind or Promise are Infants said to be now at all in Covenant with God upon this Account And if it could be made out that they have an External being in the Covenant yet that gives them no Interest in the Covenant of Grace by God's Promise to be a God to Abraham's Seed Gen. 17. 7. And therefore that Text is in vain alledged to prove Infants to have an Interest in the Covenant of Evangelical Blessings and so of right to be Sealed with the Seal thereof For your Argument if the terms be distinctly opened is nothing else but this Infants of Believers as their Natural Seed are all in the Gospel Covenant not in the Inward but the Outward that is in the Outward Administration that is Baptism and therefore to be Baptized Which is meer trifling as proving that they are to be Baptized because they are to be Baptized and is but a meer Petitio Principij or a pitiful begging the Question in dispute It hath been frequently demanded by us what plain Scripture can you produce for the Warrant of Infants Baptism But for want of a plain Scripture Proof you are driven to make Use of Consequental Deductions And among the rest you seem to have your Principal Reliance upon those drawn from Gen. 17. 7. deriving your Consequence
of Duty Choice and Sanctity is joined with it in order to the Production of the end so mentioned p. 243. Thirdly They that Baptize Children make Baptism to be wholly an Outward Duty a Work of the Law a Carnal Ordinance It makes us adhere to the Letter without regard to the Spirit and to Relinquish the Mysteriousness the Substance the Spirituality of the Gospel Which Argument is of so much the more Consideration because under the Spiritual Covenant of the Gospel of Grace if the Mystery goes not before the Symbole which it doth when the Symboles are Cognations of Grace as the Sacraments are yet it always accompanies it but never follows in Order of Time and is clear in the perpetual Analogy of Holy Scripture Fourthly That the words mentioned in St. Peter's Sermon Act. 2. which are the only Records of the Promises are interpreted upon a weak mistake The Promise belongs to you and your Children Therefore Infants are actually Receptive of it in that Capacity That is the Argument But the Reason of it is not yet discovered nor ever will For to you and your Children is to you and your Posterity to you and your Children when they are of the same Capacity in which you are receptive of the Promise But he that whenever the Word Children is Exprest understands Infants must needs believe that in all Israel there were no Men but all were Infants And if that had been true it had been the greater wonder that they should overcome the Anakims and beat the King of Moab and March so far and Discourse so well for they were all called the Children of Israel p. 233. Fifthly Whereas 't is Argued from the Commission Mark 16. 6. He that Believeth and is Baptized shall be Saved Infants are Believers and therefore according to the Commission they are to be Baptized Whether Infants saith he have Faith or no is a Question to be disputed by Persons that Care not how much they say and how little they prove First Personal and Actual Faith they have none For they have no Acts of Understanding And besides how can any Man know that they have since he never saw any sign of it neither was he told so by any that could tell Secondly Some say they have Imputative but then so let the Sacrament be to that is if they have the Parents Faith or the Churches then so let Baptism be imputed also by Derivation from them And as in their Mothers Womb and while they hung on their Mothers Breasts they live upon their Mothers Nourishment So they may upon the Baptism of their Parents or their Mother the Church For since Faith is necessary to Baptism and they themselves confess it by striving to find out new Kinds of Faith to dawb the matter up such as the Faith such must be the Sacrament for there is no Proportion between an Actual Sacrament and an Imputative Faith this being an immediate and necessary Order to that And whatsoever can be said to take off from the necessity of Actual Faith all that and much more may be said to excuse from the Actual Susception of Baptism The first of these Devices was that of Luther and his Scholars the second of Calvin and his And yet there is a Third Device which the Church of Rome Teaches and that is that Infants have Habitual Faith but who told them so How can they prove it What Revelation or Reason teacheth any such thing Are they by this Habit so much as disposed to an Actual Belief without a Miracle Can an Infant sent into a Mahometan Province be more confident for Christianity when he comes to be a Man than if he had not been Baptized Are there any Acts precedent concomitant or consequent to this pretended Habit This strange Invention is absolutely without Art without Scripture Reason or Authority but the Men are to be excused unless there were a better p. 240. To which saith he This Consideration may be added that if Baptism be necessary to the Salvation of Infants as the Fathers of Old and the Church of Rome and England since upon whom is the Imposition laid To whom is the Command given To the Parents or the Children Not to the Parents for then God hath put the Salvation of Innocent Babes into the Power of others and Infants may be damned for their Fathers Carelessness or Malice It follows that it is not necessary at all to be done to them to whom it cannot be prescribed as a Law and in whose behalf it cannot be reasonably entrusted to others with the Apendant Necessity And if it be not necessary it is certain it is not Reasonable and most certain it is no where in terms prescribed and therefore it is presumed that Baptism ought to be understood and administred according as other Precepts are with Reference to the Capacity of the Subject and the Reasonableness of the thing And again p. 242. If any Man runs for Succour to that exploded Cresphugeton that Infants have Faith or any other inspired Habit of I know not what or how we desire no more Advantage in the World than that they are constrained to answer without Revelation against Reason common Sense and all the Experience in the World Sixthly But Tradition saith he by all means must supply the place of Scripture and there is pretended a Tradition Apostolical that Infants were Baptized But at this saith he we are not much moved for we who rely upon the written Word of God as suffcient to establish all true Religion do not value the Allegation of Tradition And however the World goes none of the Resormed Churches can pretend this Argument for this Opinion Because they who reject Tradition when it is against them must not pretend it in the least for them But if we will allow the Topick to be good yet how will it be verified For so far as can yet appear it relies wholly upon the Testimony of Origen for from him Austin had it Now a Tradition Apostolical if it be not consigned with a fuller Testimony than of one Person whom all other Ages have condemned of other Errors and whose Works saith â—rasmus are so spurious that he that reads them is uncertain whether he read Origen or Ruffinus therefore will obtain so little Reputation amongst those who know that things have upon greater Authority been pretended to be received from the Apostles but falsly that it will be a great Argument that he is Ridiculous and Weak that shall be determined by so weak Probation in matters of so great Concernment But besides that the Tradition cannot be proved to be Apostolical we have very good Evidence from Antiquity that it was the Opinion of the Primitive Church that Infants ought not to be Baptized which saith he is clear in the Canon of Neocaesarea which he mentions at large in the Original Greek determining that none ought to be Baptized without giving an Account of their Faith and desiring the same And
not say to bring us to Christ as our Translation hath it For as we have already said that is the Work of the Covenant of Faith only And therefore that Notion that the Law was Subserviently a Covenant of Faith hath no Foundation Those Words to bring us being unduly added to the Original Text and are accordingly put in a Different Character in our Translation thereof But saith the Apostle in the words immediately following After that Faith is come we are no longer under a School-master But how can that be if the Law was a Covenant of Faith Must the Covenant of Faith cease at least in this World Must the Covenant of Faith Vanish be Blotted out taken out of the way and done away as the Apostle speaks of the Law Or was the Covenant of Faith against us and contrary to us as he speaks of the Hand-writing of Ordinances that is now Blotted out And indeed therefore neither could the Law be so much as Subserviently a Covenant of Faith For if it had the Apostle would never have described it as hath been now declared § 4. And 't is in vain to say That the Law was a Covenant of Faith though propunded in a more dark way and in a manner fitting for the State of that People and that present Time and Condition of the Church as Mr. Sedgwick speaks For the Apostle Expresly affirms that the Law is not of Faith It is not of Faith Absolutely not Comparatively but the man that doth them shall live in them Gal. 3. 12. The Law therefore was no other than a Covenant of Works since not only the Apostle doth here assure us that it is not of Faith but also the same Rule Do this and Live is that still retained therein as at first And it is therefore different from the Covenant of Faith not barely in respect of the Degrees or clearness of the Revelation of Gospel-Grace as is commonly Suggested For the Law as hath been already proved discovers none at all but leaves the guilty Sinner wholly Remediless without the least glimps of Light or Comfort The Law therefore differs from the Covenant of Faith Specifically in respect of the whole Nature or Essence of it In which respect the Law could never be appointed as a School-master to bring us to Christ Well it may convince us of our Necessity of him but bring us to him it cannot § 5. So that then these are the Reasons which the Holy Spirit himself Suggesteth why the Law was added Or why the Covenant of Works was Revived after Man's Fall and even after the Proclaiming of the first Promise concerning the Womans Seed Gen 3. 15. which was renewed to Abraham Gen. 22. 18. It was added saith the Apostle because of Transgressions till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made And it entered that the Offence might abound It being appointed as a School-master to Christ to convince the Jews of their necessity of a Saviour And since it cannot be denied but that all the Sons and Daughters of Adam must of Necessity be under one or another of the two Covenants either that of Works or that of Grace And since all Men by Nature are Children of Wrath Eph. 2 3. And since it would be utterly absurd to affirm that such are under a Covenant of Grace till-Converted It of necessity follows that unto such the Covenant of Works is still in force and under it they are till wrought upon by the Grace of the Gospel the Law abating nothing but still exacting the utmost Farthing Neither from the Impossibility of Man's yielding that perfect Obedience which that Covenant requires can we justly conclude that therefore it is not still in Force For God hath not forfeited or lost his Right of Dominion though we have lost our Strength or Capacity of Obedience So that it is evident that the Law given upon Mount Sinai to the People of the Wilderness or the Law written in Stones which was a plain and clear Manifestation of the Law written in the Heart of Man at the first was no other than a Covenant of Works Thus it was to the Jews and thus it still continues in its full Power Force and Virtue to all Men in an Unregenerate State For what things soever the Law saith it saith to them that are under the Law that every Month may be stopped and all the World may become Guilty before God Rom. 3. 19. SECT IV. NEither was the Law by the Jews only Interpreted as a Covenant of Works but as it is evident by Moses himself and by Paul also We are told indeed by Mr. Sedgwick in his fore-mentioned Discourse upon the Covenants p. 173. That we must distinguish between the intention of God in giving the Law and the Abuse or Perverting of the Law We grant saith he that many of the Jews did set up a Legal Righteousness for their Justifications and rested upon the Works of the Law as if Life came by them against which Paul doth notably Argue in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians But this saith he was not the intention of God in the Sanction of Law They could never find a justifying Righteousness by the Law or Works of the Law under the Notion of a Covenant of Works nor did God ever propound it for that end § 2. For Answer hereunto we say That since by Mr. Sedgwicks own confession the Jews could never find a Justifying Righteousness by the Law or by the Works of it From hence it inevitably follows that it could not be a Covenant of Faith Sure it is that the Covenant of Faith Justifies all that are under it For being Justified by Faith we have Peace with God c. Rom. 5. 1. That Covenant therefore that could never Justifie any that were under it could never be a Covenant of Faith But the Scripture is Express that by the deeds of the Law there shall no Flesh be Justified in God's sight Rom. 3. 20. Therefore that Covenant could never be a Covenant of Faith And yet again that Covenant under which though many were Justified yet none were ever Justified by it or by virtue of it could never be a Covenant of Faith But such was the nature of the Law that though many were Justified under it yet none were ever Justified by it or by virtue of it Rom. 3. 20. Therefore that Covenant could never be a Covenant of Faith And if the Law was not a Covenant of Faith then â—t must of necessity follow that it could be no other than a Covenant of Works And indeed so it was appointed and declared by God himself Lev. 18. 5. Ye shall therefore keep my Statutes and Judgments which if a man do he shall live in them And this the Spirit of God by the Apostle Paul takes special notice of Rom. 10. 5. For Moses saith he describeth the Righteousness which is of the Law That the man that doth these things shall live by them And what