the Commission saith he I explain the former thus First teach them that is make them my Disciples by teaching them to believe and repent Here we are to consider the order which God observes in making with Men a Covenant in Baptism First of all he calls them by his Word and Spirit to believe and repent then in the second place he makes a Promise of Mercy and Forgiveness and then thirdly he seals his Promise by Baptism They saith he that know not nor consider this Order which God used in covenanting with them in Baptism deal preposterously over-slipping the Commandment of repenting and believing and is the cause of so much Prophaneness in the World This Divine Order Christ signifieth when he saith make them Disciples and was always observed of God Mr. Perkins as he was a very learned Man so you know he was a Member of the Church of England and how fully does he confirm what we say and teach and how does he confute your Notion and Practice Moreover Mr. Richard Baxter speaking of the Order of the Commission Christ gave to his Disciples saith viz. Their first Task is to make Disciples which are by St. Mark called Believers The second work is to baptize them whereunto is annexed the Promise of Salvation The third work is to teach them all other things which are after to be learned in the School of Christ To contemn this Order is to contemn the Rules of all Order for where can we find it if not here I profess my Conscience is fully satisfied from this Text that there is one sort of Faith that must go before Baptism the Profession whereof the Minister must expect 2. You say The true reason why Christ bid his Disciples first teach and then baptize was because he was sending his Apostles forth among the Heathen to convert them to Christianity in which work we all know that preaching of the Word must go before the Administration of the Sacraments Pag. 20. Should say you the King of England send his Ministers into Foreign Plantations to convert the Indians to Christianity they ought not to be baptized before they are taught and instructed but when the Parents are proselyted and make a visible Profession of their Faith their Children may be baptized and afterwards instructed as the Children of the Jewish Proselytes were first circumcised and then taught for tho Abraham was first taught and then circumcised yet Isaac was first circumcised and then taught so that the sense of our Saviour is this teach such as are capable of teaching and baptize such as are capable of Baptism Answ I answer first how inconsistent is this with what just before you asserted Do you not plead for Faith in some sense to be in all such who by virtue of the Commission ought to be baptized and therefore pretend that Infants have Habitual Faith Faith in semine c. but now plead they may be capable of Baptism without Faith you also contradict what you before said about the order of words Do you not positively now confess by the order of the words in the Commission Teaching ought to go before Baptizing Sir 't is a sign of a very bad Cause that puts you thus to try your Wit and after all confound your self 2. I ask you how Abraham who God commanded to be Circumcised as a Seal of the Righteousness of that Faith HE had before circumcised could know he ought to circumcise his Son Isaac c. who had no such Faith had not God given him an express Command to do it Had it not been in the words of his Commission durst he think you have done it Be sure if he had he had sinned in doing that which God commanded him not So and in like manner since our Lord Jesus expresly in his Commission commanded none to be baptized but such who are first taught unless he had added as in Abraham's Case viz. when an Heathen is converted to the Faith and baptized you may baptize his Infants also how dare you add such Additions to Christ's Commission without his Authority and so make the World believe if you could our blessed Saviour gave forth an imperfect Commission to his Disciples which all Men must confess is the only Warrant and Rule of all Ministers to act by in the case of baptizing to the end of the World And doth he not say Add thou not to his Word lest he reprove thee and thou art found to be a Liar by fathering that on Christ which he never said nor intended Suppose the King should send you with a Commission into a remote Plantation and command you to act and do exactly according to the express words of the Commission not to add to it nor diminish from it upon pain of being cast out of his Favour and incur his Wrath and Curse durst you to do otherwise in any thing under pretence it was his meaning whereas he plainly and fully in his Commission expressed in the Affirmative how and what you should do in all Matters and things and forbad you to add thereto Read Rev. 22.18 For I testify unto every Man that heareth the words of the Prophecy of this Book If any Man shall add unto these things God shall add unto him all the Plagues that are written in this Book c. Who told you what you say is the sense of our Saviour Can any Man once think since the Commission of Christ is a pure Gospel-Commission and contains meer positive Laws and Rules no ways referring to nor depending on the Law or Command God gave to Abraham that what you say can be true and the Conclusions safe certain and warrantable May not another say with as good Authority that our Saviour commands his Disciples to baptize all Nations both Parents and Children too whether they will or not whether they believe or not whether Jews or Gentiles Turks or Pagans I wonder you are not afraid who take liberty after this sort to sport as it were and play with invert alter and add unto the sacred Commission of the jealous God and great King of Heaven and Earth 3. We will examine your Similitude of which you seem very full Suppose say you a Person Owner of a great Flock of Sheep should command his Shepherd to shear all his Sheep and give them an Ear-mark to know them and he leaves out all the Lambs which perhaps made up half the Fold unmark'd Can the Shepherd be suppos'd to have done his Duty Suppose he says the Lambs were very young and uncapable of shearing True says the Owner but were they not capable of marking Infants say you are not capable of teaching but are they not capable of Christ's Ear-mark Baptism by which Christ's Sheep are distinguished from the Devils Goats But according to your Principles Christ's Fold has no Lambs in it but all Sheep such a Fold as the World never yet heard of See Isa 40.11 Answ 1. I answer this is as
though it be granted that both of them did consign the Covenant of Faith yet there is nothing in the Circumstances of Children being circumcised that so concerns that Mystery but that it might well be given to Men of Reason because Circumcision left a Character in the Flesh which being imprinted upon the Infant did its work to them when they came to Age and such a Character was necessary because there was no word added to the Sign But Baptism imprints nothing that remains on the Body and if it leaves a Character at all it is upon the Soul to which the Word is added which is as much a part of the Sacrament as the Sign it self for both which Reasons it is requisite that the Party baptized should be capable of Reason that they may be capable both of the Word and of the Sacrament and the impress upon the Spirit Since therefore the Reason of the Parity does wholly fail there is nothing left to infer a necessity of complying in the Circumstance of Age any more than in the other Annexes of Types The Infant must also precisely be baptized upon the eighth day and Females must not be baptized at all because not circumcised But it were more proper if we would understand it aright to prosecute the Analogy from the Type to the Antitype by the way of Letter and Spirit and Signification and as Circumcision figures Baptism so also the Adjuncts of the Circumcised shall signify something spiritual in the Adherents of Baptism and therefore as Infants were circumcised so spiritual Infants should be baptized which is spiritual Circumcision for therefore Babes had the Ministry of the Type to signify that we must when we give our Names to Christ become Children in Malice and then the Type is made compleat Thus as I have formerly said the worthy Doctor hath given you a full Answer to all you have said concerning your Arguments for Baptism coming in the room of or being a Figure of Circumcision But to proceed 5. If Baptism and Circumcision were both in full force together for some time then Baptism is not the Type of nor came in the room of Circumcision But Baptism and Circumcision were both in full force together for some time Therefore Baptism is no Type of nor came in the room of Circumcision The Minor is undeniable Was not Baptism in full force from the time that John received it from Heaven and administred it on the People and did not Christ by the hands of his Disciples baptize many Persons nay more Disciples than John as it is said Joh. 4.1 2. And was not Circumcision them in full force too and so abode till Christ took it away by nailing it with all other Jewish Rites to his Cross And as to the sequel of thâ— Major that cannot be denied for if one thing cannot come in the room and place of another till the other is actually and legally removed and took out of the way which is plain then since these two Rites had a Being together the Major is undeniable A Type can abide no longer than till the Antitype is come therefore Baptism is not the Antitype of Circumcision or came not in the room and place thereof the Antitype of which or that which came in the room of the Circumcision of the Flesh is the Circumcision of the Heart not in the Flesh but in the Spirit whose Praise is not of Men but of God 6. And indeed how one thing that was a Figure or Shadow should come in the room or be the Antitype of another thing which is a Figure or Shadow no wise Man can see reason to believe And thus your great Text Col. 2.11 12. is plainly and honestly opened â—ccording to the scope and main drift of the Spirit of God therein and your great Pillar for your Scriptureless Practice of Babes Baptism razed and utterly overthrown Since I wrote this Answer to what you have said touching Circumcision I have met with an Answer given to the like pretended Proof for Pedo-Baptism written by a most Learned and Reverend Author The Argument and Answer I have been at the pains to transcribe which takâ— as here followeth The Argument runs thus viz. To them to whom Circumcision did agree to them Baptism doth agree But Circumcision did agree to Infants therefore also Baptism c. The Major he endeavours thus to prove i. e. If the Baptism of Christ succeeds into the place and room of Circumcision then Baptism belongs to them that Circumcision belonged to but the Antecedent is true therefore the Consequence The Minor he says is proved from Col. 2.12 't is said the Colossians were Circumcised because Baptized Answ This Argument supposeth Baptism to succeed in the place of Circumcision which may be understood many ways 1. So as that the sense be that those Persons may be Baptized which heretofore by God's Appointment were to be Circumcised And in this sense the Argument must proceed if it conclude to the purpose But in this sense it is false for Females were not Circumcised which yet were Baptized as Act. 8.12 13 14. 16.14 15. and Believers out of Abraham's House as Lot Melchisedec Joh were not to be Circumcised but believing Gentiles are universally to be Baptized 2. It may be so understood as if the Rite of Baptism then began when the Rite of Circumcision did or was to end But this is not to be said for John Baptist and Christ's Disciples baptized John 4.1 2. before Circumcision of right ceased 3. It may be understood as if Baptism did succeed into the place of Circumcision in respect of its signification which is true in some things but not in others First both might signify the Sanctification of the Heart and this is 〈◊〉 may be concluded out of that place alledged Col. 2.11 12. To which I think meet to add that if that Text be looked into the Apostle speaks not of any Circumcision but of Christ because in him we are compleat and by whose Circumcision we are said to put off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh nor doth the Text say we are Circumcised because we are Baptized but that we are compleat in Christ because we are Circumcised in him and buried with him in Baptism in which or in whom ye and also risen together through the Faith of the Operation of God that raised him from the Dead In some things Baptism doth not succeed into the place of Circumcision in respect of signification For 1. Circumcision did signify Christ to come of Isaac according to the Flesh Gen. 17.10 11. but Baptism doth not signify this but points at his Incarnation Death and Resurrection 2. Circumcision was a Sign that the Israelites were a People separated from all Nations Rom. 3.1 but Baptism signifies that all that believe whether Jews or Gentiles are one in Christ Gal. 3.28 3. Circumcision signified that Moses his Law was to be observed Gal. 5.3 but Baptism doth
signify that Moses his Law is abolished and the Doctrine of Christ established 4. Circumcision signified the Promise of the Land of Canaan but Baptism Eternal Life by Christ And indeed saith he if this Argument be not warily and restrainedly understood an Egg is laid out of which manifest Judaism may be hatched but if it be taken restrainedly 〈◊〉 no more follows thence but that Baptism and Circumcision in some things hold forth the same which is more plainly said of 〈◊〉 Ark 1 Pet. 3.21 and of the Red Sea and Cloud 1 Cor. 10.2 And yet we say not that Baptism succeeded into their place much less do we infer any Rite to be instituted in their stead respecting the same Persons yea verily it is to be seriously thought on 1. That by such Arguments drawn from Analogies not conceived by the Holy Ghost but drawn out of our Wit a new kind of instituting Rites to wit from Analogies is brought in besides our Lord's Precepts and the Apostles Examples 2. This being once said by a like parity of Reason and Arguing it will be lawful to bring into the Christian Church under other Names and Forms the whole Burden of Jewish Rites yea almost out of what you will to conclude what you will For who shall put a Bound to Mens feigning Analogies when they go beyond the Lord's Precepts and the Apostles Examples It is well known that the Divine Appointment of Tythes to be paid and many other things in the Writings of Divines are asserted by this kind of Argument besides the Rule of the Lord's Precept and the Apostles Example 3. Hereby will the Opinion of the Papists be confirmed who affirm from 1 Cor. 10.11 the Sacraments of the Jews to be Types of the Sacraments of Christians which is rejected by Divines that dispute against Bellarmine 4. This manner of arguing will countenance the Arguments of the Papists for an Vniversal Bishop because the Jews had such and justify a Linen Garment at Mass because there was such among the Jews and for Holy Water Purification of Women Easter Pentecost and many more such Ceremonies for which the Papists do in like manner argue as appears out of Durandus's Rationals and other Interpreters of Rituals among the Papists Yea what hindereth but we may give Children the Lord's Supper if we argue this way since Samuel Jesus Christ under Age were partakers of the Passeover And of right all the Males were thrice in the Year to appear before the Lord and therefore it is certain they did eat the Passeover and it shall be afterwards shewed that the place 1 Cor. 11.28 will not avoid this Inconvenience if the Text Mat. 28.19 may be shifted off as Pedo-Baptists use to do Lest any Man take this for a light Suggestion I will add that grave godly and learned Men have often warned that we are to take heed that we do not rashly frame Arguments from Analogy among others in their late Writings in the English Tongue John Paget in his Defence of Church-Government Part 1. Chap. 3. Pag. 8 and elsewhere John Ball in his Reply to the Answer of the New-England Elders unto the Nine Positions Posit 2. p. 14. Lastly It is to be considered again and again how by these Argumentations the Consciences of Men may be freed from the danger of Will-Worship and polluting so remarkable an Ordinance of Christ as Baptism is especially this Care lies on them who by Prayer Sermons Writings Covenants and Oaths do deter Christians from Humane Inventions in God's Worship diligently and it is to be hoped sincerely Thus far that Reverend Divine who though I knew not what he had said till after I had wrote as before in answer to you yet finding him so fully to strengthen what I have said I thought good to add his Excellent Lines In the close of your 4 th Page you recite an Objection brought by us viz. That there was an express Command in so many Words for Circumcision but there is no such Command for Infant-Baptism Gen. 17.9 requires Infants to be Circumcised shew us but such a Text in all the New Testament that says 〈◊〉 Infants be Baptized Thus you have stated our Objection to which you give a threefold Answer I acknowledg say you that in the New-Testament though it be not wholly silent yet it speaks very little touching the Case of Infant-Baptism and that for two Reasons 1. Because the Old-Testament speaks so much in their Case therefore the New-Testament speaks so little The Old-Testament plainly informs us that Children in their Infancy were admitted Members of the Visible Church Now what need is there that the same thing be repeated over again in the New-Testament for it is not the Old-Testament alone nor the New-Testament alone but both together that contain the Rule of Faith and Practice c. Answ 1. You speak an Untruth for the New-Testament speaks nothing at all touching Infant-Baptism if a Man read it over a thousand times he shall not find one Word or the least Hint given of it therefore the New-Testament contrary to what you boldly affirm is wholly silent in the Case of Infant-Baptism and Church-Membership 'T is a shame for a Man who calls himself a Minister to speak falsly but much more to publish Falshoods to the World In this Mr. Rector you must be corrected If you fly to your pretended Consequences you shall find by and by God assisting that that Refuge will fail you in the Case for Consequences in many Cases drawn naturally from the Premises to which they refer we readily admit of though not in the Case of meer positive Precepts 2. As to your first Reason why the New-Testament speaks no more in the Case of Infants which is as you conceive because the Old-Testament speaks so much that the Infant-Seed of Believers should be owned as Covenant Servants as Deut. 29.10 12. and were admitted Members of that Visible Church I must tell you Sir by way of Answer this will do you no good for the Reasons following 1. Because Baptism is as I have told you already a meer positive Precept and the Rite thereof as well as Circumcision cannot be known but by the express Declaration or Manifestation of the Will and Mind 〈◊〉 God in his written Word Abraham knew not that it was his Duty he ought to Circumcise his Children till God gave him his positive and express Command to do it and then also it was none but his Male Children and God gave Directions to him when and wherefore he should Circumcise them And therefore there is the same parity of Reason why the Great God should give us under the Gospel the like positive Law for baptizing our Children under the Gospel together with the Time when and the Reason wherefore as he did to them in the case of Circumcision had it been his Pleasure we should Baptize our Children but since he hath not required any thing of this Nature of us under the Gospel his requiring
Discourse to Mr. Cary is mainly to prove that there is but one Covenant of Works pag. 217 218 c. To which I answer by way of Concession yet must say that Covenant had several Ministrations and Additions as had also the Covenant of Grace because the Covenant of Works was made with Adam by which he stood in the time of his Innocency justified and accepted by virtue thereof Could not God give forth a second Ministration or Transcript of his Righteous and Holy Law though not to Justification yet to aggravate his Sin and so to his just Condemnation And doth not St. Paul assert the same thing Rom. 3.19 20. compared with Rom. 7.13 That Sin by the Commandment or Law might become exceeding sinful So Gal. 3.19 Nay I will affirm always generally when the Scriptures of the New-Testament speak of the Old Covenant or first Covenant or Covenant of Works it passes by in silence the Covenant made with Adam and more immediately and directly applies it to the Sinai-Covenant and to the Covenant of Cirrumcision as all careful Readers who read the Epistles to the Romans Galathians and to the Hebrews may clearly find But to proceed Though we say there is but one Covenant of Grace yet it is evident there were several distinct Ministrations or Additions of it yet we say the Promise of the Gospel or Gospel-Covenant was the same in all Ages in respect of things promised with the Nature and Quality thereof which is a free and absolute Covenant without Works or any Conditions or foreseen Acts of Righteousness or any thing to be done by the Creature Rom. 4. 5. The Substance and essential Part of this Covenant is Christ Faith a new Heart Regeneration Remission of Sins Sanctification Perseverance and everlasting Life Yet this Evangelical Covenant had divers Forms or Transcripts of it which signified those things and various Sanctions by which it was given forth and confirmed To Adam the Promise was made under the name of the Seed of the Woman bruising the Head of the Serpent to Enoch Noah c. In other Forms to Abraham under the name of his Seed in whom all the Nations of the Earth should be blessed To Moses by the name of a great Prophet of his Brethren like unto him and it was also signified to him under dark Shadows and Sacrifices Unto David under the name of a Successor in his Kingdom In the New-Testament in plain words We all with open Face beholding as in a Glass the Glory of the Lord c. 2 Cor. 3.18 But now because there were so many Additions of the Gospel Promise and New-Covenant are there so many New Covenants this being so Mr. Flavel hath done nothing to remove Mr. Cary's Arguments but they stand as a Rock Take another of them That Covenant in which Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness could not be a Gospel-Covâ—â—â—nâ— or a Covenant of Grace But the Scripture is express that Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness when he was Circumcised but in Uncircumcision Rom. 4 9 10. Ergo The Covenant of Circumcision was not a Gospel-Covenant or a Covenant of Grace That Law or Covenant which is contradistinguished or opposed unto the Righteousness of Faith could not be a Covenant of Faith or a Gospel-Covenant But the Law or Covenant of Circumcision is by the Apostle plainly opposed to or contradistinguished unto the Righteousness of Faith Rom. â— 1â— Ergo The Law or Covenant of Circuâ—â—ision was not a Gospel-Covenant And from hence Mr. Cary argues thus By the way saith he let it be observed in reference to the two foregoing Arguments which I have already proved that that Covenant that is not of Faith must needs be a Covenant of Works there bâ—ing no Medium betwixt them and consequently must be the same for substance with that made with Adam and that on Mount Sinai with the Children of Israel That Covenant that is plainly represented to us in Scripture as a 〈◊〉 Covenant in and by which there was imposed such a Yoke upon the Necks of the Jews which neither those in the Apostles â—â—me nor their Fathers were able to bear could be no other than a Covenant of Works and not of Grace But the Scriptures do plainly represent such was the Nature of the Covenant of Circumcision Acts 15.10 Gal. 5.1 2 3. Ergo The Covenant of Circumcision was not a Gospel-Covenant but a Covenant of Works Thus Mr. Cary argues also And thus we have proved from God's Word and sound Arguments that the Covenant of Circumcision was not a Gospel-Covenant Object But lest any should think that we shut out all dying Infants from having any Benefit by Christ I answer I doubt not but God might comprehend them in that glorious Covenant or Compact made between him and our Surety in the Covenant of Redemption but as I said before Secret things belong to God But let me here add one word or two further i. e. Circumcision you say was a Priviledg so we say too but not such a Priviledg as you do imagine 1. It doth profit as a Priviledg because it was given as a Token or Sign to Abraham's natural Seed that they should have the Land of Canaan for an everlasting possession 2. As a Token or Sign to them of the giving forth of the Law on Mount Sinai He dealt his Laws and Statutes to Israel he did not do so to any other Nation This Rite therefore could not be a Gospel-Rite nor the Covenant it was a sign of a Gospel-Covenant in which the Gentile Christians are concerned And thus the Apostle argues Rom. 3. 1. What Advantage then hath thâ— Jew or what Profit is there in Circumcision ver 2. Much every way chiefly because unto them were committed the Oracles of God You may soon know the Nature of that Covenant made with Abraham's natural Seed and of Circumcision which was a Sign of it The chiefest Priviledg which attended it was the giving to them i. e. the People of Israel the Law of the Ten Commandements 3. Circumcision by the Doctrine of St. Paul was a Priviledg if they kept the Law 〈◊〉 for Circumcision verily profiteth if thou keep the Law but if thou break the Law thy Circumâ—ision is made Vncircumcision or a Nullity and profiteth thee nothing that is if thou keep not the Law perfectly And thus speak our late Annotators on the place If thou Jew keep the Law perfectly to which Circumcision obligeth Gal. 5.3 If otherwise thou transgressest the Law thy Circumcision avails thee nothing it gives thee no Priviledg above the Uncircumcised What is now become this being so of that mighty Priviledg Abraham's Infant 〈◊〉 as such had by Circumcision if the chief Profit or Priviledg was because unto them the Law should be given which could not give Life but was a Covenant of Works then the chiefest Profit lay not in it as it was an Ordinance of Initiation
other ways than by a Mediator c. Answ 1. I have proved that Covenant made with Abraham was a mixt Covenant and I deny not but the Covenant of Grace made in Christ was promised to Abraham which takes in only the true Spiritual Seed and to all those God is in a special manner become a God unto 2. Evident it is all manner of God's Covenanting Transactions since the Fall of what nature soever have been no other ways than through the interposition of a Mediator as that with Noah about the Flood c. Gen. 9.8 9. in that God shewed himself to be the God of the Old World and so he is by Creation and Providence c. Yet it doth not follow that Covenant was the Covenant of Grace or that God hath received them into special favour with himself So when God gave out that fiery Law on Mount Sinai he told them Exod. 20.2 I am the Lord your God c. This was the very Introduction to that part of the Law which was written in Stone which nevertheless the Apostle expressly calls it A Ministration of Death and Condemnation 2 Cor. 3.7 8. and that it killed and could not give Life Now must this be a Covenant of Faith or Grace How is it then that the Apostle Paul says The Law is not of Faith also the Covenant of Grace giveth Life But I argue thus The Law could not give Life Ergo The Law was not a Covenant of Grace And so much to your first Note or Observation 2. Your second Observation is The Duration and Continuance of this Covenant made with Abraham the Lord calls it an Everlasting Covenant c. Answ You might have left out this only it helps to add to the number you have answered this your self in saying The Hebrew word for Everlasting sometimes signifies no more than a long continuance of Time Sir We know it very well and those Mosaical Rites that ended in Christ are said to be for Everlasting But when the Lord saith he will be a Person 's God for ever and ever or everlastingly it denotes his being so to all Eternity But God never said he would be the God everlastingly or to all Eternity to all who were concern'd in the Covenant of Circumcision Nor was he Ishmael's God so though Circumcised and has he not cast off that whole Nation of the Jews with whom he made that Covenant and is not so their God now though he is I confess to all Eternity or everlastingly the God of all Abraham's Spiritual Seed viz. all true Believers in Christ 3. Your third and last Argument or Note to prove the Covenant of Circumcision a Covenant of Grace is taken from the Benefits and Blessings conveyed by it To be a God unto him and to his Seed and that everlastingly is a most comprehensive Gospel-Blessing for hereby God gives a Person an Interest in all that he is and in all that he has so far as can be communicated to a Creature This Blessing promised to Abraham comprehends Christ Grace Holiness here and Glory and Happiness hereafter And accordingly we find the Apostle Heb. 8. uses the same Expression with this of God's to Abraham I will be to them a God and they shall be to me a People Answ This is idem bis idem culpandum est the same again which is already answered Sir Is God everlastingly a God to Abraham and to all his fleshly Seed and to Believers who are the Spiritual Seed of Abraham and to all their fleshly Seed I say is this so Does God give himself all he is and all he has to every Believer and to all his fleshly Seed Have all their Children or every one of them Christ Grace Holiness here and Glory and eternal Happiness hereafter Or are you not to be justly blamed thus to jumble things confusedly together 'T is true the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham and all his true Spiritual Seed who are the Elect have Interest in all God is and has so far as it can be communicated to Creatures and we know they have Christ as well as are Christ's as Paul notes Gal. 4. and Grace here and shall have Glory hereafter But a multitude of Abraham's natural Off-spring and the natural Off-spring of Believers have neither Christ nor Grace nor shall be saved but perish eternally Therefore this may serve for an Answer with what I have proved before touching the Nature of that two-fold Covenant made with Abraham To what you speak in the second place pag. 12 13. as also in your third Reply viz. If the Covenant which God made with Abraham be one and the same with the Covenant of Grace then our Infant-Seed have right to Baptism Answ You had this before and I have already answered it only I shall add a Passage or two of Martin Luther Paul therefore concludeth with this Sentence saith he They which are of Faith are the Children of Abraham That corporal Birth or carnal Seed make not the Children of Abraham before God As if he would say There is none before God accounted as the Child of this Abraham who is the Servant of God whom God hath chosen and made Righteous by Faith thrô carnal Generation but such Children must be given before God as he was a Father but he was a Father of Faith was justified and pleased God not because he could beget Children after the Flesh not because he had Circumcision under the Law but because he believed in God He therefore that will be a Child of the believing Abraham must also himself believe or else he is not a Child of the Elect the believing and the justified Abraham but only the begetting Abraham which is nothing else but a Man conceived born and wrap'd in Sin without the forgiveness of Sins without Faith without the Holy Ghost as another Man is and therefore condemned Such also are the Children carnally begotten of him having nothing in them like unto their Father but Flesh and Blood Sin and Death therefore these are also damned This glorious boasting then we are the Seed of Abraham is to no purpose Thus far and much more to the same purpose he excellently dilates upon Mr. Perkins on the Galatians concerning the Covenant made with Abraham The Seed of Abraham saith he is the Seed not of the Flesh but of the Promise And this Seed is first Christ and then all that believe in Christ for all these are given to Abraham by Promise and Election of God Moreover this Seed is not many as Paul observeth but one It is objected That the word Seed is a Name collective and signifies the whole Posterity of Abraham Answ It doth sometimes saith he but not always for Eve saith of Sâ—th God hath given me another Seed Again he saith this one particular Seed of Abraham is Christ Jesus here by the name Christ first and principally the Mediator and then secondly all Jews and
Gentiles believing that are fit and grafted into Christ by Faith St. Paul saith The Children of the Flesh these are not the Children of God but the Children of the Promise are the Seed of Abraham Rom. 9.8 Now this Covenant we grant thus made with Abraham is one and the same with the Covenant of Grace but what does this signify to the Infants or fleshly Seed of Believers as such And thus I shall pass to your next Argument pag. 14. CHAP. III. Wherein Mr. Burkitt ' s other Arguments are answered viz. 1. Infants are capable of the Spiritual Benefits by Baptism 2. Also that they have habitual Faith 3. That Christ has Lambs in his Fold therefore Infants 4. Infants are capable of Christ's Blessing they were brought to Christ and received by him 5. Infants are in Covenant with a federal Holiness therefore may be baptized YOur third Argument to prove Infants ought to be baptized is this viz. If Infants are capable of Spiritual Benefit by Baptism then Baptism may and ought to be administred to Infants if they are capable of the inward visible Grace sure they may partake of the outward and visible Sign if the Word of the Promise doth belong to them surely the Seal of the Promise ought not to be withheld from them But say you the former is true viz. That Infants are capable of Benefits by Baptism therefore the latter is true they ought to be Baptized There are amongst others two special Blessings and spiritual Benefits which Infants are capable of by Baptism namely Remission of Sin and Regeneration 1. Remission of Sin this being an Act of gracious Favour in God discharging a Person from his obnoxiousness to Wrath upon the score of Guilt contracted an Infant is certainly as capable of this Act of Favour as a grown Person To prove this you bring in a Simile That an Infant of a Traitor is as capable of the benefit of the King 's gracious Favour as the Father himself Suppose the King should send for a Traitor's Child out of the Cradle say you and before all his Courtiers declare That whereas the Blood of that Child was attainted by its Father's Treason and therefore according to Law it s whole Inheritance became forfeited to the Crown yet says the King I will pardon this Infant freely and restore him to all his forfeited Rights and in token thereof I command one of my Ministers to wash the Infant in pure Water signifying thereby to all my Subjects that he is cleansed from his original Attainder and Corruption of Blood and that I am perfectly reconciled to him I demand say you now whether any one can truly say that this Action was insignificant to the Child because he did not understand it c. Answ Were not the Male Infants of Believers before Abraham's days as capable of the Priviledges and Benefits of Circumcision as Abraham's Male Infants were If so why were not they Circumcised If you say it was Because God did not require them to be Circumcised they were not commanded to do it Even so say I God hath not commanded Believers to baptize their Infants therefore whatsoever Benefit or Blessing they are capable of it signifies nothing in the Case unless there was a Command or Law given us to baptize them 2. Might you not as well argue that Infants are capable of the Benefits or Spiritual Blessings signified by the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper therefore may partake of that also Are not they capable of Redemption from Sin and Wrath by the breaking of Christ's Body and shedding of his Blood 3. And are not Infants of Unbelievers nay Turks and Pagans capable of the Spiritual Benefits signified in Baptism sure as considered in themselves they are and why then may they not be baptized also 4. Sir 'T is not such are capable of receiving a Favour or Priviledg from God but rather who he hath in his Sovereign Wisdom granted that Privilege unto And let me tell you your Simile quite overthrows your own Argument for if God because he is graciously pleased to acquit our Children who die in their Infancy from the Original Guilt they brought into the World with them through the Atonement made by Jesus Christ and in token thereof had commanded us to baptize them the Case was clear and our Controversy was at an end but since he has not required us to do any such thing whatever Grace or Favour he is pleased to afford to any of our Infants we have no Warrant to baptize them his Will and Law and not our Fancies being that which gives us Authority to do all we do in his Name or Worship If God had commanded us to baptize our Infants we would no more say that Action would be insignificant to our Children no more than Circumcision was to Children under the Law whom God required to be Circumcised 5. Besides in the last place Baptism doth not by God's appointment belong to them who are capable of the Benefits or Blessings signified thereby as Remission of Sin and Regeneration c. but only to such who are capable to repent and profess Faith in Christ these we say and none else ought to be baptized if the Royal Charter or Grant of the Lord Jesus be observed in the case of a regal Right to Baptism Suppose the King should grant to you and to all in your Parish who have been Traitors to him who are skilled or learned in the Mathematicks and understand the Law to be Officers in some of his Courts and will then also upon submission pardon you and them of all your horrid Crimes will you upon this carry up several ignorant unskilful Persons who are in your Parish tho as guilty of Treason as your selves and offer them to the King to be Officers and Clerks in his Courts who indeed as they are untaught in that Art so see not their own Guilt nor submit themselves to the Mercy of the King and say yet they are capable of Pardon and to receive the Sallary also Sir All that are to be baptized are by virtue of the great Commission of our Saviour to be first taught and made Disciples by teaching and take heed you add not to his Word nor attempt to invert the Order of the Charter and gracious Grant of the King of Heaven and Earth nor go about as you do to make void his Commands by your own Traditions 2. In pag. 15. you say Infants are not less capable of Regeneration of their Nature than of Remission of Sins it being certain that no unclean thing can enter into Heaven that none can be saved whose Natures are not renewed either the sanctifying Grace of God say you must be allowed Infants or Salvation must be denied them Regenerating Grace is called by St. John the Seed of Grace 1 John 3.9 No way hinders but that the Soul of an Infant may be as capable of this Seed as of a grown Person for say you I argue thus '
or Oil in Baptism which some of the Ancient Fathers used as Mr. Perkins notes or Salt and Spittle which Practice is still as I said before in the Romish Church Where is the extream Vnction forbid or Auricular Confession or to use Beads in Prayer and a hundred more such Romish Popperies may these things be therefore done Because we read not they are forbid I thought adding to God's Word was forbidden Rev. 22. But we will repeat your Words to see the Strength of your Argument Search the Scripture and produce me say you one Instance if you can from the time St. John the Baptist to the Death of St. John the Evangelist which was more than threescore Years during which time many thousands of Infants were grown up to Maturity and make it appear they were not baptized in their Infancy or that their Baptism was deferred till riper Years or that there is any Divine Command for the delaying the Baptism of Children of Christian Parents until they are grown up and I will frankly yield the Cause Bravely spoken Answ I must retort this Argument back again upon you also and shew 't is a great Argument against Infant-Baptism and not for it For say I let it be considered that since there was such a long Space of time as 60 Years and much longer between John Baptist and the Death of John the beloved Disciple or John the Evangelist during which time many thousands of Infants were born of baptized Believers both Jews and Gentiles Now Reader pray observe Mr. Burkit says in the Gospel-Day and when our Saviour sent his Disciples first to preach they were to teach or make Disciples of those they baptized but upon the Parents believing and being baptized he says their Children were admitted to Baptism also Now say I since many Parents thus taught and baptized had Multitudes of Infants born to them How comes it about that we read not of one of their Infants were baptized no not from the time of John Baptist to the Death of John the Evangelist Can any Man think had any Infants been baptized that God would not have left some account of it to put the matter out of doubt especially since it was never taught doctrinally or commanded certainly it could not stand consistent with the Care Wisdom and Faithfulness of Jesus Christ to have hid and concealed such a Practice had there been one Infant by his Authority or Allowance baptized But since the Scripture is silent in it we may assure our selves 't is not the Will of God Infants should be baptized Also if those who were to be baptized were first to be taught were first to repent and believe then it follows clearly that Baptism must be deferred till Children were of ripe Years and able so to do We come to what you say in pag. 28. where you tell us of a cloud of Witnesses for Infant-Baptism in the Churches after the Apostles time Answ And so you may if you pass the first 2 or 3 hundred Years after Christ and many Errors besides which crept amain into the Churches But pray remember Sir now you are without Book you are forced to quit the Holy Bible that sacred History and great Charter of the Church and therefore all your Proof out of humane History which may be true or may not be true signifies just nothing But you had best take heed lest we carry the Cause against you here too i. e. for the first Centuries we will examine your Authors and humane Testimonies The first is Vossius a later Writer I know not but you may have Ireneus and St. Cyprian out of him I do confess Ireneus lived not above 200 Years after Christ or in the second Century Thus you and others cite him viz. Omnes venit Christus per semetipsum salvare omnes qui per eum renascuntur ad Deum Infantes parvulos juniores seniores In English thus Jesus Christ came to save all by himself all who by him are born again unto God Infants and little ones Young and Old Answ Reader pray observe here is not a word of one Infant baptized but Mr. Burkit infers it from his Words so that we have nothing but Consequence yet neither from God's Word nor the Words of Man Christ no doubt came to save some of all sorts of Men and who doubts but he came to save Infants and little ones young and old But why must those Words who are born again be applied to Infant-Baptism The Scope of Ireneus in that Chapter is to refute the Grosticks who said that Christ did not exceed one and thirty Years of Age against whom Ireneus alledged that Christ lived in every Age of Infancy Youth Old and Age that by his Age and Example he might sanctify every Age. So that here Ireneus speaks not of being born again by Baptism for he saith Omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur in Deum i. e. I say all which are born again by him to God i. e. by Christ not as if he had baptized Infants but because he i. e. Christ was an Infant that by the Example or Vertue of his Age he might sanctify Infants as the whole Discourse in Latin plainly shews viz. Magister ergo existens Magistri quoque habebat aetatem non reprobans nec supergrediens hominem neque solvens suam legem in se humani generis sed omnem aetatem sanctificans per illam c. 2. As to Cyprian he lived as I find it in History about 248 or 300 Years after Christ and should I tell the Reader what Corruptions and Errors were let in about that time he would not wonder to hear Infants were allowed Baptism yet we have Cyprian against Cyprian It is true as far as I can gather in his time Infant-Baptism was first introduced without any Ground or Warrant from Christ and it was as strongly opposed which appears by the Debates and Doubts about it 3. The third humane Authority you bring is that cursed Decree of the Milevetan Council that all who denied Infant-Baptism should be Anathema accursed If you come but a little lower you have Proof enough in the Popish Councils Decrees and Canons But 't is to be observed that those Fathers pleaded for Infant-Baptism as that which took away Original Sin and gave Children the Eucharist too in the first Sacrament abusing that Text John 3.5 and in the other that in John 6.53 These are all your humane Proofs from the Churches after the Primitive Apostolical Days which you bring and I doubt not but to give you better and more Authentick Authority from some of the ancient Fathers against Infant-Baptism than you have brought for it and some of them nearer the Apostles Days too The first is Justin Martyr though I have him not yet take his Words as they are cited by Mr. Richard Baxter's Saints Rest Cap. 8. Sect. 5. I will declare unto you how we offer up our selves