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 was not a Covenant of Grace or gospel-Gospel-Covenant Read Reverend Mr. Philip Cary's Defence and Proof of the Substance of this Argument in his just Reply to Mr. John Flavel p. 59 60. Thus he says and doubtless 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 to him on his Obedience and Death was explicitly threatned in case of Disobedience upon these Terms he was to stand or fall And that the 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 are 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 farther 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 on condition of Obedience with an answerable Threatning in case of Disobedience 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 Ver. 14. The uncircumcised Male Child whose Flesh of his Foreskin 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 indispensably oblig'd all that were under it to a perfect universal Obedience to the whole revealed Will oâ— God a â—…ed before Gal. 5. 3. And as the Term 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 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 p 217 218 c. To which I answer by way of Concession yet you 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 such a second Ministration or Transcript of his righteous and holy Law tho not to Justification yet to aggravate his Sin and to his just Condemnation And doth not St. Paul assert the same thing Rom. 3 1â— 20 compared with Rom. 7. 13. That Sin by the Commandment or Law might become exceeding sinful So Gal. 3. 19. Nay I will 〈◊〉 always 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 to the Sinai Covenant and to the Covenant of Circumcision as all careful Readers who read the Epistles to the Romans Galatians and to the Hebrews may clearly find But to proceed Tho we say there is but one Covenant of Grace yet it is evident there were several distinct Ministrations of it or Additions to it and we say the Promise of the Gospel or gospel-Gospel-Covenant was the same in all Ages in respect of things promised with the nature and quality thereof which is a â—…ree and absolute Covenant without Works or any Conditions or foreseen Aâ—â—s 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 Preservation and Everlasting Life Yet this Evangelical Covenant had divers Forms or Transcripts of it which â—…ified 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 Women 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 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 Arg. 7. That Covenant in which Faith was not reckoned to Abraham or Righteousness could not be a Gospel-Covenant 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 Arg. 8 That Law or Covenant which is contradistinguished or opposed to 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. 4. 13. Ergo The Law or Covenant of Circumcision 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
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 administred 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 't is not forbidden 't is therefore unlawful because 't is not commanded 'T is further suggested by the Pedo-baptists by way of Objection viz. That it lays a mighty Stumbling-block I mean the Baptist Principle in the way of the Jews Conversion to Christianity Will this say they 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 câ—st out Answ Did this stumble them in the Apostolical Days who were told that Circumcision availed nothing nor Uncircumcision 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 Priesthood 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 please to call them the Promise of Pardon of Sin and of the Holy Spirit is to them and that they shall be saved Act. 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 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 bâ— 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-Privileges and Church-Membership and if this should stumble them who can help it we know they have stumbled upon as bad a Rock as this Moreover denying Infants any Right to Gospel-Ordinances cannot fill the Mouths of Jewish Children with clamorous 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 Sovereign Will of the great Lord and plead for no more Privileges nor any otherwise than he seems good to ordain and appoint I am sure if what you and other Pedo-baptists 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 are 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 this Doctrine they must needs have their Hearts rise against all the Broachers of it Nay all or most Children may be in 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 I have seen some Arguments fram'd by a Pedo-baptist in order to the proving that the Covenant made with Abraham was a Covenant of Grace and he endeavours to prove the same 1. From the Language and Expression of it 2. From the Duration of it 3. From the Blessings by it 1. The Language and Expression of it Gen. 17. 7. I will be a God unto thee and to thy Seed after thee Now say they 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 other ways than by a Mediator c. Answ 1. I have proved that there was a twofold Covenant made with Abraham 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 whole World and so he is by Creation and Providence 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 but nevertheless the Apostle expresly 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 you bring your poor Babes under being wholly without Divine Authority it is therefore voluntary and so forbid and sinful Secondly It is also directly repugnant to those Precepts Add not to his Word lest he reprove thee c. Thirdly Consider that Infants Baptismal Covenant is also directly repugnant to the nature of the Covenant of Grace rendring the Covenant of Grace to be of the same nature of the Covenant of Peculiarity God made with Abraham and his Natural Seed as such and so sutes only with the Baxterian Errors and Mr. William's New Scheme which renders the Covenant of Grace conditional according to the Covenant of Works Take Mr. Baxter's words viz. The Condition of the Covenant of Grace by which we have right to the Benefits of it is our Faith mark it or Christianity as it is meant by Christ in the Baptismal Covenant viz. to give up our selves in Covenant believing in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost renouncing the Contraries and that through this consent to the Christian Covenant called Faith alone is the full condition of our first right to the Benefits of that Covenant of which Justification is one Baxter's Fourth Proposit in his Preface to Dr. Tully 1. From hence note as Mr. Troughton observes Mr. Baxter doth not say that Christ's Righteousness apprehended by Faith doth justify us but Faith in a comprehensive Sense as it includeth Obedience to God according to this Covenant It appears that the Belief and Practice of the Christian Religion upon performance of their Infant Baptismal-Covenant is that Righteousness by which they are justified as the purport of Mr. Baxter's Sense 2. From hence also it appears that the Spring or Rise of this grand Baxterian Error is from Infants-Baptismal Covenant therefore Brethren 't is time to consider the danger of this unwarrantable Practice and evil Innovation D. Williams confirms Mr. Baxter's Notion Take his words What doth the Covenant bind thee to speaking of Infants Baptismal-Covenant His Answer is To be the Lord's in sincere Care to know love believe obey worship and serve him all my days and to depend on God thro Christ for all Happiness Rom. 6. 4. Quest What if a Child thro the love of Sin or vanity of Mind will not agree to this Covenant I answer saith he He then rejecteth Christ our Saviour and renounceth the Blessings of the Gospel Quest Is it a great Sin to refuse to agree to the Covenant to which thy Baptism engaged thee He answers It is the damning Sin and the Heart of all Sin Mr. Williams's Book called The Vanity of Youth pag. 131. 1 Reply From hence it appears that Mr. Baxter and Mr. Williams plainly declare that the terms and condition of the Covenant of Grace which must be performed by such that would be justified is to perform this Infant Baptismal-Covenant viz. sincerely to love believe obey worship and serve the Lord not Faith only whereby we receive Christ rely on Christ but the whole of that Obedience to which they were obliged by their Infant-Baptism 2. Observe also that it appears according to these Men that Unbelief is not the condemning Sin but the non-performance of this baptismal-Baptismal-Covenant 3. How are these Men left of God to darkness of their own Minds not only to affirm the Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace rendering it no better than a new Covenant of Works but also to make this devised and voluntary Infant Baptismal-Covenant to be the only Condition of it and of our Justification in the sight of God 4. Moreover They bring their poor Babes without any Authority from Christ under a Covenant and charge them with Perjury if they break it when grown up it they perform it they shall be pardoned justified and saved but they must be damn'd if they answer not the Rule of the Promise or Baptismal-Covenant which is to repent to be regenerated and so answer their new Law of Faith and sincere Obedience So that in this Covenant lies the Conditionality of their Covenant of Grace For no other formal Covenant is proposed by them to the People unless they are for Mr. Joseph Allen's voluntary Covenant contrived out of his own Head and proposed to all devout Adult Persons to enter into which no doubt is forbid by our Saviour as sinful he was a well-meaning Man And the Truth is his devised Covenant seems more plausible and reasonable than Infants Baptismal-Covenant because he would have none but such enter into his Covenant who are Adult Persons besides it must be with their own free Consent whereas Children are brought into theirs without their knowledg or consent and are obliged to do those things which they have no power to perform And as it is not required by the Lord so God hath made no Promise to them of Grace and Assistance to discharge the Obligation thereof Fourthly To conclude It is easy to gather from whence their Mistake doth arise about this Baptismal-Covenant which evidently appears to be from their applying it to false Subjects and so to bind such to perform those things which Christ never ordained Baptism to do viz. such that are in their Natural State or who when baptized believed not nor were capable so to do for your Brethren the Pedo-Baptists tell you that Baptism obligeth such as are baptized to believe and to become new Creatures not that they were such that then did believe c. And from hence it followeth that it is one of those Works or Acts of Obedience that go before Faith and therefore a dead Work and pleaseth not God as well as not required of him for all Works before Faith or Union with Christ are dead Works they not proceeding from a Spiritual Vital Principle It therefore appears from hence that Infant 's Baptismal-Covenant is directly also repugnant to Christ's true Baptismal-Covenant For evident it is that Christ's Baptism only belongs to Believers who are renewed regenerated and have Union with Christ and so in a justified State before baptized Our Baptism doth not oblige us to believe and to be regenerated or to die to Sin as such that were not dead before but it is a sign of that Faith and Death unto Sin we had when we were baptized or to shew that we were then dead to Sin c. How shall we that are dead to Sin live any longer therein Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his Death Or as being dead with him Therefore we are buried with him into Death Rom. 6. 2 3 4. Not buried alive or whilst dead in Sin No but as being dead to Sin Not to oblige us to be regenerated but as Persons who are regenerated before buried in Baptism And the Covenant of Baptism is to walk in newness of Life as being before quickned That like as Christ was raised from the dead by the Glory of the Father so we should walk in newness of Life I find Mr. Richard Baxter
shall be circumcised ver 10. 1st There were some who were circumcised to whom the Promise of the Gospel-Covenant God made with Abraham did not belong as Ishmael Esau c. God expresly said that his Covenant i. e. the Covenant of Grace was not establish'd with Ishmael but with Isaac and yet the Covenant of Circumcision belonged to Ishmael as well as to Isaac See Gen. 17. 20 21. As for Ishmael I have heard thee behold I have blessed him c. But my Covenant will I establish with Isaac whom Sarah shall bear unto thee c. Compare this with Rom. 7. 8 9. Not because they are the Seed of Abraham are they all Children that is Children of the Covenant of Grace or the Children of God but the Children of the Promise are coâ—…d for thy Seed See Gal 4. 29 30. Nay all that were in Abraham's House whether born there or Strangers or such who were bought with his Money were circumcited But will you say all these were in the Gospel-Covenant God made with him Moreover there were other Persons in Abraham's House who no doubt might some of them be in the Covenant of Grace and had the Promises belonging to them who were nevertheless not circumcised namely the Females also Male-Infants dying before the eighth day coming from Abraham Moreover other Godly Men who were not of Abraham's Family yet lived in his time as Melchisedec Lot Job c. none of these had right to be circumcised But if any object and say the Females were circumcised in the Males I answer with Mr. Tombs it is without Proof and by like nay perhaps greater Reason it may be said that the Children of Believers are baptized in the Persons of their Parents and therefore are not to be baptized in their own Persons Also 't is apparent that the Jews comprehended in that Covenant made with Abraham and circumcised accordingly were nevertheless not admitted to Baptism upon that root of account which had the Covenant of Circumcision been a Gospel-Covenant i. e. of the same nature I see no Reason why â—ohn Baptist should deny their Argument i. e. We are Abraham's Seed c. Hence it plainly appears that the right Evangelical Promises were not the adequate 〈◊〉 oâ— Circumcision but as I have before said 〈◊〉 Precept or express command of God to Abraham And from hence I shall infer this third Argument Aâ—g 3. That Covenant that was made with or did belou unto the Fleshly Seed of Abraham and ungodly ones as well as the godly was not a Covenant of Grace or Gospel-Covenant But the Covenant of Circumcision was made with or did belong to the Fleshly Seed of Abraham as Ishmael Esau and all the Lineal Seed of Abraham who were ungodly as well as to the godly Ergo The Covenant of Cirumcision was not a Covenant of Grace or Gospel-Covenant Arg. 4 If all who are in the Covenant of Grace or Gospel-Covenant do know the Lord from the greatest to the least of them then the Covenant of Circumcision could not be the Covenant of Grace or Gospel-Covenant But all who are in the Covenant of Grace or Gospel-Covenant do know the Lord from the greatest to the least of them Ergo The Covenant of Circumcision was not the Covenant of Grace This Argument is fully proved by that in Jer. 31. 32 33 34 speaking of the 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 the Gospel-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 though 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 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 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 it 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 remarkable 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 Mat. 28. 19 20. where he gave Direction 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-Gospel-Covenant is evident see Heb. 8. 7 8 9 10. Arg. 5. 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. 3. I testify to every Man that is circumcised that he is a Debtor to keep the whole Law Arg. 6. The Covenant which was in its nature and quality as much a Covenant of Works as that made with Adam or the sinai-Sinai-Covenant was not a Covenant of Grace or Gospel-Covenant
which I have already proved that that Covenant that is not of Faith must be a Covenant of Works there being 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 Arg. 9. That Covenant that is plainly represented to us in Scripture as a bondage-Bondage-Covenant in and by which there was imposed such a Yoke upon the Necks of the Jews which neither those in the Apostles time 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-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 Answ 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 Privilege so we say too but not such a Privilege as you do imagine 1. It doth profit as a Privilege because it was given as a Token or a 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 so to any other Nation this Rite could not therefore be a Gospel-Rite nor the Covenant it was a Sign of a Gospel-Covenant in which the Gentile Christians are concern'd And thus Paul argues Rom. 31. What Advantage then hath the 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 Privilege which attended it was the giving to them i. e. the People of Israel the Law of the Ten Commandments 3. Circumcision by the Doctrine of St. Paul was a Privilege if they kep the Law For Circumcision verily profiteth if thou keepest the Law but if thou be a Breaker of the Law thy Circumcision is made Uncircumcision 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 availeth thee nothing it gives thee no Privilege above the uncircumcised What is now become this being so of that mighty Privilege Abraham's Seed as such had by Circumcision if the chief Profit or Privilege was because unto them the Land 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 into the Church sure had Paul been of the Judgment of Pedo-baptists he would have rather past by that Privilege when he spoke of Circumcision which he calls the chief and have said chiefly in that it was a Seal of Church-Membership But since he speaks the quite contrary who shall we believe you or the great Apostle of the Gentiles And evident it is he confirms the same Doctrine Gal. 5. 3. For I testify to every Man that is circumcised that he is a Debtor to keep the whole Law And hence 't is said to be a Yoke of Bondage which neither they nor their Fathers could bear Acts 15. because it obliged them to universal Oâ—edience or to keep the Law perfectly and brought them under a Curse if they did not Gal. 3. 10. These things considered fully shew of what stamp and nature Circumcition was together with that Covenant to which it did appertain You sav the Covenant made with Abraham did include Spiritual Blessings And I grant the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham principally included Spiritual Blessings but the Covenant with his Natural Seed as such did not include Spiritual Blessings All Spiritual Blessings are made in Christ and to none but to the Elect in him Moreover we deny not but the Covenant of Circumcision was made as well with Abraham's Spiritual Seed that sprang from his Loins as unto his Carnal Seed and so Circumcision and the Land of Canaan were of use to his Spiritual Seed as the one typified the Circumcision of the Heart and the other the Celestial Rest You say that Infants were always in the Covenant of Grace and to proveit you mention Act. 2 38 39. Repent and be baptized every one os you c. For the Promise is to you and to your Children c. Answ Do we deny that the Promise of Pardon and of the holy Spirit doth belong to our Children or Off-spring that â—o believe or are called by the Lord We grant it readily but we do deny that this Promise here refers to our Seed as such Dr. Taylor late Bishop of Down on this Text says And to your Children that is to you and to your Posterity to you and to your Children when they are of the same Capacity in which you are effectually receptive of the Promise but saith he if whenever the word Children is used in Scripture we should by Children understand Infants we must believe that in all Israel there were no Men but all â—ere Infants and if that had been true it had been the greater Wonder they should overcome the Anakims and beat the King of Moab and march so far and discourse so well for they were all called the Children of Israel The Promise appertains not to Infants in that Capacity and Consistence but only by the Title of their being Reasonable Creatures and when they come to act Faith of which by Nature they have the Faculty If it did yet Baptism saith he is not the Means of conveying the Holy Ghost for when Peter says Repent and be baptized and ye shall receive the holy Spirit it signifies no more than this First Be baptized and then by Imposition of Hands c. which was another Mystery and Rite ye shall receive the Promise of the Father c. But then saith he from hence to argue that where-ever there is a Capacity of receiving the same Grace there also the same Sign is to be administred and from hence to inser Pedo-baptism is an argument very fallâ—cious upon several Grounds 1. Because Baptism is not the Sign of the Holy Ghost but by another Mystery it was conveyed ordinarily and extraordinarily that is by laying on of Hands
you know nor whether ever God will give them his Spirit or Grace to enable them so to do And as one Pedo-baptist lately saith If they do not discharge this Obligation viz. their Baptismal Covenant they are guilty of Perjury and 't is the damning Sin O cruel Parents you list your Infants into the Spiritual War by your pretended Baptism and arm them not The Graces of the Spirit are the Believers Spiritual Armour and Weapons these they have when listed I mean baptized but Infants as such have not this Armour on when baptized Alas poor Babes they have too much Guilt upon them naturally O the Weight that lies upon them but you Pedo-baptists add to it by your Tradition of a Baptismal Covenant that God never appointed them to come under Therefore you object How can Children be bound to that which they are ignorant of You answer They were ignorant of the Bond of Circumcision and yet were bound over to the Law to take him to be their God and to depart from the ways of Sin c. Answ Because God obliged and bound over the Jews by Circumcision in their Infancy in that Legal Covenant to love the Lord their God with all their Hearts to take him to be their God and to depart from all the ways of Sin nay to keep the Law perfectly which shewed the necessity of Christ's Righteousness and Merits which was nevertheless upon this respect a Yoke of Bondage which Yoke by Christ we and our Children are delivered from Will you adventure to bring your poor Children under another like Yoke of Bondage Christ's Yoke is easy and his Burden is light because he gives all that are to be baptized his Spirit and a changed Heart to love God and cleave to him and serve him but you make his Yoke as hard as the Yoke of Circumcision by putting Baptism on your poor Infants to oblige them thereby to be regenerated and love God with all their Hearts before Grace in the Habit of it is infused into them and all this without the least Authority from Christ or the Gospel O cruel Parents Sirs who hath required this at your Hands You shall hear more of this hereafter You do intimate that 't is true Circumcision did oblige to keep the Law perfectly since the Law but from the beginning it was not so for say you Circumcision was not of Moses but of the Fathers Joh. 7. 22. Answ Was not the Moral Law from the beginning and were not those that were circumcised bound to keep the Moral as well as the Ceremonial Law How then dare you say and prove it not that from the beginning it was not so i. e. It did not bind Abraham's Natural Seed exactly to keep the Moral Law that is to love God with all their Hearts and their Neighbours as themselves yea to leave and loath all Sin Circumcision I have proved was no Seal nor part of the Covenant of Grace but of and part of the Covenant of Works so that you run into a dangerous Sâ—are and deceive the People unwarily by your Ignorance of the two Covenants made with Abraham and not distinguishing Circumcision from being a Seal to Abraham's Faith and not a Seal in common to all his Children It was a Sign to them in their Flesh but no Seal of the Covenant of Grace You further run a Parallel between Circumcision and Baptism as some others before you have done Pray take my former Answers to all you say here which I have given to other Pedo-baptists upon this foot of account 1. Others formerly have as well as you do now affirmed That Baptism comes in the room of Circumcision 2. They run a Parallel between Circumcision and Baptism and would have them both signify the same thing in an exact Analogy 〈…〉 〈◊〉 Say they which you seem to affirm also If Baptism succeeds in the room of Circumcision then as the Jewish Infants were circumcised so the Infants of Christians may and ought to be baptized But Baptism succeeds in the room of Circumcision Therefore as their Children were circumcised then so may ours be baptized now Answ 1. There is no necessity that a Gospel-Ordinance must succeed in the room of a Legal or Jewish Ordinance What if I affirm that no Ordinance succeeds in the room of Circumcision Were there not many other Rites and Ordinances under the Law or Old Testament besides Circumcision and yet you cannot find or once imagine any Gospel-Rite or Ordinance to come in the room of them respectively for that then it would follow there would be as many Christian Rites Precepts and Ordinances as there were Jewish Rites Precepts and Ordinances which as one observes were more than three hundred 2. Besides as Dr. Taylor observes If Baptism came in the room of Circumcision you must baptize your Children always on the eighth day and you must not baptize your Females at all because none but Male Infants were then circumcised 3 And whereas you say that Baptism signifies the same things that Circumcision did it is not true as will appear to all understanding Men if they consider these Particulars following which are so many Disparities viz. 1. Circumcision was a Shadow of Christ to come Baptism is a Sign he is already come was dead and buried 2. Circumcision was a Sign of the Covenant made with Abraham and his Natural Seed Baptism is a Sign of the peculiar spiritual Privileges made to Saints as such and no others 3. Circumcision was a Domestick Action i. e. to be done in the House Baptism an Ecclesiastick belonging to the Gospel-Church 4. Circumcision was to be done by the Parents in that respect Baptism is to be done only by Gospel-Ministers 5. Circumcision was the cutting off the Foreskin of the Flesh which drew Blood Baptism is to be done by dipping the whole Body into the Water without drawing of any Blood 6. Circumcision belonged to Male-Children only Baptism belongs to Males and Females also 7. Circumcision was to be done precisely on the eighth Day Baptism is not limited to any precise Day 8. Circumcision made a visible Impression on the Body which the Party might perceive when he came to Age of Understanding Baptism leaves no Impression on the Body 9. Circumcision belonged to Abraham's House to his Male-Infants only or such who were bought with his Money and not the Male-Infants of any other Godly Men in his days unless they join themselves to his Family Baptism belongs to Believers in all Nations 10. Circumcision bound those who came under that Rite to keep the whole Law of Moses Baptism signifies we are delivered from that Yoke of Bondage 11. If Circumcision signified the same things and consequently particularly the sealing the Covenant of Grace then those that were circumcised needed not to be baptized because sealed before with the same Seal or that which signified the same thing but Christ and all his Apostles and many others who were circumcised were nevertheless baptized 12.
for I challenge you and all pedobaptists 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 wo be to them Moreover what guilt do those of the Church of England bring their 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 they intend no more 3. Consider you brought them into this Covenant without their knowledge and conseâ—t they never subscribed to it nor knew any thing of it nor were they capable so to do 4. Consider that whatsoever you think that such is the pravity of their natures by means of our first Apostacy from God or Original 〈◊〉 that they do and must of necessity break it as I 〈◊〉 before unless God should by supernatural Grace change their Hearts and Nature 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 all manner of abominable sins and so live and dye 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 Soul or Grace implanted in their Hearts having passed under the work of Regeneration being dead to Siâ— of which Baptism is a lively Symboll or is as your Church says an outward sign of an inward spiritual Grace Not as Mr. Baxter observes a Sign or Simbol of future but of present Regeneration which is confirmed by what St. Paul Teaches Rom. 6. 3 4. 2. How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein not may be dead but are dead and so Buried with Christ in Baptism verse 3. 4. If you say all Adult Persons Baptized are not Converted 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 or the remainder of the Body of Sin and Death by which means Believers who enter into this Baptismal Covenant are putinto 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 and 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 consider'd 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 become 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 Armour put upon him Ephes. 6. He hath the Brest-plate of Righteousness the Shield of Faith and for a Helmet the hope of Salvation and the Word of God like a Sword in his Hand to cut down all his Enemies Thus by the help of these Sacred Graces of the Spirit he is enabled to fight against Sin the World the Flesh and the Devil But alas you list your poor Babes into this War and make them Covenant and Vow to forsake the Devil and all his Works the Pomps and Vanities of this wicked World and all the sinful lusts of the Flesh but Arm them not Did Baptism confer Grace and Arm their Souls it was something but who dares assert that Or if he does who will or can believe him 6. God hath also promised to assist stand by help and enable all Believers Baptized with farther supplies of Grace nay they being actually United to Christ have his blessed influencies flowing to them besides the promises of God the Death Resurrection and Intercession of Christ and the everlasting Covenant of Grace which is ordered in all things and sure firmly secures all their Souls But thus it is not with those poor Babes you bring into this Covenant You are like Pharoabs Task-masters Command the making Bricks but allow them no Straw 4. Again consider how hereby great part of the Nations are perjur'd I will appeal to the Consciences of all thinking and understanding People whether according to your principle and practice it is not so Mourn O England and lament sad is thy Case If these Men speak right or truly what a multitude in thee have been made to enter into this Covenant who never performed it O Perjur'd Nation Perjur'd People and Perjur'd Pastors for so are all thy Debauched Drunken Swearing and unclean Teachers are not these Perjur'd also Have they kept their Vow and Covenant Alas instead of Mourning for this Sin we may conclude they never thought of it But let them break off their sins by Righteousness I mean repent and leave those gross acts of Wickedness of which many both Priests and People are guilty and get renewing Grace and never let them fear this new devised sin of Perjury For if God's Word convinces of all Sins and doth not convince of this sort of Perjury this is no Perjury I mean the simple breaking of that Covenant tho' those sins by which they are said to break it are horrid Treason and Rebellion against the God of Heaven and provoke him to wrath every day But God's word doth convince of all Sin but doth not convince of this sort of Perjury as is affirmed 'T is not this which is the Self killing Murther the damnable Sin No no but 't is their unbelief and contempt of God's Grace or neglecting the great Salvation offer'd unto us by Christ in the Gospel 5. Baptism administred in Infancy hath saith Mr. Burkitt this singular advantage above that which is administred at riper Age in that it gives the pious Parent a good Ground and Hope that his Children
be Baptized Arg. 2. If Infant Baptism was never Instituted Commanded or Appointed of God Infants ought not to be Baptized But Infant baptism was never Instituted Commanded or Appointed of God Ergo they ought not to be baptized As to the Major if one thing may be practised as an Ordinance without an Institution or Command of God another thing may also and so any Innovation may be let into the Church As to the Minor If there is an Institution for it c. 'T is either contained in the great Commission Mat. 28. Mark 16. or somewhere else But 't is not contained in the great Commission nor any where else Ergo c. The Major none will deny The Minor I prove thus None are to be baptized by virtue of the Commission but such who are Discipled by the Word as I said before and so the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies If any should say Christ Commanded his Disciples to Baptize all Nations and Infants are part of Nations therefore ought to be baptized I answer Arg. 3. If all Nations or any in the Nations ought to be Baptized before Discipled then Turks Pagans unbelievers and their Children may be Baptized because they are a great part of the Nations but Turks Pagans and unbelievers and their Children ought not to be baptized Ergo c. Besides That Teaching by the Authority of the Commission must go before baptizing we have proved which generally all Learned Men do assert If the Institution is to be found any where else they must shew the place Arg. 4. Faith and Repentance are required of all that ought to be baptized but Infants are not required to Believe and Repent nor are they capable so to do Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized The Major is clear Acts 2. 8. 10. 16. Chapters and it s also asserted by the Church of Ergland What is required of Persons to be baptized that 's the Question the Answer is Repentance whereby they forsake Sin and Faith whereby they stedfastly believe the promise of God made to them in that Sacrament The Minor cannot be denyed Arg. 5. That practice that tends not to the Glory of God nor the profit of the Child when done nor in aftertimes when grown up but may prove hurtful and of a dangerous Nature to him cannot be a Truth of God but the practice of Infant Baptism tends not to the Glory of God nor 〈◊〉 profit of the Child when Baptized nor in aftertimes when grown up but may be hurtful and of a dangerous Nature to him Ergo See Levit. 10. 1 2. Where Moses told Aaron Because his Sons had done that which God the Lord Commanded them not That God would be Sanctified by all that drew near unto him intimating that such who did that which God Commanded them not did not Sanctifie or Glorifie God therein Can God be glorified by Man's Disobedience or by adding to his Word by doing that which God hath not required Mat. 16. 9. In vain do you Worship me Teaching for Doctrine the Commandments of Men. And that that practice doth profit the Child none can prove from God's Word And in after times when grown up it may cause the Person to think he was thereby made a Christian c. and brought into the Covenant of Grace and had it sealed to him nay thereby regenerated for so the Athenian Society in their Mercury December 26. plainly intimate and that Infants are thereby ingrafted also into Christs Church Sure all understanding Men know the Baptism of Believers is not called Regeneration but only Metonymically it being a Figure of Regeneration But they Ignorantly affirm also that Infants then have a Federal Holiness as if this imagined Holiness comes in by the Parents Faith or by the Childs Covenant in Baptism which may prove hurtful dangerous to them and cause them to think Baptism confers Grace which is a great error How can water saith Mr. Charnock an external thing work upon the Soul Physically nor can it saith he be proved that ever the Spirit of God is tied by any promise to apply himself to the Soul in a gracious operation when Water is applyed to the Body If it were so then all that were baptized should be saved or else the Doctrine of Perseverance falls to the Ground Some indeed says he say that Regeneration is conferred in Baptism upon the Elect and exerts its self afterwards in Conversion But how so active a Principle as Spiritual Life should lye dead and a sleep so many years c. is not easily conceived On Regen page 75. Arg. 6. If the Church of England says that Faith and Repentance are required of all that ought to be baptized and in so saying speaks truly and yet Infants can't perform those things then Infants ought not to be Baptized But the Church of England says that Faith and Repentance are required of all such c. and speak truly and yet Infants cannot perform these things Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized Obj. If it be objected That they affirm they do perform by their Sureties Ans. If Suretiship for Children in Baptism is not required of God and the Sureties do not yea cannot perform those things for the Child then Suretyship is not of God and so signifies nothing but is an unlawful and sinful undertaking but Suretiship in Childrens Baptism is not required of God and they do not cannot perform what they promise Ergo c. Do they or can they cause the Child to forsake the Devil and all his works the Pomps and Vanities of this wicked World and all the sinful Lusts of the Flesh In a word can they make the Child or Children to repent and truly believe in Jesus Christ for these are the things they promise for them and in their Name Alas they want power to do it for themselves and how then should they do it for others Besides we see they never mind nor regard their Covenant in the case and will not God one day say who has required these things at your hands Arg. 7. If there be no president in the Scripture as there is no precept that any Infant was baptized then Infants ought not to be baptized But there is no president that any Infant was baptized in the Scripture Ergo. If there is any precedent or example in Scripture that any Infant was baptized let them shew us where we may find it Erasmus saith 'T is no where expressed in the Apostolical writings that they baptized Children Union of the Church and on Rom. 6. Calvin saith 't is no where expressed by the Evangelists that any one Infant was baptized by the Apostles Instit cap. 16. lib. 4. Ludovicus Vives saith None of Old were wont to be baptized but in grown Age and who desired and understood what it was Vide Lud. The Magdeburgenses say That concerning the bapâ—…ing the Adult both Jews and Gentiles we have sufficient proof Acts. 2. 8 10. 16. Chap.
are not straiter P. 73. l. 33. for has read hath P. 75. l. 28. for theirs read the. P. 75. l. 29. for their read the. P. 77. l. 17. i. e. as such should be in a Parenthesis P. 84. l. 3. blot out any P. 86. in the Contents of Chap. vii for first read fifth P. 88. l. 3. blot out from P. 99. for with the Gentiles read and their Children P. 89. l. 31. for same read thing P. 105. l. 37. for pai read pain P. 112. l. 28. for and read but. P. 117. l. 19. for with read without P. 118. l. 3. for Mat. read Mal. P. 120. l. 20. blot out so read and since c. P. 201. l. 40. for he that believes shall not be damned read he that believeth not shall be damned P. 250. l. 15. for vers 34. read 3 4. P. 264. l. 2. for born in Sin read born again P. 264. l. 4. blot out do P. 266. l. 40. for Christian read Children P. 239. l. 33. for Lord read Lords P. 293. l. 21. read an external Rite CHAP. I. In answer to what Mr. Owen hath said in his first Chapter SIR AS to what you say about the Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledg that they were Seals of the two Covenants viz. of the Covenant of Works and of the Covenant of Grace or free Promise of God it is far fetch'd and very doubtful and as little to the Purpose for which you mention them therefore I shall pass that by 2dly As touching Circumcision being a dark Shadow of the Old Covenant under the Old Dispensation it may be granted but that it was the Seal of the Covenant of Grace which you affirm elsewhere in your Book I do deny it being only a Seal of Abraham's Faith even of that Faith he had being yet Uncircumcised and also that he should be the Father of all that should believe 3dly You say well that those dark Shadows viz. Circumcision c. are abolished the Substance being come that Yoke of Bondage is taken away which proves Circumcision did not appertain to the Covenant of Grace as the Seal of it in common to all Believers for the breaking off of a Seal cancels the Covenant to which it was prefixed as all Men know So that nothing can be more clear than this that Circumcision if it was a Seal of any Covenant as you conceive it was it was a Seal of the Covenant of Works which neither our Fathers nor we were able to bear in regard it obliged all that were circumcised to keep perfectly the whole Law Gal. 5. 3. 4thly You say Christ hath ordained in the Gospel a light and easy Burden viz. Baptism and the Lord's Supper These two are the only Sacraments you say of the Gospel This is granted and owned herein we do not differ 5thly You say Baptism signifieth our Spiritual Birth the Lord's Supper our Spiritual Growth and Nourishment This we grant also and therefore we say Baptism cannot belong to Infants because they are not in an ordinary way capable of Regeneration tho we deny not that those elect Infants that die are renewed quoad illorum naturas but we know not which they are if we did yet we ought not to baptize them because we have no Precept or Precedent so to do we might therefore as well and by as good Authority give them the Lord's Supper as Bâ—ptism which the antient Fathers when first Pedo-baptism was by Human Authority introduced into the Church you know did for near four hundred Years till the latter end of the Sixth Century 6thly You say Baptism according to the Signification of the Word is Washing and therefore the Apostle saith saved us by the washing of Regeneration Tit. 3. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered in Heb. 9. 10. in divers Baptisms those were not only by dipping under Water but by sprinkling Water on those baptized as the Apostle teacheth Heb. 9. 19. he took the Blood of the Calves and of Goats with Water and sprinkled the Book and all the People That which the Apostle you say called Baptism in Ver. 10. is in this Verse called the Sprinkling of Water c. Answ 1. I answer tho the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a remote Sense doth take in Washingâ— yet I challenge you and all that know or pretend to know the Greek Tongue whether in every place in the New Testament where the Word is mentioned or any Derivative from it as it refers to Christ's Ordinance of Baptism it doth not directly and properly signify Immersion and accordingly rendred by Beza in his Translation 2dly You greatly wrong that Text Heb. 9. 19. where the Apostle speaks of sprinkling the Blood of Calves and of Goats with Water c. by saying he refers to Ver. 10. where the Apostle speaks of Divers Washings and in thus doing you do not only abuse the Sacred Text but you wrong your own Soul and Conscience and the People also Sir do you find the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is in ver 10. in ver 19. where sprinkling is mentioned or is it not in ver 13 19. as also 1 Pet. 1. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We may modestly affirm that no Greek Author whether Heathenish or Christian has ever put Baptizing for Sprinkling or used those Words promiscuously for as in these Scriptures you have cited Heb. 9. 13 19 21. 't is always translated Sprinkling so there is not one place in Scripture wherein the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred Baptism nor is there one Scripture where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred Sprinkling And therefore tho sometimes the Greek Word doth signify in a remote Sense Washing yet 't is primarily such a washing as is by dipping or plunging as I said before And thus Mr. Wilson in his Dictionary renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tingo c. to dip or plunge into the Water and signifies saith he primarily such a washing as is used in Bucks where Linen is plunged or dipped tho in a remote Sense he hints it signifies other kind of washing but it does not so in the Holy Scripture where the Word is used as referring to Christ's Ordinance of Baptizing 3dly You say Water-Baptism i. e. the Washing of the Flesh signifies the Washing of the Spirit and therefore the Apostle Peter saith Even Baptism doth now save us not the putting away the Filth of the Flesh but the answer of a good Conscience towards God by the Resurrection of Christ Answ I answer you confound Regeneration with Baptism the washing of Regeneration is not the washing of Baptism Baptism regenerates no Person But you seem to follow the antient erroneous Fathers who concluded no Person could be saved unless baptized abusing that Text Joh. 3. 5. Unless a Man be born again of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven taking Water there for Baptism In like sort they abused that
ear of the Passover must our Children and all in our House eat of the Eucharist or Supper of the Lord But saith the Doctor In this very Instance of this Argument suppose a Correspondency of the Analogy between Circumcision and Baptism yet there is no Correspondency of Identity for tho it be granted 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 Infants 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 any 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 he 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 Antitype 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 Antitype 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 his Disciples baptize many Persons nay more Disciples than John as it is said John 4. 1 2. and was not Circumcision then 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 the 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 according 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 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 take here as 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 in the room and place of Circumcision then Baptism belongs to them that Circumcision belonged to but the Antecedent is true therefore the Consequent 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 room 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 Acts 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 Joh. 4. 1 2. before Circumcision of right ceased 3. It may be understood as if Baptism did succeed in 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 all 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 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 are also risen together through the Faith of the Operation of God that raised him from the Dead In some things Baptism doth not succeed in the place of Circumcision in respect of Signification For 1. Circumcision did signify Christ to come of Isaac according to the Flesh Gen. 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
that it is which John the Baptist speaketh now is the Ax laid to the Root of the Trees think not to say within your Selves we have Abraham to our Father so that all their Confidence that they had in Abraham's Covenant Temple and Tabernacle and such things are burnt up and so they have no Root left them to stand upon and this is one thing intended by the Root Again he saith the Lord hath cut us off from hope in the righteousness of our Parents and from boasting of Ordinances again saith he this we read of Mal. 4. 1. it is spoken of the ministry of John the Baptist which did burn as an Oven against all the Scribes and Pharisees and left them neither the Root of Abraham's Covenant nor the branch of their own good Works he cutteth them off from Abraham's Covenant c. and by cutting them off from the Root he leaveth them no Ground to trust on Cotton on the Covenant pag. 177 and p. 21 22. How direct is this to the purpose and it as fully othroweth all that you speak in this Argument this Reverend Author Concludes that Abraham's Covenant made with his natural Seed as such was cut down by John though the Tree was not yet removed nor the Chaff blown or fanned away but you would make the People believe John confirmed that old Covenant right and baptized all the Jews upon the Authority of Abraham's Covenant as if instead of cutting the Tree down at the Root he was about to plant it afresh or uphold its standing which had it been so he would have rather said think to say within your selves we have Abraham to our Father for upon that foot of Account I am to baptize you all you being all in God's Covenant though you be a Generation of Vipers But how directly contrary to this Doctrine of yours did John preach to them ' and clearly took them off of any such a pretended right to Baptism viz. because they were in Covenant with Abraham You say John did not cut down one Branch of that Covenant Mr. Cotton says he cut down the Tree at the Root you say he baptized Infants upon that foot of account but since God's Word speaks not one word of any such thing 'T is plain you assert your own Fancies or groundless suppositions There is no doubt say you but that Parents brought their Children with them to the Baptism of John for God commanded them to bring their Children with them into the Congregation Deut. 29. 10 11 12 c. their Zeal was great for their Children Acts 15. 12. and 21. 20. therefore say you if John refused their Children they would not so willingly have come to his Baptism They brought their Children to Christ therefore they brought their Children to the Baptism of John Ans I answer you say no doubt but they brought their Chldren to John's Baptism but without doubt they did not say I because if they had it would without doubt have been written but since it is no where written that they did do it nor of John's baptizing one Infant there is no doubt but we are in the right viz. John baptized no Infants nor any but penitent Persons because he required Repentance and the Fruits of it in all that came to his Baptism Moreover 2. Because all Israel their little ones their Wives and Strangers the hewer of Wood and drawer of Water entered into that legal Covenant with God Deut. 29. 10. 11. 12. doth it follow that we in the Gospel times must bring all our Children and Servants to Baptism and the Lord's Supper they had a command from God to do what they did and that old Covenant Church state required them so to do but God hath no more required us to bring our Infants to Baptism then he hath required us to Circumcise them or give our first born to the Lord which was God's command to them under the Law Baptism I tell you again being of meer positive Right you can draw no such Conclusions for what you plead for 't is only their Duty to be baptized that Christ commanded to be baptized and that is those that are made Disciples by the word preached or those that believe in Christ or that profess Faith in him and 't is the New Testament only must inform us who are the subjects of Gospel Ordinances that depend only upon Laws meerly positive according to the Sovereign Pleasure of the institutor of them or holy Law-giver Jesus Christ You say they brought their Children to Christ therefore they brought them to John's Baptism Answer If John had wrought Miracles and healed the Sick I doubt not but they would have brought their Children to him to have them healed as well as they brought them to Christ but John wrought no Miracles also our Saviour was a healing the Sick when they brought Children to him and it may fairly be inferred they brought little Children that were distemper'd to him to have him lay his Hands upon them which was his way in healing the Sick as I have said before You say Infant Baptism was an usual thing in the Jewish Church several hundred years before the time of John and tell us a story of Moses Ben Maimon who colected the Rites of the ancient Jewish Church Answer I have answered that already you having urged that argument before 'T is evident it was no other but a Jewish hamane Tradition if it be as you say for God never commanded the Jews to baptize Infants though you before would make your unwary Reader think that Jacob invented it I am sorry to see such stuff from a Man of Learning What credit is to be given to the Jewish Talmud what one Jewish Rabbi affirms concerning this matter I have shewed another seems to deny Rabbi Joshua confesseth that the Jews baptized Infants after the order of the Counsel not by any Authority from God by Moses or any of his Holy Prophets but shall we think John Baptized Infants by vertue of any human Tradition that was among the Jews Sir a popish Tradition is of as good authority as a Jewish one you may affirm the Papists for many hundred years baptized Infants but where is it written in God's Word that God commanded the Jews to baptize their Proselites or that Christians ought to baptize their Infants to the Law and Testament the sacred Scripture is a perfect Rule You say John baptized little Children for he baptized the whole Nation in general whereof Children were a great part he refused none that came or were brought to him Mat. 3. 5 6. then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the Regions round about Jordan and were baptized of him in Jordan Now say you if John baptized all Jerusalem and all Judea and all the Regions round about Jordan and all the People it is certain he baptized Infants unless we think there were no Children in Jerusalem c. Answer I answer now you think you
in time call give grace to and so change their evil and depraved Natures if not do you not heap up a multitude of evils upon them and hereby make their condition worse or aggravate their Sin and misery for ever I know not whether you be of this Pedo-baptists mind or not but I think this Doctrine does not fit a Christian Catechism If God had required Infants to enter into such Covenant some reason he might have thus to speak But since neither he nor you can prove it This to me seems a daring boldness in a Minister of the Gospel to assert who I hope is a good Man God I grant expects that all true believers should perform their Baptismal Covenant but then know they are required of God actually to enter into it they freely of their own choice enter into it also they are such God hath given habitual Grace to perform it And he hath promised them also a farther supply of Grace to enable them so to do but nothing of this you can prove in Infants Covenanting in their Baptism but more of this by and by nor will their Sureties help the matter for if they cannot perform those things they promise for themselves how should they be able to do it for others besides 't is an humane Invention and not appointed of God But truly Mr. Williams's Doctrine afflicts my Mind Strange is this Sin the damning Sin I thought the damning Sin by way of eminency had been the Sin of unbelief Suppose your own Child should not believe he is bound by vertue of that Baptismal Covenant you brought him into but when grown up disowns that you call Baptism c. for his not believing 't is a Truth of Christ must he be damned But to proceed Mr. Burkitt having shewed the advantages of Infant Baptism without giving one Scripture Text to prove what he says is true he in Page 38. comes to shew that Baptism is more useful and beneficial to a Child in Infancy then to omit it till riper Age because no Infant Membership is capable of Hypocrisy which Persons grown up are 1. Answ Then give them the Lords Supper also for doubtless if they receive it they will not eat and drink their own damnation as may be some that have it given to them do I tremble at what you dare to say and write in which you seem to arraign the Wisdom of the ever blessed Jesus who he hath appointed believers or Adult persons who are gracious to be Baptized and none else and do you say the Ordinance better suites with the Ignorant Babes should you dictate to your Earthly Prince would he allow it much less to contradict or Correct him as if your Wisdom were more then his 2. Mr. Burkitt sayth 't is more advantageous to Infants than those of riper years as it is a pre-engagement upon them to resist Temptations Answ He may after this rate bring them under an hundred Engagements and Covenants which may be more plausible ones too may you not when they know what they do make them take a Solemn Oath or enter into Bonds upon pain of severe Punishment that they shall not yield to Temptations and pretend 't is God's Law they should do so which if you can deceive their Judgments they will dread as much nay it may be more the breaking those Oaths and Covenants then this you bring them into without any authority from Jesus Christ 3. Mr. Burkitt saith Baptism in Infancy is more advantageous then at riper years as it is an early remedy against the malady of Original sin Answ Speak Doth Baptism take away Original sin or free them from that Malady or not you know some of the Antient Fathers were carryed away with such a dream how comes it to pass then that this contagion appears so soon and to be as strong in your Children as in ours who never were Baptized at all But does not St. Peter tell you 1. Pet. 3. 20. Baptism 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 then any other Why do you say of no Right but this we challenge all the World by God's Word to prove that they are capable of Baptism any more then of the Lords Supper 4. He says Baptism Administred to Infants has this advantage it puts the Christian upon more bitter mourning for actual Sin from that consideration of that shameful Perjury and wilful Apostacy that is found in such Persons sins Answ He is I find one of Mr. Wiliams's Brethren i. e. he is of his belief it seems but tremble at the thoughts of the Consequences of your Doctrine Have not your Children whengrown up enough sins to mourn for and bewail before the Almighty God but you must bring them into a Covenant which you know they would break when they come to riper Age and such is the pravity of Human Nature that 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 Men should give cause to their 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 then those Children are who were never Baptized in their Infancy at all where then is the Apostacy he speaks of 3. You hereby bring them under necessity of committing the Sin of Perjury and of Apostacy at leastwise in your own conceit and in others too if they can believe what this Man says and so to cause them to mourn for that or those sins most which may be if all things were rightly conâ—…'d are no sins at all I do not mean that any of tâ—… 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 Tayl of it as he affirms and indeed had they themselves of their own accord and consent entered 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