gave him the Covenant of Circumcision This they cannot deny nay and not only to himself but to be the God of all his true spiritual Seed and that also before he entered into the said Covenant of Circumcision with him and his natural Seed see Gen. 12.3 Gen. 15.1 I am thy shield and thy exceeding great Reward see ver 5. and then 't is said he believed in the Lord and it was accounted to him for righteousness ver 6. Therefore 2 dly 'T is for ever to be noted that this special Interest in God he obtained through Faith in the Free Promise which is the Covenant of Grace God made with him And the Apostle plainly shews in Rom. 4.9 10. That this Blessedness he in the Negative received not in the Covenant of Circumcision but in Uncircumcision How was it then reckoned when he was in circumcision or in uncircumcision Not in circumcision but in uncircumcision ver 10. I cannot but wonder at the darkness of those Men who affirm That Abraham received special Interest in God in the Covenant of Circumcision whereas the Holy Ghost positively denies it or affirms the contrary His main Business being there to take them off of Circumcision and so to distinguish between Circumcison and the Covenant of Faith but in direct Opposition to the Apostle's Design these Men go about to magnifie Circumcision by ascribing it to that 3. And let it also be noted That the same Apostle excludes Abraham's natural Seed as such with whom the Covenant of Circumcision was made from this special Blessing of special Interest in God in Rom. 9.5 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect for they are not all Israel which are of Israel neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all Children that is by way of special Interest in God so as to have God to be their God by vertue of the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham But in Isaac shall thy seed be called ver 7. That is they which are the children of the flâ—sh these are not the children of God but the children of the promise are counted for the seed ver 8. None can deny but that those whom the Apostle calls the Children of the Flesh whom he denies to have any Interest in God as such the Covenant of Circumcision did belong unto and was made with as well as it was made with the true spiritual Seed therefore I may from hence with the greatest boldness imaginable affirm That in the Covenant of Circumcision God did not make over himself to be Abraham's God so as to give him or to his Seed special Interest in himself Obj. But 't is positively said That God did promise in the Covenant of Circumcision to be a God to him and to his seed after him in their Generations when he promised them the Land of Canaan Gen. 17.8 9 10. Answ. I do not deny it but not by way of special Interest that is the thing we differ in so he was not the God of his Seed as such according to the Nature of the Covenant of Grace and that for the Reasons before urged therefore it behoveth us to consider in what respect we are to understand the Holy Ghost I do not say neither that ever God made himself over to Men to be their God by way of special Interest upon the Terms of the Sinai Covenant that was impossible for them to Answer nor can I believe notwithstanding what Mr. Flavel has affirmed that my Reverend Brother Mr. Philip Cary will assert any such thing the Inheritance was not by the Law 1. Therefore we are to consider That God may be said to be the God of a People in a Covenant way Two manner of ways 1 st By the Free Promise or Covenant of Grace in a spiritual Gospel Sense which gives special and Soul-saving Interest in him as all Abraham's Spiritual Seed i. e. True Believers have or 2 d. God may be said to be the God of a People by entering into an external legal Covenant with them And thus he gave himself to be the God of Abraham and his natural or fleshly Seed i. e. He took them into a visible external Covenant Church-State and separated them from all other People and Nations in the World to be a peculiar People in that Covenant unto himself and in this sense he was said Foederally or by Covenant to be married to the whole House of Israel as so considered and to be an Husband to them See Ier. 21.31 God there makes a Promise to Israel and Iudah that he would make a New Covenant Not according to the covenant I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt which covenant they break although I was an husband to them saith the Lord ver 32 In this Covenant God gave them their Church State and many external or earthly Blessings Laws and Ordinances and they formerly struck Hands as I may so say with God and promised Obedience Exod. 24.3 7 8. And he took the book of the Covenant and read in the audience of the people and they said all that the Lord hath said will we do and be obedient And thus God became as an Husband to them i. e. He fed them and took special care of them and to lead them with great Bowels in the Wilderness and bestowed the Land of Canaan upon them with other Temporal Blessings according as it was promised to them in the Covenant of Circumcision Like as a Husband cares for and provides for the Wife so did God care and provide for them and preserved them so long as that Law I mean the Law of their Husband did continue But that Law is now dead Rom. 7.4 and God now is no longer such a Husband to them nor hath he Married in that Sense any other external Nation or People of the World but now God in the Gospel Covenant is an Husband indeed to them he was but a Typical Husband and their God in an external Faedoral Relation And thus he was the God of all Abraham's natural Off-spring for in him he first espoused them as a National Church and People and gave them the Covenant of Circumcision as the Sign or Token thereof with many Ecclesiastical and Civil Rites And this is further confirmed by a Reverend and Learned Writer Howbeit from the strict Connexion of this 7th verse with the 6th and the Assurance here given that God will establish his Covenant with Abraham's Seed to be their God It is evident saith he that the Number of Abraham's carnal Seed and the Grandeur of their Civil State is not all that is promised nor yet the Principal Blessing bestowed on them therein but rather the forming them into a Church State with the establishing of the Ordinances of publick Worship among them wherein they should walk in Covenant Relation to God as his peculiar People Understand it still saith he
have you from God's Word to affirm such things you give no more proof for what you assert than the Papists do for their vain Traditions and Popish Ceremonies Grace must be implanted in the Soul before Baptism or the Person has no Right to it 't is an outward Sign of an inward spiritual Grace as your Church asserts Baptism is not Grace nor conveys Grace if you can prove it does I will say no more but submit and acknowledge my mistake but if you err in saying it does do not go about to deceive your People any more You plead for making false Christian nominal Christians Christianity is another thing than what you seem to imagine The Way is narrow and the Gate is straight Regeneration is a difficult Work it requires the Mighty Power of God to be put forth on the Soul nay the same Power that God wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead Ephes. 1.19 20. As to Infants being capable of the Blessings of the Gospel so are Heathens and Pagans when God calls them and infuses Grace into their Souls I have answered all you say upon that Account in my Answer to Mr. Burkit The Commission in the largest Extent comprehends no more than such that are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disciplized by the Preaching of the Gospel in all Nations the Parents must be discipled and the Children must themselves in their own Persons be discipled as well as their Parents and as their Parents were before baptized and when a whole Nation both Parents and Children are by the Word and Spirit made Christ's true and holy Disciples and as such baptized then all the Nation may be look'd upon to be Christians but we know what sort of Christians you make and your national Church does consist of that are made so by Baptism to our trouble if God does not make your Members better Christians than your Sprinkling or baptizing them as you call it hath done none of them as it appears from Christ's own words Ioh. 3.3 can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven In my former Books you may read Mr. Perkin's and Mr. Baxter's Expositions of the Commission they talk not at such a rate as you do tho' Pedo-Baptists And tho' in your late Letter to me you seem to boast as if some admire your Book and that your Arguments are invincible or unanswerable Yet that is not my Conceptions concerning it and had your Antagonist so judged of it I doubt not but he would attempted your strongest Fort before this time for I know very well his Ability to defend this Cause indeed I wonder at his silence But if you do proceed to provoke a farther Answer you may have it This which I have done was occasioned by my Preaching on this Text not intending a particular Reply to every thing you have said nor is there any need for you are fully answered already in our late Treatises yet I think the Controversie much concerns you of the Church of England and such who are for a National Church As for our Brethren called Congregational I cannot tell what they mean by contending for the Practice of Paedo-Baptism nor do I well know what their Sentiments are about it they agree as I do understand with us and other Christians that Baptism is an initiating Rite or Ordinance now if their Infants are in Covenant with themselves and are made visible Church-Members by Baptism in Infancy and until by actual Sins they violate their Rite and Privilege abide Members thereof 1. Then I would know whether they have their Names in their Church-Book or Register as Members And 2 dly Whether they ever Excommunicate or bring under any Church Censure such of their Children who fall into scandalous Sins or actual Transgressions or not 3 dly If not what kind of polluted Churches must thir's be who have not purged out such corrupt Members The truth is I see not how Infant Baptism is consistent with any Church State unless it be National and no doubt the first Contrivers or Founders of it devised that way for the Progress of that they call the Christian Religion and so opened a Door that Christ shut when he put an end to the National Church of the Iews Therefore I wonder at our strict Independants considering their Notions knowing how their Principles differ from and their Understanding or Knowledge of Gospel-Church Constitution exceeds others for Baptism does not initiate into their Churches it seems by their Practice unless their Children when baptized were thereby made Members with them It is evident that under the Law when Infants were Members of the Jewish Church they were born Members thereof tho' the Males were to be Circumcised on the Eighth day nor was the case difficult to know the Right Infants had to Circumcision it was not from the Faith of immediate Parents but it was their being the true Natural Seed of Abraham according to the Flesh or being Proselytes c. which gave them a Right to Circumcision by Vertue of God's positive Command to Abraham But now if the Infant 's Rite arises only from the True and Real Faith of their Parents the Child when grown up may doubt if its Parents or Father or Mother were not true Believers whether they had a Right to it or not or may see cause to question whether either of them were in truth in the Covenant of Grace or no for who knows who are in a true spiritual Sence in Covenant with God especially if their Parents should fall away or Apostatize and become vicious which may demonstrate they were not true Believers and so not the Elect of God themselves and if so their Children had no more Right to Baptism than the Children of open and prophane unbelievers Children have The truth is what I have said in these Sermons may serve to reprove such who set up a new Wall of Partition like that which Christ Abolished by the Blood of his Cross and so cause Enmity to rise between the Seed of Believing Gentiles and the Seed of unbelieving Gentiles by making the Children of ungodly Ones to say Our Parents were wicked and not in Covenant with God and tho' we were baptized yet had no Right to it we cannot but envy your Privilege you are the Children of believing Parents and are in Covenant c. nay and it may cause too to trust to that Birth-Privilege and so destroy their Souls by looking out for no other Regeneration but that which they had in Baptism in their Infancy Some Reflections on Mr. Exell's new Treatise Entituled A serious Enquiry into and containing plain and express Scripture-Proofs that John Baptist did as certainly Baptize Infants as the Adult REader just as I had closed with all I intended to have added to this short Tract a Gentleman brought me another Book newly Published called Plain Scripture-Proof that John Baptist did certainly Baptize Infants as the Adult This Book is written by one Mr. Exell who calls himself
compleatly Justified before God from the Guilt of Original Sin both Originans and Originations and yet when they come to Years of Discretion may yea must by their actual closing with or refusing the Terms of the Covenant either obtain the continuation and confirmation of their Covenant Interest or be utterly and finally cut off from it and so perish Eternally in their Ignorance of God and Rebellion against him Answer To which I must say That they seem to make the Covenant of Grace such a Conditional Covenant that renders it in Nature and Quality like the Sinai Covenant or Covenant of Works i. e. If they perform the Righteousness required they shall live if they Obey not or make not Good this pretended Covenant of Grace they shall dye or be cut off Let our Brethren who are sound in the Doctrine of Free-Grace consider this 2. And as the Promises of the New Covenant will admit of no such partial Interest saith a Learned Author so neither can this Opinion consist with the Analogy of Faith in other Respects for either the stain of Original Sin in these Infanrs is purged and the dominion of Concupiscence in them destroyed when their Guilt is pardoned or it is not if it be then the Case of these Infants in point of Perseverance is the same with Adult Persons that are under Grace by actual Faith and then a final Apostacy from the Grace of the New Covenant must be allowed to befall the one as well as the other notwithstanding all Provisions of that Covenant and Engagement of God therein to make the Promise sure to all the Seed Rom. 4.16 But this the Author will not admit If he say That their Guilt is pardoned but their Natures are not changed or renewed nor the Power of Original Corruption destroyed so as that Sin shall not have Dominion over them it will be replyed That then notwithstanding their supposed Pardon they remain as an unclean Thing and so uncapable of admission into the Kingdom of God Thus this worthy Author 3. To which let me add Certainly if Divine Habits were in those Infants they would immediately be manifested or be sure when they are grown up would appear in them by gracious Operations flowing from thence But since those Acts or Products of such a gracious Habit appear not in them 't is evident they never had them infused 4. All that are in the Covenant of Grace if they live the Fruits of Faith and Holiness will flow naturally from those sacred Habits God hath by his spirit planted in them as heat and light doth from the Fire when 't is kindled on the Hearth The Truth is such who are united to Christ and have Faith in him and so are actually in the Covenant of Grace are also washed and purged from Sin and Pollution see Ezek. 16. Rom. 5.14 Act. 15.10 None can have Union with Christ but by the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit and wheresoever the Spirit of Christ is it applies The Blood of the Covenant not only for Pardon but also for the purging the Conscience from dead Works to serve the living God And therefore as the same Learned Author observes as certain as any derive a New Covenant Rite from Christ for Pardon they also receive a vital Influence from him for the renovation of their Natures and conforming their Souls to his Image Therefore to assert That the Grace of Christ is applied to some for remission of Sins only or that the guilt of any Sin can be pardoned to any Person and yet that Sin retains its Dominion over them is a Doctrine I understand not to be sound or agreeable to the Doctrine that is according to Godliness 5. To conclude with this 't is evident these Men must by their Notion make every believing Parent to be considered in respect of that Covenant made with Abraham a common Head and Father not only to his own natural Seed but to all Believers also as Abraham was and then it would follow that there are as many common Fathers like as Abraham was so called as there are believing Men in the World and so a knowing or knowledge of Men still after the Flesh which the Apostle disclaims 2 Cor. 5. 17. Besides the Thing is usurp'd in it self Therefore let all know That a Believers Right to the Blessings of the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham's or by vertue of that Promise made with him do relate to such a Seed as do believe and not as Co-ordinate with him in Covenant Interest they are not each one by this Covenant made the Father of a Blessed Seed as Abraham was the Father of the Faithful neither can they claim the Promise for themselves and their Seed according to the Tenour of Abraham's Covenant as he might as this Author observes but they must believe as Abraham did or have a Faith of their own For if ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham 's seed and heirs according to the Promise Gal. 3 29. This the same Author notes Obj. 7. The Covenant of Circumcision was an Everlasting Covenant therefore it was the Covenant of Grace Answ. I Answer 'T is not unknown to our Opponants that the Hebrew Word for Everlasting sometimes signifies no more then a long continuance of time And so extensive was the Promise of God's peculiar Favours to the natural Seed of Abraham and the original of their Claim there-from that the severity of that Law afterwards given to them was so far restrained as that notwithstanding their manifold breach of Covenant with God and forfeiture of all legal Claim of their Right and Privileges in the Land of Canaan thereby that they were never utterly cut off from that good Land and ceased to be a peculiar People unto God untill the end or period of that time determined by the Almighty was fully come which was the Revealation of the Messiah and the setting up his spiritual Temple under the Dispensation of the Gospel and thus far the Word Everlasting doth extend 'T is said God promised to give the Land of Canaan to Abraham and to his Seed for ever and again Gen. 17.8 for an everlasting Inheritance whereas it is evident they have for many Ages been dispossessed of it Nor may this seem strange if we consult other Texts where the same Terms are used with the like Restriction for the Priesthood of Levi is called an Everlasting Priesthood Numb 25.13 And the Gates of the Temple Everlasting Doors Psal. 24.6 so the Statute to make an Atonement for the Holy Sanctuary and for the Tabernacle and for the Altar and for the Priests and for all the People of the Congregation is called an Everlasting Statute Levit. 16.34 And this shall be for an everlasting statute c. So that from hence 't is very clear that the Word Everlasting is to be taken sometimes with Restriction and referrs to the end of that Dispensation to which the Law Statute or Covenant did belong and when Christ came as
be baptized for no doubt there were many Thousand Families that lived either in Ierusalem Iudea or in the Regions round about that were not Jews broad is the Way to Heaven if this Man's Doctrine be true or into the Church at least The Man's mistake lies here i. e. because great Multitudes went out either to see or hear Iohn Baptist he therefore concludes Iohn baptized them all because 't is said he baptized them not observing the severe Doctrine he Preached and what a holy Sight and Sence of Sin and godly Repentance he enjoyned on all those he admitted to Baptism for they he baptized confessed their Sins i. e. their hearty Sorrow for Sin and were turned to the Lord for that was his Work and the grand Purport of his Ministry and evident it is that there were but a few comparatively baptized by Iohn because Christ by the hands of his Disciples baptized more Disciples than he Ioh. 4.1 and 't is said Christ's Flock was but a little Flock and after Christ's Resurrection the whole Number of his Disciples were about One hundred and Twenty Act. 1.15 tho' may be some few more there might be in some orher places Mr. Baxter tho' a great Asserter of Paedo-Baptism contradicts this Man Iohn Baptist saith he received and judged of the Profession of his Penitents before he did baptize them Baxt. Confirmat Restor p. 68. It was such a Confession that Iohn required of those that he baptized that gave him Ground to believe they had Right to Remission of Sin for he baptized with the Baptism of Repentance for the remission of Sin Read the late Annotators on Luk. 3.3 The Summ of Iohn's Doctrine say they was the necessity of Repentance and Faith in Christ in order to the Remission of Sin his pressing Faith in Christ is most clearly declared by the Evangelist Iohn Matthew Mark and Luke insist more upon his Preaching the Doctrine of Repentance for the Remission of Sins Baptism was an Evidence of it Iohn did not Preach that Baptism was Repentance or that Remission of Sin was infallibly annexed to it but that the way to obtain the Remission of Sins was by Repentance and Baptism was an External Sign and Symbol of it It was no doubt such a Confession that Philip required of the Eunoch Act. 8.37 See here is Water what doth hinder me to be baptized Philip answered If thou believest withal thine Heart thou mayest This Man would render Iohn Baptist less Faithful than any ordinary pious Minister I believe saith Gullespy No consciencious Minister would adventure to baptize any who hath manifested infallible Signs of unregenerations Gil's Aaron's Rod. blossom Obj. But saith Mr. Exell to conclude that this Confession mentioned Mat. 3.5 was a Confession with the Mouth or Tongue without considering any thing of the words when there is no such discovery in the Text is somewhat too quick and too bold for what is expressed is expresly asserted of all the Regions and all Judea and Jerusalem and those called Multitudes and these general Expressions contain and comprehend Men Women and Children c. Answ. I must needs say 't is a hard case you dare so boldly affirm all both Men Women and Children were baptized by Iohn whereas 't is positively said that they he baptized confessed their Sins You conclude against the express Words of the Text and assert plain Scripture proof that Iohn Baptist did certainly baptize Infants and yet give neither Scripture nor Reason to demonstrate what you say is true you can draw Consequences to build an Ordinance upon that which naturally rises not from the Texts you refer to nay which is more when the Text is expresly against such a Conclusion 't is said They that gladly receive the Word were baptized You may say that some of them were Infants as well as to affirm some of these Iohn baptized were such for Infants are as capable to receive the Word as to confess their Sins nay when 't is said Acts 20. The Disciples came together to break Bread you may affirm that Infants came then with others together to break Bread or to eat the Lord's Supper for you know how to prove them to be Disciples no doubt on 't if you have not been too quick in asserting what you with boldness have asserted I am greatly mistaken You make Baptism a very insignificant Sign what good can Baptism do that Parson that has no Grace If you can prove what your Brother Rothwell affirms do viz. That Baptism does regenerate Infants or is a Converting Ordinance Certaintly but very few of that great Multitude you suppose Iohn baptized received any Spiritual benefit by their Baptism and I challenge all the World to prove if they can that ever one Infant received any kind of Internals Spiritual or Eternal Advantage by being baptized as you call it or External either by the Word of God He adds an Induction of Twenty particulars to shew what a Confession it was not that those Iohn Baptist baptized made but they need no further Reply being all remote to the Purpose brought for Then he proceeds into ten more to shew it could not be a verbal Confession of Actual Faith and Repentance the most of them follow here Obj. There is nothing of a Command requiring such a Confession neither declared by John nor revealed by any other Messenger of God This contains his two First Answ. Did not Iohn require it when he said bring forth Fruits meet for Râ—pentance c A Confession is a Fruit of Repentance And did not Philip require it of the Eunuch Is not Faith required and as a Man believes with his Heart so a Confession is required with the Mouth to make known that Faith unto Salvation Obj. If such a Confession was commanded it must be gained by their own personal Obediâ—cence and so the Gospel is a Covenant of Works 2. If commanded then it was not voluntary 3. If commanded then it must not be to shew the Grâ—ce they had but their Obedience these are three more of them Pag. 44. 1. Answ. I answer if what God commands us to do those Vertues so commanded are gained or merited by our own personal Obedience then all our Evangelical Duties must be meritorious and the Gospel is a Covenant of Works indeed For that the Gospel doth command many Duties is evident Can't God give Grace and then command us by the Assistance of his Spirit to cause those Graces to appear in exercise to the Praise of his own Glory 2. Or cannot that which God commands us to do be done freely and voluntary by us Or doth free Grace destroy the Noble Faculty of the Will because it over-powers its vitious Habits and strongly inclines it to that which is good Do not Saints freely and voluntarily by the help of the Spirit and Grace of Christ will that which is good and well-pleasing to him Or is a Confession of Sin not good or an Evangelical Duty 3. Do we