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
ye Abraham's Seed c. Men may be said to be Christ's and also to be Abraham's seed 1. Spiritually and Invisibly 2. Ecclesiastically and visibly only 1. Spiritually and Invisibly as to Men In foro Dei before God alone who is the only knower and searcher of the heart and Tryer of the Reins And so none are Abraham's seed but such as do truly and savingly-believe as Abraham did This is the Faith of God's Elect and peculiar to such as shall be saved 2. Ecclesiastically and visibly In foro Ecclesiae before Men only to the visible-Church And in this sence all such as make a rational and credible profession of Faith in Christ to the judgment of Rational-Charity in a Church-way they are Christ's and Abraham's Seed And then it amounts to this to wit If ye be Christ's spiritually then are ye Abraham's Seed spiritually and shall be Eternally-blessed with faithful Abraham And if ye be Christs Ecclesiastically-only and in the judgment of Men of the Church-only then are ye also Abraham's Seed Ecclesiastically only and in the judgment of Men only and may expect only an External and Temporal blessing and so we have the Exposition also of Gal. 3.9 And that this is the Apostles sence is plain in this chapter and in other places of this Epistle Ye are all saith he the Children of God by Faith in Christ Jesus Gal. 3.26 Were they indeed all of them True Believers and so all of them Children of God spiritually and savingly Doth not the Apostle tell them He was afraid of them some of them at least that would be under the Law lest he had bestowed upon them labour in vain And that he travelled with them in Birth again till Christ was formed in them Gal. 4.11.19 They made a better shew once Chap. 3.1.3 4. and Chap. 4.15 but now he was in doubt of them yet these he calls the Children of God by Faith in Christ Jesus They were yet so Externally being yet a Church of God though at present troubled and seduced by false Teachers from whose errors he hoped and laboured to recover them Take another Text like unto this Gal. 3.2.7 As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ And v. 28. Ye are all one in Christ Jesus Undoubtedly if they had put on Christ Spiritually and savingly they would never have put him off again And had they been once in Jesus Christ Spiritually and savingly they would never have gone out of him again It 's manifest therefore that some of them put him on and were in him Externally only and in outward profession only before Men. For such branches there are found in Christ the true Vine considered as head of the visible Church John 15.2.6 And our Brethren must experimentally acknowledge that it is so in their Congregations too often What you say pag. 37. That nothing short of the Spirits-Birth can orderly-admit to Water-Birth i. e. Baptism I suppose you mean and Spiritual Ordinances is fully answered to before as to the substance of it Persons making a credible profession of the Spirits birth to the judgment of Rational-Charity guided in judging by the Rules of of the Word may orderly be admitted to Water-Birth as you phrase it and spiritual-Ordinances as appears by Simon Magus and others who yet had but a shew of the Spirits-Birth not the truth and reality of it Acts 8.8 with v. 22.23 The reason is because Men who cannot see directly immediately and infallibly into the heart are to judge of them The same answer will serve to that of Christ to Nicodemus and to that which is cited out of Dr. Owen And as to that of Dr. Taylor it is suitable to his boldness and design gratis dictum and there may rest till he give us some Scripture-proof CHAP. VI. YOur assertion and proofs in your sixth Chapter have respect only to immediate and grown-Members who alone we acknowledge are capable of the Directions and priviledges you mention Children of such are but Mediate-Members as hath been shewn and are such as to whom those things do not belong The Apostle therefore mentions the duties priviledges of Immediate Adult-Members only I do not hold that a Gospel-Church is constituted of Infants but of grown-Persons professing visible Saints and to such the Apostle speaks yet the Infants of such are also Members though of another kind The Church may be a Church though there be at present never an Infant in it but I question whether it be so if there be no men grown-persons in it I would ask whether Women were capable of all those directions given by the Apostle to those Churches you may as well say they were not Members of the Church because they were not subjects capacitated for those directions Women were not capable of Church-judging and some other Church-Acts therefore are not members of the Church I suppose you will not like such arguing If Infants are not Members because they are not capable of the Apostles directions to the Churches then Women must not be Members because they also are uncapable of them If it were granted to be true that those first inventers of Infant-Baptism as you stile them did so miserably miss it in the Subjects applying the Spiritual Ordinance to ignorant Babes yet Childishly ridiculous is too slight an expression for so miserable a mistake But you have not yet proved that there were such Inventers of Infant-Baptism The Scripture gives us ground to conclude that it was on foot long before those Inventers you intimate and that God in Christ was the Inventer of it The ground of which we have shewed in Christ's Commission already As for some that hold Paedo-Baptism let them maintain their own Principles and Practices if they can I think some can never justify them by Gospel-Rules and I believe it hath been an occasion to many Beza in 1 Cor. 7.14 to turn against Paedo-Baptism for my own part I am of Beza's mind that they are to be confuted that admit all Infants to Baptism a thing saith he unheard of in all the Ancient Church Yea I shall add nor any but such one of whose Parents at least is of a Gospel-Church and so the Child a Mediate-Member thereof who afterwards must not be admitted as an Immediate-Member and partake of all Church-Ordinances without his own credible profession of Faith and Repentance and entring into Covenant in his own Person This would remove many scruples and objections which they cannot well free themselves from that practise otherwise CHAP. VII To your seventh Chapter Testimonies of Councils and learned Men. YOu say you produce not humane Authorities for any proof but by way of Illustration c. To make manifest that not only Scripture-Authority but even Antiquity it self is altogether for Believers and not for Infant's-Baptism In Answer to which I shall at present return these things that follow 1. That we build not Infants-Baptism on humane Authority
Bellarmin's Testimony against the Lutherans who is it that is acquainted with the Papist's writings that is ignorant of the false accusations they have laid upon the Protestants See the History of the Waldenses before mentioned Book 1. Chap. 4. But suppose he saith true Have not the Lutheran's mist it in sundry other things And what if great multitudes of Catechumens be yearly Baptized at Rome Is it such a Relict and footstep of Truth as you would have it to overthrow Infants-Baptism which I have proved to have grounds from the sacred Scripture And why is not Infant-Baptism rather a Relict of Truth for they use that also yea and constantly use it Therefore those Catechumens you mention must either be such whose Parents or Parent at least were not of the Church of Rome or else they must be such as were Baptized in Infancy and afterwards Rebaptized And what if the Greeks defer the Baptizing of Infants will that prove they ought not to be Baptized 'T is known how grosly they were in other matters of weight As to Beza's words 1 Cor. 7.14 what do they make to your purpose Doth he say No Children should be Baptized when he saith All Children should not be Baptized I cannot but wonder at this Logick Nor can I guess why such Impertinencies should be brought in unless it be to prevail with some more injudicious who take things by Tale. Your candour might have seen by the lines immediately foregoing that Beza is cross to your design and it would have been your candour to have exprest them with the other Nec alia causa est saith he cur Sanctorum liberos ad Baptismum admittamus c. In English thus Nor is there any other saith he why we admit the Children of the Saints to Baptism then because they are Holy that is saith he comprehended in the Covenant from the very Womb. And hence not only the Antipaedo-Baptists are to be confuted who reject Infants as impure from Baptism but also those that make Baptism the first or chief entrance or threshold of Salvation therefore exclude all that are not Baptized even where no contempt of Baptism hath intervened Also saith he those are to be confuted that admit all Infants to Baptism thing unheard-of in all the ancient Church even this at least sheweth that all Adult-ones born of those that were without ought to be Catechumens before they were Baptized Thus far Beza But how far any thing here is from opposing the Baptism of Infants let the impartial judg As for Bucer you mention not the page which you also omit in divers others that renders your Testimonies uncapable of any easy examen It may be you have misapprehended him as you have some others As to that of Chamier it makes against you for it implies that some were Baptized before they came to age Probably the reason why others were not might be because their Parents were without to use Beza's words and were not Church-Members till after their Children were grown as the Case was at the first promulgation of the Gospel among the Gentiles Then perhaps scarce the 1000th person might be Baptized before he came to age Or there might haply be some other reason as we have before shewed among the Waldenses As for that of Dr. Field it lies upon you to prove that their putting off their Baptism so long was lawful and according to God Else you say nothing or rather worse than nothing for it is but to bring an errour to overthrow a Truth and to establish an errour Did Constantine do well to put off his Baptism till a little before he died How doth this prove that Infants of Inchurched-Parents should not be Baptized As to that in pag. 90 91. I shall give a better reason for the Baptizing of Inchurched-Parents Infants than from their Sureties which were an Invention of Men and that is the Faith and Repentance of one Parent at least so far manifested as that they are received and owned of the Church which regularly should go before the Baptism of the Child As for the Baptism of Churches and Bells p. 92. we leave it with superstitious and Idolatrous Papists it makes not against us I should be sorry that any should look upon the Baptism of Infants as they look upon them To the use you make of all pag. 93. I shall only commend it to your second thoughts whether it would not better agree with Christian Charity and been more suitable to a Rationaldisputant and lover of the Truth to have interpreted the speeches of divers Godly and Learned-Men in the plain sence they intended them which was only of Adult-persons and then to have brought your Arguments directly against the Interest of Infants wherein the Controversie lies and not to make them speak what they never intended Then what they have said would not be found a clear evidence against themselves nor against the Truth But if any of them have said or granted any thing which may exclude Infants of Inchurched-Parents out of Christ's Commission I cannot be of their mind for the reasons before given And so I shall end this with a Conclusion Diametrically and flatly contradictory to yours That Believers Baptism is not only to be esteemed Christ's Ordinance of Baptism or rather to mend your phrase and speak more Logically and Rationally Believers Baptism is not to be esteemed Christ's only Ordinance of Baptism To your latter part Infants-Baptism disproved CHAP. I. IN p. 97. Whereas you say ther 's no Example or command in the Scripture to warrant the Baptism of Infants but the Scripture is wholly silent therein not one syllable you say to be found in all the New-Testament of any such practice and therefore it is no Ordinance of Jesus Christ besides what hath been already said I shall first distinguish and then deny your assertion and lay down the contrary I might first deny your Enumeration of particulars as an insufficient Induction for a promise in Scripture would be a sufficient Warrant as well as a Command or Example which you have left out But I shall hasten Things may be truly said to be and to be commanded in Scripture two ways 1. Expresly in so many words As Mat. 28.19 Go ye teach or Disciple all Nations 2. Implicitely as Acts 13.46 47. Lo saith the Apostle we turn to the Gentiles for so hath the Lord commanded us And then he brings in Authority to prove it from a Promise of God the Father to Jesus Christ I will give thee for a light to the Gentiles Isa 49.6 and 42.6 c. Which the Apostle renders I have set thee to be a light to the Gentiles that thou shouldst be for Salvation unto the Ends of the Earth The Apostles preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles was a matter of greater import than the Baptizing of Infants and part of the great mystery of Godliness 1 Tim. 3.16 a Mysterious thing and yet he counted this Inference sufficient Authority for
therefore why should ye question the other to wit whether you may conscionably abide and have Conjugal Communion with your Unbelieving-Yokefellow This sence of the Text is plain and clear and suitable to the Apostles scope And hence as long as this Covenant-Interest holds in force neither rejected by the Parents as Rom. 11.20 nor they suspended nor cut off by a just Church-Censure as 1 Cor. 5.4 5. nor by God's just hand as Rom. 11.15 17. even so long as the Covenant is Ecclesiastically of force to the Childrens federal and Church-Estate see Ezek. 16.8.20.21 23. And thus I hope I have cleared this much controverted Text of Scripture wherein I suppose are answered the main things that are brought against it but yet I shall answer as briefly as I can to some particulars that such as are not so well able to discern them under other heads might see them here To pag. 194. Argument second It seem's to me an unweighed and inconsiderate Assertion to say that the Holiness of the Children 2 Cor. 7.14 is of no other nature than that spoken of the unbelieving Parent in the Text and therefore that if one will entitle to the Ordinance so will the other This is neither consistent with the Truth as may be seen before nor with your self for you tell us pag. 192. that the unbelieving-Husband's being Sanctified to his Believing Wife is that she might freely-converse with him in the Conjugal-Estate c. and the Holiness of the Child was his Legitimacy Judge impartially whether these are the same To your third Arg. p. 194 195. That this Text is not to be limited to Infants c. I Answer it is to be limited to Infants and Children in minority For if they be 30 40 or 50. years old as you speak they are to profess personally their Faith and Repentance and to lay hold of the Covenant themselves before they can regularly be Baptized To your fourth Argument p. 195. Why this federal Holiness of Children that we speak of cannot be a New-Covenant-Holiness that must qualifie and entitle to Baptism first because it cannot be known say you for the Parent professing may be a Hypocrite and then you Baptize a wrong Subject In Answer to which 1. Though I am heartily sorry in some respect yet in another I am glad to hear you speak so plainly In other places you are more dark and silent but here you plainly express your mind It seem's then you Baptize no Hypocrites and I heartily wish you did not Do you certainly and infallibly know that all that are Baptized in your way are true real Christians and not Hypocrites Surely that cannot be known by you And why then are they Baptized It 's too apparent that divers such persons are Baptized in your way I pray consider how this your principle and practice can consist and stand together As for us we know that such Parents are Church-Members whose Infants we Baptize but when you Baptize a Hypocrite you Baptize a wrong Subject Ex ore tuo c. 2. We do not Baptize a wrong Subject when we Baptize the Infant of an Inchurched-Parent that is an Hypocrite He appears a Saint to the Church and as such they received him his Hypocrisie is hid from them as Judas's was from his fellow-Disciples A Member of the Church he is and hath as good a right in foro Ecclesiae before the Church to all Church-Ordinances as the most sincere Christian in the Church hath both for himself and his Child 3. That this federal-Holiness is a New-Covenant-Holiness and sufficient to entitle the Child to Baptism Is there not an External and Ecclesiastical Dispensation of the New-Covenant now as well as an Internal and Spiritual And is there not an Ecclesiastical and Church-Holiness which Hypocrites may have as well as true Saints which is also a New-Covenant-Holiness Whereby they have an external-right to New-Covenant-Ordinances Hath not the Hypocrite Baptized in your way a New-Covenant-Holiness Is he not Externally in the New-Covenant and therefore you admit him to be Baptized you think also that he is spiritually and savingly in the New-Covenant but afterwards it appears you were mistaken And so it is your Opinion that tends to Baptize a wrong Subject and not ours We go upon more sure and certain grounds and such as may be known and through Grace we know Consider good Sir of these things which in Love to the Truth I present to your self and to others You add a second Reason thus If this federal-Holiness be a New-Covenant-Holiness that must qualifie and entitle to Baptism then no Unbelievers Child is in Covenant or Elect I must profess this is strange Arguing and wants a deal of Rational Glue to joyn the Consequent to the Antecedent When we speak of federal-Holiness we speak of what is Visible External and Ecclesiastical and if you have not taken notice of it formerly I beseech you observe it now for I perceive and have long observed that the want of a right apprehension of this is one great cause of difference about Infant-Membership and Baptism But to your Argument If you repeat the whole Syllogism you will find four terms in it The Antecedent of the Proposition speaks of an External Right to Baptism and the Consequent is of a saving-Interest in the Covenant and of Election which is yet higher We easily grant that an Unbelievers or Pagans Child may be Elected from Eternity and may be if God please savingly in the Covenant of Grace and a true work of Grace in his Soul in a way and time unknown to Man and yet we can truly say that such an Infant his Parents being Infidels hath not that federal-Holiness which the Children of Inchurched-Parents have and so hath not an Immediate Right to Baptism For 1. He hath no Right by means of of his Parents for they are both Infidels Secondly nor by his own profession for he is not capable of making any and so the Church can have no knowledge of it I grant he hath fundamentally a Right but not formally Jus ad rem but not jus in re A remote Right not an Immediate It seem's to me by your expression and what I have heard from some others of your perswasion That you make on 's being in the Covenant and Election to run parallel without distinguishing of the one or the other which I have observed to be a cause of great mistakes especially to many honest and simple-hearted-Christians who are not able to see their way through it I shall therefore speak something to it Election falls under a two-fold consideration in respect of the Object unto which persons may be said to be Elected 1. To Eternal Life and happiness and the Graces of the Spirit preceding it as means certainly tending thereunto 2 Thes 2.13 1 Pet. 1.1 2 3 4. Eph. 1.3 4. 2. To External Church-Ordinances and Priviledges Deut. 7.6 7. Psal 65.4 likewise the Covenant is considered as Internally and savingly Dispensed