more nor with any who are of your Spirit but if you write again let it be in Love and not in Wrath not hard Words but hard Arguments and you will not offend your abused Friend and Servant who wishes well to your Soul John Tredwel Preston-Place April 30 1692. A Certificate under the Hands of several sober and impartial Persons WHereas Mr. Burkit of Mildin in the County of Suffolk hath in his late Book called An argumentative and practical Discourse of Infant-Baptism very unjustly reproached the People called Anabaptists and particularly Mr. John Tredwell Preacher of God's Word declaring that he the said Tredwell hath lately at Kittle-Baston in the said County of Suffolk baptized several Persons in a nasty Horse-pond into which the Filth of the adjacent Stable occasionally flows and that the People baptized in the said Pond came forth with much Mud and Filthiness upon them c. We whose Names are hereunto subscribed do solemnly certify and declare to the whole World that those Reports and Assertions of the said Mr. Burkit are uttâ—rly and notoriously false for we taking a strict View of the said Pond and Stable find the Dung or Filth of the said Stable runs the quite contrary way from the Pond into the Road. Moreover we solemnly certify and declare that the Persons who were baptized in the said Pond came forth without the least Speck or Spot of Dirt or Filth upon their Clothes the Water being clean In witness whereof we have set our Hands this 3d Day of May 1692. John Tyril sen Gent. Baptists William Brown Not Bapt. Samuel Denny David Sare jun. Thomas Cable Thomas Game William Steward William Boram Thomas We le Thomas Boss  John Noble THE EPISTLE TO THE READER Christian Reader IT grieves and afflicts my very Soul to see such Strifes Animosities and Bitterness of Spirit amongst Christians because of that Difference there is amongst us in respect of some Truths of Jesus Christ in a time when we are all threatned by the common Enemy I am afraid it is the Fore-runner of a dismal Hour which is coming upon us But indeed of all who have of late come forth against us called Anabaptists none have shewed a worser Spirit than this Mr. Burkit who writes himself Rector of Mildin in Suffolk and that which troubles me the more is what I have lately heard by a worthy Gentleman concerning him i. e. That he is look'd upon as a sober Person and one also well affected to the present Government would all his Brethren in that respect were like-minded But in this Attempt of his I know not what he aims at Should we not all unite together in Love and Affection and strive to promote Peace and Concord and not tear one another in pieces after this manner I am sure this cannot tend to the Honour of God which he has done nor to the Service of the Church or State but we have been provoked by him to vindicate our selves and therefore none who are unprejudiced can blame us Should we suffer our selves to be loaded with Reproach and Infamy and not endeavour in a just way to clear our selves and that Truth of Christ we are so well established in from the certain Testimony of the sacred Scripture and must we be exposed for making God's Word our only Rule herein as a corrupt and erronious sort of People because we affirm from thence Believers only are the true Subjects of Baptism and that Baptizing is Dipping and not Rantising especially since 't is well known in all the Articles of Religion we are acknowledged to be sound and orthodox and that by our Adversâ—ries themselves only this is the out-cry you deny Infant-Baptism The reason of which Reader thou wilt see if thou dost but weigh well what is said in the ensuing Treatise And now to you my Brethren who own this despised Truth of Christ viz. The Baptism of Believers let me give you one Caution i. e. Take heed you are not ashamed of Christ or to own his holy Appointment or his Servants because reproached by ill Men or others through undue Prejudice left Christ be ashamed of you when he comes at the last Day in the Glory of the Father with all his holy Angels Reader there are two things I would desire thee to note First That I have repeated some of my Answers to Mr. Burkit often partly because he repeats the same Arguments and partly because I would indeavour to make it clearly to appear that many or most of his Arguments he brings to prove Infants ought to be baptized do as fully and as apparently tend to prove Infants ought to receive the Lord's Supper therefore I have drawn almost upon every like Occasion the same Inferences for that as he hath for the other which I intreat you to consider well of Secondly Whereas you will find both Hebrew Greek Latin German Dutch as well as English made use of other more or less in the insuing Answer I would not have you think I understand all those Languages but I have had the Assiâ—tance of a Learned Person tho in that case only who is my Friend and Acquaintance that so the Work might the more fully and effectually be done I 'll say no more but leave it to the Blessing of God and thy serious Examination and remain yours in the Lord's Service in the Work of the Gospel Benjamin Keach From my House near Horsly-down Southwark May 12 1692. THE Rector Rectified and Corrected OR Infant-Baptism Unlawful CHAP. I. Disproving the Arguments for Infant-Baptism taken from Circumcision With several Arguments proving the Covenant of Circumcision no gospel-Gospel-Covenant Confuting also the Arguments for Infant-Baptism from the pretended Jewish-Baptism AS to you Six Propositions I shall begin with the first and so speak to them in order Proposition I. Your first is this viz. That Baptism by Water is a Sacrament of the New Testament instituted by Jesus Christ for the solemn admission of the Party baptized into the visible Church and to be a Sign and Seal unto them of the Covenant of Grace Answ You and I are thus far agreed save only I deny that Baptism is any where in God's Word called a Seal of the Covenant of Grace for if it was then all Persons baptized have all the Blessings of the Covenant of Grace made sure to them I know no other Seal of the Covenant of Grace but the Holy Spirit I mean that seals those Covenant-Blessings and Spiritual Priviledges to our Souls see Ephes 1. 13 14. Chap. 4.30 Whereas you say the Quakers who disown any Baptism in Water were once our Proselytes is not true of the greatest part of them tho some few of them might depart from that Faith and Profession we are of Many others of them you cannot be ignorant come from you and some from the Presbyterians c. Nor could our Practice of baptizing none but Believers or such who make a Profession of Faith midwive their evil and
new Covenant which God would make with the House of Israel which should not be according to the old he goes on and tells us what God would do in that Covenant-day that he would put his Law into their inward parts and write it in their Hearts And they shall teach no more every Man his Neighbour and every Man his Brother saying Know the Lord for they shall all know-me from the least of them unto the greatest of them saith the Lord c. And indeed in this very respect the Gospel-Covenant is not according to the old as the Lord said it should not be as well as in divers other cases for many of those who were in the old Covenant to which Circumcision did appertain were Infants tho all of them were not taken in by Circumcision for Female Infants were received into that old Covenant without it Now these Children who were taken into that Covenant did not know the Lord. Infants having no Understanding know not their right Hand from their left it is therefore impossible they should know the Lord and therefore also there was a necessity after they were in that Covenant that they should be taught to know the Lord First that God is and what a God he is and so to know him as to fear him and serve him in Sincerity But in the Gospel-Covenant God promised it should be otherwise all who were received into that Covenant should be Adult Persons or such who did know the Lord which plainly implies no ignorant Infant should be taken into that Covenant and be a Member of that Church-State for if so then it would follow such would have the like need to be taught to know the Lord as they had in the old Covenant Church-State And remakable it is that this Text doth clearly intimate that all who should be taken into the Gospel-Covenant or Gospel-Church should be discipled or taught first to know God for to be taught or discipled is all one and the same thing which agrees with Christ's great Commission Matth. 28.19 20. where he gave Directions who or what kind of Persons they were to be that he would have his Apostles receive into his Gospel-Church and that they should be all of them first taught or made Disciples and as such be baptized is clearly declared Now that this Text in Jer. 31. refers to the Gospel-Covenant is evident see Heb. 8.7 8 9 10. That Covenant that was a part or branch of the old Covenant or Covenant of Works was not a Covenant of Grace or gospel-Gospel-Covenant But the Covenant of Circumcision was a part or branch of the old Covenant or Covenant of Works Ergo The Covenant of Circumcision was not a Covenant of Grace or Gospel-Covenant The Major cannot be denied The Minor is easily proved That which bound or obliged all those who were under it or did it to keep the whole Law and was also abrogated or taken away by Christ with all the other Rites and Shadows of the old Covenant was a part or branch of the said old Covenant But Circumcision bound or obliged all who were circumcised to keep the whole Law and also the same Rite of Circumcision was abrogated with all other Rites and Shadows of the old Covenant by Christ Ergo Circumcision was a part or branch of the old Covenant See Gal. 5 〈◊〉 testify to every Man that is circumcised that he is a Debtor to keep the whole Law That Covenant which was in its nature and quality as much a Covenant of Works as the Covenant made with Adam or the sinai-Sinai-Covenant sinai- was not a Covenant of Grace or gospel-Gospel-Covenant whereof Christ is the Mediator But the Covenant of Circumcision was in its nature and quality as much a Covenant of Works as that Covenant made with Adam or the sinai-Sinai-Covenant Ergo The Covenant of Circumcision waâ— not a Covenant of Grace or gospel-Gospel-Covenant Read Reverend Mr. Philip Cary's Desence and Proof of the substance of this Argument in his just Reply to Mr. John Flavel p. 59 60. Thus he says and doubeless speaks the truth viz. That Adam's Covenant was a Covenant of Works cannot rationally be denied for as much as Life was implicitly promised unto him upon his Obedience and Death was explicitly threatn'd in case of his Disobedience upon these terms he was to stand or fall And that the sinai-Sinai-Covenant was of the same nature he hath in the said Treatise clearly proved both of them requiring perfect Obedience and neither of them admitting of Faith in a Redeemer the Sinai-Covenant commanded perfect Obedience under the pain of a Curse Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that is written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3. 10. It accepted as he shews of no short Endeavours nor gave any Strength and is called a Ministration of Death and of Condemnation 2 Cor. 3. And moreover 't is called in express terms the old Covenant which God made with the Children of Israel when he brought them up out of the Land of Egypt Heb. 8.9 Also the new Covenant is said to be directly contrary unto it or not according to it but opposed thereto and that there was no Righteousness by it nor Life for as the Apostle shews if there had Christ is dead in vain and besides the Apostle says 't is done away Now all these things being considered Mr. Flavel 't is evident doth but beat the Air and darken Counsel and all that he hath said in his last Book in answer to that worthy Gentleman Mr. Cary deserves no further Answer Now saith he that the Covenant of Circumcision is of the same stamp is evident for tho God promised to be a God to Abraham and to his Seed Gen. 17. 7 8. as he did also in the Sinai-Covenant to the same People in the Wilderness yet still it was upon condition of Obedience with an answerable threatning in case of Disobedince ver 9 10. Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy Seed after thee Every Man-Child shall be circumcised And ver 14. The uncircumcised Male-Child whose Flesh of his sore-Skin is not circumcised that Soul shall be cut off from his People he hath broken my Covenant The same terms saith he with the former Besides 't is evident that Circumcision indiâ—pensibly obliged all that were under it to a perfect universal Obedience to the whole revealed Will of God as I hinted before Gal. 5.3 And as the Terms were the same so were the Promises that which was the great Promise of the Covenant of Circumcision was the Land of Canaan and God to be their God in fulfilling that earthly Promise to Abraham's Natural Seed upon the Condition of the keeping that Covenant on their parts That which Mr. Flavel hath said in his last Reply in his Book called A succinct and seasonable
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-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-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
Honour and Faithfulness of Christ since the Apostles to whom he delivered his Commission were Jews and since at the same time it was a continual and setled Custom among the Jews to baptize Men Women and Children of proselyted Heathens and Infants being not exempted out of the Commission To which I have in this Treatise given a full Answer Arg. VIII If there be but one Baptism in Water left by Christ in the New Testament and but one way or manner of Right for all both Parents and Children to be admitted into the Church and that one Baptism in Water is that of the Adult who upon their Profession of Faith ought to be baptized and so admitted into the Church Then none either Parents or Children must be admitted either to Baptism or into the Church without such a Profession of Faith But the former is true There is no need the Scripture should particularly mention the Ends of Pedo-Baptism since there is but one Baptism for all though more Subjects to that one Baptism You run say they too fast and take it for granted that Baptism is only of the Adult Answ Since there is but one Baptism mentioned in Scripture and that is of the Adult and the End â—nd Design of Christ in it is expresly laid down as to that We say therefore there is Reason why the End of Infant-Baptism should be certain and we run not too fast We say the Subjects are but one since the Baptism is but one and manner of Right thereto being but one also Arg. IX If no Parents at any time or times have been by God the Father Jesus Christ or his Apostles either commended for baptizing their Children or reproved for not baptizing them then Infant-Baptism is no Ordinance of God but the former is true Ergo. Your Answer saith The Athenian Society is answered unless you will destroy Laying on of Hands one of the Principles of the Christian Religion none were ever commended 〈◊〉 reproved for ever being or not being subject to that c. Answ Do we â—â—t read in Acts 8.17 Acts 19.6 that those Men and Women who were baptized did subject to Laying on of Hands being Believers as such Sure what is said of their coming under it or submitting to it is spoken to their Commendation However as 't is called a Principle of Christ's Doctrine Heb. 6.1 2. so here are two Precedents of Persons that subjected to it Shew us the like as to Infant-Baptism Arg. X. Baptism is Dipping Infants are not dipped Ergo Infants are not baptized As to the other Arguments sent to the Athenian Society with their Answers I have spoken to several of them in this Treatise and I shall add no more new but â—eâ—ve all I have said to the Blessing of God hoping the time is near when this Truth I contend for will be cleared up to all which is now to enrich despised that Wisdom may be justified of her Children and God may be honoured to whom be Glory now and for ever-more Amen FINIS Faults escap'd the Press Page 10. line 13 14 15. blot out the double Comma's Page 25. line 22. for makes mention read makes no mention There are other Errata's and dispointing which the Reader is desired to correct Arg. 1. Arg. 2. * Exod. 12.3 4. They were to take to them a Lamb according to the number of Souls in the House See Mr. Tomb's Anti-Pedo-Baptism The Pedo-Baptists Argument Mr Tomb's Answer Milevit Conc. Joh. 1.25 * The Athenian Society detected in their 12 Numbers to their fifth Volume Here the Athenian Society may see their first Query fully answered of Infants being once in Covenant and never cast out are in still All Nations takes in Pagans c. and their Children 1 Thess 5.17 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arg. 2. He should have mentioned Circumcision in his Propositions Mr. Burkit's Syllogism not true in form The Covenant God made with Abraham proved to be a mix'd Covenant partly Gospel and partly Legal See Mr. Tombs Exercit. p. 2. Arg. 1. The Athenian Society confuted Arg. 2. Arg. 3. Covenant of Circumcision no Covenant of Grace Arg. 1. Being the Children of Abraham as such gave them no right to Circumcision Arg. 3. Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham belonged to the ungodly as well as the godly Arg. 4. All in the new Covenant need not be taught to know the Lord. A necessity that Infants be taught to know the Lord. Arg. 5. The Covenant of Circumcision a Covenant of Works Circumcision obliged Persons to keep the whole Law Arg. 6. Covenant of Circumcision of the same nature with the Sinai-Covenant Mr. Flavel answered in what he says in his Book p. 217. The Sinai Covenant called the Old or first Covenant in the Scripture See Mr. Tombs The New Covenant had divers Additions or Transcripts or divers Ministrations Arg. 7. Faith not reckoned to Abraham â—â— Circumcision Arg. 8. Covenant of Faith and that of Circumcision contradistinguished Arg. 9. Circumcision a Yoke of Bondage Infants saved by the Covenant of Redemption or by Christ's Vndertakings Circumcision a Priviledg on condition of keeping the Law Infants the Members once of the Jewish-Church yet not of the Gospel-Church Arg. 10. The Old Covenant and Old Covenant-Seed both cast out Heb. 10.9 The Old Church-state of the Jews is gone 1 Pet. 2.5 Infant Church-Membership came in with the Old Covenant and is gone with it I had this Simile once before but because it is so full I repeat it The Athenian Society's first Query more fully answered External Privileges under the Law greater than ours under the Gospel Mr. Ball 's Posit 3 4 p. 38. The old Covenant and Church of the Jews dissolved See Mr. Cary's Solemn Call Pedo-baptists Argument for Believers Seed c. of ill consequence Mr. Burkits first Argument to prove the Covenant of Circumcision a gospel-Gospel-Covenant All God's Covenanting Transactions since the Fall are by means of the Mediator The Sinai Covenant a Covenant of Works Mr. Burkits 2d Arg. Mr. Burkits 3d Arg. The happy State of all in the Covenant of Grace Mart. Luther on Gal. 3. p. 115. Perkins Vol. 2. cap. 3 on Galat. p. 242. Mr. Burkits third Argument to prove Infant Baptism Infants had the Lord's Supper formerly given to them Seed or Habit of Grace remains where infused and its Effects will appear * As if Christ passed through Regeneration or change of Nature Baptism makes no Persons Christians * These words be cites were wrote by Dr. Taylor Pool's Annotat. Athenian Society say Females were circumcised by some People formerly Infants may be capable to be saved and yet not capable Subjects of Baptism Baptism cannot save the Souls of Infants The Parents Baptism may serve for the Child as well as the Parents Faith Various thoughts among Pedo-Baptists what Faith Infants have See Mr. Danvers Perkins 2 vol. cap. 3. on Gal. p. 257. Baxter's Right of Baptism p. 149 150. Mr. Burkit's sense of the order of
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
hath laid down as an Everlasting Rule That unless a Man be born again he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3.3 requiring Regeneration as an indispensable Condition in a Member of his Church a Subject of his Kingdom for his Temple is now built of living Stones 1 Pet. 2.5 Men spiritual and savingly quickned from their Death in Sin and by the Holy Ghost whereof they are Partakers made a meet Habitation for God Ephes 2.21 22. 1 Cor. 3.16 2 Cor. 6.16 which vital Supplies from Christ its Head encreaseth in Faith and Holiness edifying it self in Love And saith Dr. Taylor they that baptize Children make Baptism to be wholly an outward Duty a Work of the Law a carnal Ordinance it makes us adhere to the Letter without regard of the Spirit to be satisfied with Shadows to return to Bondage to relinquish the Mysteriousness the Substance and Spirituality of the Gospel which Argument is of so much the more consideration because under the Spiritual Covenant or Gospel of Grace if the Mystery goes not before the Symbol which it does when the Symbols are signations of Grace as the Sacraments are yet it always accompanies it but never follows in order of Time And this is clear in the perpetual Analogy of Holy Scripture The Lord open your Eyes Sir I am perswaded you speak as you believe But to proceed You come in pag. 26. to the Gospel-Church 1. From the Command of Christ 2. From the Practice of the Apostles 3. From the constant usage of the Primitive Church after the Apostles 1. That Infants were to be admitted into the Christian Church you say appears from our Saviour's express Command in the words of the Commission Mat. 28.19 Go disciple all Nations baptizing them that is go and proselyte all the Gentile Nations without distinction of Country Sex or Age whatsoever make the Gospel-Church as large as you can Answ 1. Who is so blind as he who is not willing to see It is evident to all Men who understand what they read that none are to be baptized by the virtue and plain meaning of our Saviour's Commission but such only who are first made Disciples as I have proved or as St. Mark renders it such who believed And that 't is so I have already proved 1. From the Practice of Christ John 4.1 he first made Disciples and then baptized them 2. From the Practice of the Apostles who always required Faith and Repentance of such they by virtue of their Commission did baptize as Acts 2.37 8.27 10.47 3. From the Nature of the Ordinance it self it being a sign of that inward Grace the Person baptized ought to have 4. From the Nature of the Gospel-Church it being only built up of living Stones and to be no larger than Christ appointed it But say you pag. 27. doubtless had our Saviour here intended the exclusion of Infants out of the Visible Church he would have acquainted her with this Alteration Christ being faithful to him that appointed him as was Moses in all his House Heb. 3.2 Answ I must retort it back upon you with much better Reason Doubtless say I had our Saviour intended the admission of Infants he would at this time have acquainted his Disciples and so us that it was his Will they should be received since as you well say he was so faithful and the rather because he commanded his Disciples to receive into his Church such who were taught or made Disciples When he commanded Abraham to circumcise his Male-Infants Abraham knew well enough he was not to circumcise his Females though he received no Negative Law in the case What is not commanded I say again is forbid especially in all Instituted Worship or else whither shall we run Thus your first Proof is gone having nothing in it 2. Baptizing Infants appears in the Christian Church you say from the Practice of the Apostles who baptized whole Families i. e. Lydia and her Houshold Acts 16.15 the Jaylor and all his c. Answ 1. If there were no Families or Housholds but in which there are some Infants you might have some pretence for what you infer from hence but how palpable is it that there are every where many whole Families in which there is no Infant or Child in Non-age and this being so what certain Conclusion or Consequence can be drawn from hence 2. Besides you know by a certain Figure called a Synecdoche a part is put for the whole as Isa 7.2 5 8 9. the Tribe of Ephraim is put for all Israel 'T is said All Jerusalem and Judea went out to be baptized by John in Jordan In 1 Sam. 1.21 22. the Text saith expresly The Man Elkanah and all his House went up to offer unto the Lord yet in the next Verse 't is as expresly said That Hannah and her Child Samuel went not up and yet 't is said all his House went up 3. As touching the Jaylor's House 't is positively said Paul preached to him and to all that were in his House do you think he preached to his Infants if he had any And to put the Matter out of doubt 't is said He rejoiced believing in God with all his House as well as 't is said He was baptized and all his 4. And as touching Lydia we still say 't is uncertain whether she was a Maid Widow or Wife but if she was married and had Children 't is very unlikely if Babes that they were at that time with her because she was far from her proper Dwelling nay many Miles from it for she was of the City Thyatira vers 14. but when Paul preached to her she was at Philippi where she was merchandizing being a seller of Purple Can we suppose she carried her little Babes so far to Market Besides those of her House were called Brethren who were baptized with her therefore sure Children cannot be here meant vers 40. Will you Sir build your practice of baptizing of little Babes from such uncertain Conclusions when 't is uncertain whether she had Children or no or if she had whether they were with her at that time or not Our denying of it is as good as your affirming it yet 't is plain she had Servants or some who are called her Houshold therefore that is impertinent you mention in p. 28. And thus it appears to all impartial Persons that there is nothing in your second Proof touching the Practice of the Gospel-Church here 's no mention made of one Infant baptized nor the least Colour of Reason to conclude there were in those Families But you in the next place put us upon searching the Scripture to prove a Negative i. e. that there were none baptized in Infancy you might as well bid us search and see if we can find there were not one Infant who broke Bread or were not ordained an Elder or Pastor of a Church How can we prove they did not make use of Honey
washes not away the Filth of the Flesh Or is not Original Pollution a Filth of the Flesh what Stuff is this you would force upon us and the World We affirm Infants are no more capable of this Ordinance than any other Why do you say of no Rite but this We challenge all the World by God's Word to prove they are capable of Baptism any more than of the Lord's Supper 4. You say Baptism administred to Infants has this Advantage That it puts the Christian upon more bitter mourning for actual Sin from the consideration of that shameful Perjury and wilful Apostacy that is found in such Persons Sin Answ 1. I find you are one of Mr. Williams his Brethren i.e. you are of his Belief it seems but tremble at the thoughts of the Consequences of your Doctrine Have not your Children when grown up enough Sins to mourn for and bewail before Almighty God but you must bring them into a Covenant which you knew they would break when they come to riper Age and such is the pravity of human Nature there is no avoiding of it without a supernatural Work of Grace their Burden is heavy enough you need not add to it 2. Is it not sad that you should give cause to your Children to think they are guilty of Perjury when in truth they never were nor of Apostacy from God upon that account our first Apostacy was bad enough you need not go about to make them guilty of another Alas their pretended Baptism never brought them one step nearer to God than those Children are who never were baptized in their Infancy at all where then is the Apostacy you speak of 3. You hereby bring them under a necessity of committing of the Sin of Perjury and of Apostacy at leastwise in your own conceit and in theirs too if they can believe what you say and so to cause them to mourn for that or those Sins most which may be if all things were rightly considered are no Sins at all I do not mean that any of their actual Transgressions may not be Sin but that they are not guilty of Perjury and Apostacy by breaking that you call their Baptismal Covenant for if God brought them not into that Covenant nor into any Covenant-relation with himself thereby I cannot see how there should be such a Sting in the Tail of it as you affirm and imagine and indeed had they themselves of their one accord and consent entred into an unlawful or an unwarrantable Covenant which they were no ways able to perform it may be doubted whether it would be Perjury in them if they kept it not besides I hope they have not forsworn themselves how then is it Perjury 4. Moreover I desire all those Parents who baptize their Children and you also to consider in the fear of God the natural Tendency and Consequences of your bringing poor Babes into such a Covenant 1. That you force them to enter into this Covenant without any Authority or Command from God for I challenge you and all Pedo-Baptists in the World to prove God hath any-where directly or indirectly required any such thing at your Hands 2. Consider that 't is not only a Reformation of Life or a bare refraining from the gross Acts of Sin that you assert is comprehended in this Baptismal Covenant you cause Infants to enter into but it is Regeneration it self i. e. a change of Heart and savingly to believe in Christ this you oblige your poor Babes to perform Now what Arminianism is here fomented if once you say or think they are capable to perform this Obligation but if they do not do it woe be to them Moreover what guilt do you bring the poor Sureties under unless they stand obliged no longer then the Child abides in Infancy and if so what need of their Obligation at all if you intend no more 3. Consider you brought them into this Covenant without their Knowledg or Consent they never subscribed to it nor knew any thing of it nor were they capable so to do 4. Consider whatever you think that such is the pravity of their Natures by means of our first Apostacy from God or Original Sin that they do and must of necessity break it as I said before unless God should by supernatural Grace change their Hearts and Natures and remove the vicious Habits thereof which you had not the least ground to believe he would do or leastwise to all or the greatest part of them God having made no such promise and by woful experience we daily see many or most of those Children are never converted but from the Womb go astray and are guilty of almost of all manner of abominable Sins and so live and die As to the Adult 1. Consider as I said before 1. That all Believers God himself doth require or command in his Word to enter into this Baptismal Covenant 2. And they before they enter into it have a Principle of Divine Life infused into their Souls or Grace implanted in their Hearts having passed under the Work of Regeneration being dead to Sin of which Baptism is a lively Symbol or is as your Church says an outward Sign of an inward spiritual Grace Not as Mr. Baxter observes a Sign or Symbol of future but of present Regeneration which is confirmed by what St. Paul teaches Rom. 6.2 How shall we that are dead to Sin live any longer therein not may be dead but are dead and so are buried with Christ in Baptism vers 3 4. If you say all Adult Persons baptized are not converted c. I answer They appear so to be and as such voluntarily enter into this Covenant besides God does not require them without Faith to do it Baptism doth not only represent the Death and Burial of Christ but also signifies our Death to Sin or that blessed Work of Mortification of the Body of Sin and Death by which means Believers who enter into this Baptismal Covenant are put into a gracious and meet capacity to perform that sacred Obligation but so are not Infants 3. That every true Believer baptized considers ponders upon and weighs with all seriousness and deliberation imaginable the Nature of this Covenant before he signs it And 4. That he doth it freely voluntarily and with his full liking approbation and consent neither of which do nor can do those poor Infants you force to enter into this Covenant These things considered it appears as it is a sinful Act in you to bring them into this Covenant since 't is done without Command or Authority from God so 't is cruelty also towards your own Babes by making them to be come guilty of Perjury and thereby damning as Mr. Williams says their own Souls 5. Consider every true Believer that is listed under Christ's Banner by entring into this Baptismal Covenant is by Christ compleatly armed i. e. he hath the Christian Armor put upon him Ephes 6. he has the Breastplate of
declared all things plainly from the Father and was faithful as a Son over his own House 2. That which is not contained in his last Will and Testament in this and other matters is sufficient to declare his Mind and Will in the Negative And so you know 't is in all last Wills and Testaments among Men if it be not expressed in the Affirmative it needs not be expressed in the Negative and if not because 't is not forbidden it may be done so may a hundred things more nay many Jewish Rites and Popish Innovations too for where are they forbid The sum therefore of our Answer to all you say upon this account is this The Privileges which are Rites Ordinances or Sacraments are not so many as you would have or so many as the Jews of old had nor are they to be administred according as you fancy or approve of or according to your Reasonings but according to God's express Appointment Rightly doth Mr. Ball in his forementioned Book speak Posit 3 4. p. 38. But in whatsoever Circumcision and Baptism do agree or differ we must look to the Institution and neither stretch it wider nor draw it narrower than the Lord had made it for he is the Instituter of the Sacraments according to his good Pleasure and it is our part to learn of him both to whom how and to what end the Sacraments are to be administered how they agree and wherein they differ in all which we must affirm nothing but what God hath taught us and as he hath taught us Were it not thus how could we deny or oppose the Papists seven Sacraments or condemn Salt Oil Spittle to be used in Baptism which they use in it seeing these are not forbid But well saith Tertullian Is it lawful because it is not forbidden 't is therefore not lawful because 't is not commanded You say Pag. 10. before you end this Argument Let me suggest one thing more to your Considerations namely What a mighty Stumbling-Block this Doctrine of the Anabaptists lays in the way of the Jews Conversion to Christianity Will this say you encourage a Jew's Conversion to embrace the Religion of Jesus to tell him of the high and glorious Privileges that he shall be interested in himself upon his believing on him but for his Children they are cast out Answ Did this stumble them in the Apostolical Days who were told that Circumcision availed nothing nor Vncircumcision the truth is if Circumcision availed nothing but was a Yoke of Bondage then why should that stumble them It might be a greater Stumbling-block in their way to tell them their Church-State and all their Privileges are now gone and now they must not look upon themselves better than the Gentiles no more Scepter in Judah no Land of Canaan no Temple no High-Priest the Levites Sons as such now no more Ministers no Succession of Priest-hood What of all this when they hear of better Privileges for them And that their Infants who die may go to Heaven tho not circumcised nor baptized and if they live to be Men and Women and do believe or God doth please to call them the Promise of Pardon of Sin and of the holy Spirit is to them and that they shall be saved Acts 2. 39. Are not they and all others told that old things are passed away and all things are become new c. 2 Cor. 5.16 Wherefore henceforth we know no Man after the Flesh it seems then that heretofore there had been a knowledg of Persons after the Flesh and 't is plain there was that because the Jews were of the natural or fleshly Seed of Abraham and were therefore all of them admitted to the Privilege of external Church-Membership while others were exempted But we see the Apostle resolves henceforth to disclaim any such Value Esteem Preference or Knowledg of them or any others upon the account of meer fleshly Descent And to this very purpose immediately subjoins in the following Verse Therefore if any Man be in Christ he is a new Creature old things now are past away and all things are become new the old Church and old Church-membership Privileges Rites and Ordinances and a new Church-State new Ordinances new Rites a new Seed and a new way of Introduction unto the participation of Gospel-Priviledges and Church-membership and if this should stumble them who can help it We know they have stumbled upon as bad Rocks as this Moreover denying Infants any right to Gospel-Ordinances cannot fill the Mouths of Jewish Children with clamorours and passionate Complaints against Christianity because they could not see Jewish Children had such benefit by Circumcision as you intimate no no they must yield to the Soveraign Will of the great Lord and plead for no more Privileges nor any otherwise than he sees good to ordain and appoint I am sure if what you say was true it is enough to fill the Mouths of poor Unbelievers Children among us who are Gentiles with clamorous Complaints against their Parents if they did regard what you say and doubtless there are more of them I mean more Children born of Ungodly Parents than such born of Godly Parents And what may they say and how may they expostulate their own Condition Alas alas sad is our State our Parents were wicked and ungodly People and we are by that means left of God to us belongs no Covenant no Sacraments nor hopes of Mercy God hath taken none but the Children of Godly Persons into Covenant We were baptized alas but had no right to it our Condition is as bad as the State of the Children of Pagans and Turks Sir if People did consider well the Purport of your Doctrine they must needs have their Hearts rise against you Nay all or most Children may be in a doubt whether their Parents were truly godly and so in Covenant or not for if not you must fly to some other Argument to prove their Baptism and Church-Privileges than that of their Parents being in Covenant True the case under the Law was another thing for if their Parents were Jews or the natural Seed of Abraham whether godly or not yet they knew they had right to those external Privileges And so much to your Absurdities and they are returned on your own Head In pag. 11. you lay down your Arguments to prove the Covenant made with Abraham was a Covenant of Grace 1. From the Language and Expression of it 2. From the Duration of it 3. From the Blessings by it 1. Your first Note is this The Language and Expression of it Gen. 17. 7. I will be a God unto thee and to thy Seed after thee Now say you is not this a pure Gospel-Phrase and shews it to be a Covenant with Abraham in Christ I pray how comes the Almighty God who upon the Breach of the Covenant of Works made with us in Adam became our enraged Enemy to be a God unto fallen Man any