of explaining your self Your words seem to relate to Gal. 5.2 3. when Circumcision was abolished by the death of Christ and no Ordinance of God the Apostle tells them then that if they were Circumcised Christ would profit them nothing for it would be as if they had said and held that Christ had not died and satisfied for sin and so such a one would be a debtor to do the whole Law Circumcision being one of the Ordinary Seals of God's Covenant under that Legal Dispensation until Christ should come to fulfil the Law would now by their abuse and perverting of it engage them to perform perfect obedience to the whole Law in their own persons under penalty of Eternal damnation He speaks to such as it seems would joyn their own performances and legal Ceremonies and Christ's Righteousness together So that this doth not reach your purpose for you speak of Circumcision as it was a blessed Ordinance of God in force engaging the Jews to keep the whole Law of Moses in an Evangelical manner looking to Christ alone for Righteousness to justifie them and the Apostle speaks of it as now abolished by Christ and perverted by some of these Galatians who would make a mixture of their own personal Righteousness the Legal Ceremonies and Christ's Righteousness together in the business of their Justification As for the rest of the phrases had you told us what you mean by the Law of Moses and what by the Law of Christ We should then have been able to judge of your Argument but now it must remain with your self If in Moses Law you include the Moral-Law I must assert that that also is the Law of Christ and brought under Christ for Gospel-Ends which I suppose you will not deny Thus much to the fourth 5. Circumcision say you was administred to all Abraham's natural Seed without any profession of Faith Repentance or Regeneration whereas Baptism to the Spiritual Seed was only upon profession of Faith c. which more fully appears by three Instances c. For Answer 1. It was by God's command to be done upon Infants of Inchurched-Parents who were not capable then of making any such profession and we know no absurdity that Baptism should now be administred to Infants of Inchurched-Parents though they can make no such profession of Faith c. 2. Circumcision was administred not only to all Abraham's natural Seed but to his Church-Seed to wit Proselites and their Male-Children and the Children of his Servants who were themselves Circumcised Exod. 12.48 when Abraham was Gen. 17. 3. As for Adult-Persons to be circumcised why was not the same or like profession of Faith and Repentance required of them as of Abraham himself God requires of him the Fruits and effects of both and that before he was circumcised Gen. 17.1 I am God Almighty walk before me and be upright And how could he do so either Invisibly to men or Visibly without Believing and Regeneration suitable to those Your self grant that Abraham received the sign of Circumcision the Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had before And it is an impregnable Truth that Circumcision did mediately signifie and Seal Regeneration Jer. 4.4 with Deut. 30.6 and Heart-Circumcision as your self have granted p. 223. How therefore can you prove that those of years that were to be Circumcised were to make no profession of Faith and Regeneration It 's probable that it was not indeed so manifest and express as what is required now in Gospel-times but that there was not any at all suitable to the Church under that Dispensation is gratis dictum and without proof Did Proselytes make no kind of profession of Faith before Circumcision How then could the Church of Israel know what difference there was between them and their Heathen Neighbours Did they no more but offer themselves to be Circumcised only And did the Church admit them upon that offer without any further transaction certainly that would have been the way to make bad Church-work When you give better proof we shall either Embrace or else Answer your Argument I now come to examine your three Instances First what you mean by a Spiritual-parent I cannot understand only I guess you mean the Holy Ghost and then that Instance as to the substance of it hath been Answered before An Inchurched Parent both then and now gives right to the Initiatory Seal to the Child Secondly because say you a Legal p. 222. Ecclesiastical Typical Holiness when Land Houses and Trees were holy qualified for Circumcision whereas only Evangelical and personal Holiness was a meet qualification for Baptism I Answer As Ecclesiastical and Federal Holiness qualified for Circumcision of old so Ecclesiastical and Federal Holiness doth now for Baptism as hath been proved What you mean by Typical Holiness here and of what was Typical I understand not because you have not here declared it But you seem to make the Holiness of Children then the same with Land and Trees Was the federal Holiness of Children then the same with that of Land and Trees If there be not now an Evangelical-Ecclesiastical-Holiness what Holiness is that which a Hypocrite hath whom you Baptize A legal-Ecclesiastical Holiness it is not for that say you is past and gone Typical Holiness it is not for that be it what you please to call it is also vanished Real Spiritual-Holiness it is not for he is an Hypocrite What then will you call it If it be not an Evangelical-Ecclesiastical and Federal Holiness it is none at all and why then is he Baptized Thirdly say you because strangers and Servants bought with mony and all ignorant Children of eight days old yea Trees were capable of Circumcision whereas only Men of understanding capable to Believe with all their heart and give an account with their mouths were to be esteemed capable subjects of Baptism I Answer 1. Were not those strangers and Servants bought with mony Men capable of understanding 2. Were they not instructed by Abraham before they were Circumcised Abraham was a long time a Believer before God put him and his Family into that Church-Estate and commanded them to be Circumcised as you will easily grant And God speaks of him as one that had experience of Abraham's Care Industry and Faithfulness that way Gen. 18.19 And how do you know that God gave not a Blessing to his Endeavours at least so far as that they outwardly made some profession of Faith and Regeneration suitable to the State of the Church in those days Is it probable or rational to think that Abraham ran upon the Men of his Family as upon a Company of Bruit Beasts to Circumcise them without instructing them what the mind of God was in it Surely that had been to deal with Beasts and not with Men. 3. Children of inchurched-Parents of eight days old were capable of Circumcision then and so they are of Baptism now though they cannot give an account with their mouths
of the Apostles as an undoubted-Truth If you would see more how Ancient Authors brought by some against Infant-Baptism do indeed either not speak against it or else do speak for it read Mr. Cobbet's vindication of the Covenant and Church-Estate of Children c. From pag. 213. to the end of the Book by which you will discern how Men have at least misapprehended and mistaken them and brought them to witness what was never in their thoughts nor the import of their words See the like in Doctor Homes to whose answers you should have replied and not have brought in the same things as if nothing had ever been said against them CHAP. III. In Answer to your Chapter third AS for the Arguments drawn from humane Tradition for Baptizing Infants I leave them to those that are willing to build their Faith upon humane Tradition But as for consequential Arguments deduced from Scriptures to justifie the Baptizing of Infants those I must stick unto as knowing that nothing can naturally and per se of it self flow out of the Scriptures of Truth but Truth And every grain of Truth is to be prized above the World And you have no more but Consequences to prove that Women should partake of the Lord's Supper and those also much entangled and obscured with difficulties I must profess if consequences be not valid that naturally flow from Scriptures rightly understood I know not what to make of much of the Holy Scripture neither will you As to that Math. 19.13 14. Calvin will tell you how Baptism comes to be concerned in it Institut lib. 4. Chap. 16. Artic. 7. This is not lightly saith he to be passed by that Christ commandeth Infants to be brought unto him adding a reason to wit because of such is the Kingdom of Heaven and afterwards he declareth his will by his deed when having embraced them he commends them to his Father by his praying for them and blessing of them If it be meet that Infants should be brought to Christ why not also that they should be received to Baptism which is the badge of our Communion fellowship with Christ If theirs be the Kingdom of Heaven why should the sign be denyed them c. See more there As to that of John 3.5 Let them plead for the Baptism of Infants from that Text that see more than I do in it I shall not side with them nor conclude as they do that there is no other way to Regenerate and save Infants though I dare not exclude Baptism if God please then to work Nor shall I deduce the Baptism of Infants from Mark 16.16 upon this ground that they are Believers or upon any other inspired habit of Grace within them which is wholly hidden from man having a clearer surer more solid and visible ground to build upon not only from Christ's Commission as hath been proved but also from the Covenant made with Abraham and his Seed externally in a Church-way Gen. 17.7 and repeated Acts 2.39 together with the Analogie of Baptism with Circumcision than the initiatory Seal of Gods Covenant and dispensed to Infants and also from that federal holiness mentioned 1 Cor. 7.14 which you deny and make it to be only a Legitimacy of such Children What if others saw it not in ages past that Holiness there is taken for federal Holiness Neither did you your self see formerly many Truths that now you do and yet they were in the Scriptures then as well as now We have cause therefore to bless God that hath given to any of his Servants to discern the Truths that lay hid from the former Ages and in particular this among others of the federal Holiness of Children of Inchurched-Parents I confess my self not so much an Antiquary as to say who was the first founder of this Interpretation nor have I ancient Commentators at hand to examine but if Zuinglius were the first as you affirm we have cause to honour him and to bless God that revealed it to him And now I come to answer to your reasons given against it 1. It doth not contradict the Gospel-Dispensation but well suits with it the Lord not having straitned but enlarged his Grace now in Gospel-times and the visible tokens of it 2. This federal Holiness of Infants of Inchurched-Parents is not an entayling Grace to Nature nor Regeneration to Generation but is an entayling of God's Covenant in it's External and Ecclesiastical dispensation to the natural-Seed of Inchurched-Parents which they should improve also for their Regeneration It is therefore your mistake to take Grace absolutely and only for Regenerating Grace as if we held this Holiness to consist in Regeneration and Inherent Sanctification For we acknowledge that we and our Children are all by Nature Children of wrath as well as others Eph. 2.3 But we and our Seed being at least Externally in God's-Covenant have an advantage left us by our Gracious God to press him for regenerating Grace for our Children which he hath indefinitely and conditionally promised And our Children when they come to discretion for themselves This priviledge and advantage they want who are strangers from the Covenants of promise as being without Christ without hope and without God in the World Eph. 2.12 but being under the Covenant they have a visible ground for their hope which they should improve for converting-Grace leaving secret things to God If then you ask what Holiness this federal Holiness is It is a Relative Holiness by way of separation and Consecration God hath Externally-Consecrated Inchurched-Parents and their Seed to be his people comprehending them within the External and Ecclesiastical-dispensation of his Covenant and thereby hath entitled them to the Initiatory Seal thereof the susception of which even infants are capable of And here again I must mind you that your Assertion doth necessarily imply that whosoever is Baptized must be truly-regenerated and sanctified which hath been often confuted before 3. Hence this federal Holiness of Infants doth not at all contradict the experience of former and latter times as you say it doth Had not Abraham an Ishmael and Isaac an Esau And yet both of them when Children were federally Holy What I pray did Esau sell when he sold his Birth-right for which he is called a profane person Heb. 12.14 And what if Parent 's now Inchurched neglect their Duty and have Children that when grown up do slight their Priviledge and walk wickedly neglecting their Duty required of God as indispensably-necessary to the establishment of Covenant-Relation and transgressing those Commands they were obliged to observe Is it not an aggravation of their Sin that they were once Children that were devoted and consecrated to God You will easily grant that it was a great Sin to turn any consecrated thing to a common and profane Use And is it not so here for Children that were externally consecrated and related to God in his Covenant to turn from him in stead of seeking him and to give up
Blessed be God I have heard a Child upon his dying-Bed plead this Covenant with God for his Grace to the great satisfaction of my Soul To come now to the Second part of your Answer that as Circumcision was not a Seal to Children under the Law so much less a Seal to them of the New-Covenant say you pag. 216. In stead of which in pag. 218. you say New-Testament Answ I like not the changing of your Phrases as you have done in this Question and your Answer to it You cannot but know that there lies a fallacy in this Phrase as you have applied it here and changed it Pardon my boldness I have before distinguished of the New-Covenant It may either be taken for the Covenant of Grace in opposition to the Covenant of Works or for the Covenant of Grace under the New-Testament-Dispensation as opposed to that same Covenant under a more legal-Dispensation So it is called New Heb. 8.7 8 13. It being the Covenant made with Abraham revived Gen. 17. freed from all those legal Ceremonies wherewith it was burdened before which have had their accomplishment in Christ and having only a few plain and simple Ordinances annexed to it 2 Cor. 11.3 suiting with a pure Gospel administration even as that Covenant made with Abraham had suitable to that Dispensation before the Law was given This being premised I Answer That Circumcision Gen. 17. was a Seal of the New-Covenant to wit the Covenant of Grace as it was opposed to the Covenant of Works made with Adam before his fall and also as it was opposed to the same Covenant for the substance of it under that Legal Administration at Sinai and afterwards And though there be a difference between the Administration of it in Abraham's Family and the Administration of it now under the New-Testament in some few circumstances of New Ordinances yet the Ordinances then were but few and suitable to that Administration of the Covenant of Grace then made with Abraham and his Family Circumcision then being one of the ordinary Seals of that Covenant in a Church-way dispensed and the Passeover the other For it 's useful for us to observe that Circumcision began not with the Ceremonial Law at Sinai but was long before a Sign and Seal to Abraham and the Church in his Family which was more correspondent to a New-Testament Church in Gospel-times than the national Church of the Jews was And hence saith Christ Moses gave unto you Circumcision not because it is of Moses but of the Fathers John 7.22 that is of Abraham Isaac and Jacob that were long before Moses To conclude this Circumcision we see was both a Seal to Children under the Law and a Seal of the Covenant of Grace Externally and Ecclesiastically dispensed beginning in the Church in Abraham's Family and continued all along in the Church of the Jews until Christ put an End unto it by his death I had almost slipt-over that Expression of yours pag. 218. That nothing is a Seal of the New-Testament but the Holy Spirit Eph. 1.13 and 4.30 I confess it 's a strange Paradox to me Is Believers Baptism no Seal with you Nor the Lord's Supper no Seal Alas poor Believers How have you been deluded Have you so often come to have the pardon of your sins sealed and God's love in Christ fealed unto you in the Lord's Supper and now you are told it is no Seal Ther 's none else if you will believe it but the Holy Spirit I thought it had been an External-Seal appointed by our Lord himself Surely such Assertions as these are do tend to destroy all outward Ordinances of Christ though I hope you never intended it This is like to that of some others there is no word of God but Christ and so do destroy the Authority of the Holy Scripture And like that 1 Cor. 1.12 I am of Christ and care not for Paul nor Apollos nor any Ministers whatsoever Again you say neither is Baptism more than Circumcision called a Seal it is called a Figure say you 1 Pet. 3.21 and a Sign proper only to Men of understanding c. And not as Circumcision which was a Sign not improper for Infants because it left a signal impression in their flesh to be remembred all their days but so cannot Baptism be to any Infants say you p. 218 For Answer That Circumcision was a Seal and that also to Infants hath been proved and your self have acknowledged it to be a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to Abraham though you deny it to be so to all others And though Baptism be no more a Seal than Circumcision was yet I hope you will allow it to be as much a Seal as that was The Gracious Lord hath made a Covenant of Grace and is willing his people should be confirmed of the Truth of it And hath he put no Seals to it to confirm it Certainly this is a new and strange Doctrine which the Faithful knew not in former Ages You say Baptism is called a Figure and a Sign c. 1 Pet. 3.21 I Answer The Apostle there speaking of the Souls saved by water in Noah's Ark tells us that Baptism was a Figure or Type 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 like to that Type Cui nunc respondens exemplar vel Typus Baptismi saith Beza The Ark born up by the Water wherein Noah and his Family were was first a Physical and Instrumental-cause and means of their Temporal preservation of the saving of their lives Secondly God appointed it to be a Type and Sacrament to them to signify and Seal Eternal Salvation to them through Believing in Christ without whom no Salvation is to be had Now saith the Apostle Baptism is a Type Answering that Type signifying and sealing Externally Salvation to all those and only those that are or shall be in Christ by Faith But say you it is a Sign and Figure proper only to Men of Understanding representing Spiritual things and not as Circumcision c. I Answer first The want of the Use of Reason and Understanding in an Infant is no Essential Defect or Impediment as to the External Susception of Baptism no more than it was heretofore of Circumcision which was a Seal of God's Covenant as hath been proved and signified the same things as to the main and substance of them that Baptism now doth By your Argument therefore no Infant should ever have been Circumcised 2. The God of Grace in the External administration of the Covenant of Grace to the Infants of Inchurched-Parents is before hand with them I will be the God of thy Seed Gen. 17.7 and will Circumcise the heart of thy Seed Deut. 30.6 put 's his Seal to it for their assurance and encouragement to seek God for Converting-Grace And they are to be instructed in it when they come to understanding 3. Hence the Infants of Inchurched-Parents are engaged to the Lord and Circumcision of old and Baptism now doth Seal that engagement