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-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
that were in his House or Family or bought with his Money Therefore all this arguing of yours is weak and groundless In vain therefore is that which you say to sinful Parents that delivered Corruption to their Children that they should administer Medicines unto them and so give them the Ordinance of Baptism which Christ hath appointed for that end that they might not fall into the bottomless Piâ— Answ 1. You must prove Christ hath appointed Baptism for Children do that and your Work is done 2. Prove that Baptism is the Medicine to cure the Disease of Original Sin and to save Children or Adult Persons either from falling into the bottomless Piâ— You seem to frighten Parents into the Belief of your Tradition Can any thing save either young or old from Hell but the Blood and Merits of Christ through the Sanctification of the Spirit which Baptism can be but a Figure of 't is not the Medicine nor is it appointed to any to be a Figure of that c. but to Believers only who certainly have the things signified 2dly Baptism you say signifies the pouring forth of the Holy Ghost Acts 2. 38. Tit. 3. 5. and 't is certain that little Children can receive the Holy Ghost from their Mothers Womb Luke 1. 15. Answ We deny that Baptism signifies the pouring of the Holy Spirit the Scriptures you cite prove no such thing It signifies as I have shewed the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ with our Death unto Sin or Mortification of Sin and rising again to a new Life What tho the Promise is made to Christ and his Seed in Isa 44. 3. 59. 11. Are Infants of Believers as such the Seed of Christ and in the Covenant of Grace The Promise of pouring forth of the Spirit is only made to Believers and to such of their Seed that believe or to all the Elect of God Prove that Infants of Believers as such in the Gospel-days received the Holy Spirit God can 't is true give his Spirit to a Babe in the Womb and may be to one or two Babes he might do it so he once also opened the Mouth of an Ass must all Asses therefore speak with Man's Voice You say 3dly Baptism signifies Regeneration and 't is possible say you that Children may be regenerated What can hinder the unspeakable Grace of God's working upon their Hearts Jeremiah was sanctified in his Mother 's Womb. Answ I answer Pagans and Infidels may be regenerated 't is possible what can hinder God's working upon their Hearts Nay and 't is probable too God will do it when he affords the Gospel to them and when they are regenerated let them be baptized when they have the thing signified let them have the Sign also Mr. Baxter saith Baptism is a 〈◊〉 of present not future Regeneration Baptism was not appointed of Christ to be a Sign of that which might or might not be in the true Subject of it hereafter but of that Regeneration that was certainly wrought in the Person before baptized If thou believest if thou hast true Faith or art a converted Man thou â—…st Acts 8. not if that hereafter thou mayst be a Believer â—ut if thou art now one that dost believe You say God can easily give holy Qualities to the Souls of Children Cannot God restore his own Image to little Children I do not say all the Children of the Faithful receive the Grace of Regeneration in their Infancy it is evident to the contrary many of them being wicked but on the other hand the Work of Grace appeareth very early day by day in others of them Answ If this he so your Cause is gone How Are not all the infants of Believers regenerated and in Covenant with God Why then do you baptize all even such that have not the thing signified when baptized nor ever after till they die Worthy Britains see here Mr. Owen does acknowledg that the Infants of Believers as such are not in Covenant for all that are in the Covenant of Grace and have a right to the Seal of it are regenerated alas what is the Seal but a Seal of Regeneration and so of eternal Salvation Ephes 1. 13 14. Chap. 4. 30. But you say In others Regeneration appears very early day by day that is in some little Children Answ 2. But are not some Children of ungodly Parents as early wrought upon and born again as the Children of the godly why then may not their Children also be baptized You say Mr. Eliot in his Book called Tears of Repentance speaks of two Indian Children who were converted before three Years old Sir these were not the Children of Godly Parents 3. Admit that to be true and that God sometimes doth regenerate Children at three or four Years of Age. Such Children I can baptize by the Authority of Christ's Commission or by Virtue of his holy Precept and none but such Children that do believe have any right thereunto You say Solomon was very young when the Lord loved him Answ No doubt but the Lord loved his Elect before they were born even from Everlasting but what of this yet when they are called and regenerated and not till then they ought to be baptized In a word that which renders Persons capable of Baptism are the Prerequisites of Baptism or those things that are required by Christ to be in the true Subjects thereof which are Faith and the Profession of it or Faith and Repentance You may be capable of being made a Justice of Peace but you must not exercise that Office without a lawful Commission So let our Children be capable of what they will or may yet without a Warrant from God's Word they ought not to be admitted to Baptism the Lord's Supper nor to any other Gospel-Ordinance God can give sacred Habits and Qualities to a Child we deny not but till he doth it you are not to give them the Signs of those gracious Qualities and if there be no visible Signs or Demonstrations of those sacred Qualities in such Infants you baptize that render them Believers 't is at best but a mock Baptism Object If we knew that little children are regenerated we would baptize them This is your Objection against your self as if we argued thus Answ No Sir you mistake us if we did know little Infants were regenerate which is impossible for us to know 〈◊〉 I doubt not but that those Infants that go to Heaven are made holy in some secret way unknown to us because no unclean â—…ng can enter into Heaven yet we durst not baptize them because we want Authority to do it Put to come to your Answer That say you cannot be certainly known of the Adult therefore by this Objection none can be baptized 'T is sufficient in this case that the Promise of God belongs to the Infantâ—… of the Faithful They are Members of the visible Church through which the Line of Gâ—… Election runneth Rom. 9. 4 5. Chap. 11. 7. Answ.
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.
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-Covenant Ergo The Covenant of Circumcision was not a Covenant of Grace or 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-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-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 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-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-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
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
fathering that on Christ which he never said nor intended When a King say you by his Charter or publick Writing sets at liberty the Inhabitants of some Town are not the Children Partakers of the Charter altho their Names be not particularly in it So it is here the King of Heaven is through the Charter of the Gospel making of us that were Strangers and Foreigners to become Fellow-Citizens with the Saints Eph. 2. 19. and to that end commanding to receive all Nations through Baptism into the Liberty and Privileges of the City of God and will he not receive the Children into the Privileges of their Parents Answ I answer if it be so as you say in all National States Governments and Constitutions and Civil Societies what doth this prove touching the case in hand unless you dare undertake to affirm the Gospel-Church is National and not Congregational Doth the Constitution of the Spiritual Gospel-Church run as in Human and National Constitutions Prove it for I utterly deny it Besides if your Infants as such are Fellow-Citizens with the Saints and are to partake of all the Privileges of the City of God why do you deny them the Lord's-Supper your Similitude proves no more their right to Baptism to one Privilege than another I never yet could understand what Spiritual or Temporal Privileges any Infant receives in Baptism What good doth that do them that have not the Things signified in Baptism There are great Benefits received in such a Grant you speak of in an external Charter but as God hath not commanded Infants to be baptized so not any Benefits can be proved they receive thereby In this you argue as Mr. Burkit hath done before you Reader take his Similitude viz. I demand saith he whether according to the Mind of God gathered from the words of the Commission the Remedy prescribed should be administred only to grown Persons because they only are capable of understanding and believing the Virtue and Efficacy of it Sure every Rational Man among you would conclude his Child capable of the Remedy as well as himself altho ignorant of the Virtue that is in it and only passive in the Administration of it and that it would be Cruelty yea Murder in the Parent to deny the Application of it to all his Children Reply I stand amazed at such Ignorance and Folly Does it follow because Children are capable to receive a Medicine against the Plague or Bodily Distemper are they therefore capable of Baptism and the Lord's Supper If capable of one say I of the other also For as a Man is required to examine himself and to discern the Lord's Body in the Lord's Supper so he is required to repent and to believe in Christ that comes to Baptism I would know how they prove Baptism to be the Medicine appointed to cure the Soul of the Plague of Sin or as Mr. Owen says for their Salvation Is not this to blind the Eyes of the poor People and make them think that an external Ordinance saves the Soul if not thus how can it be Cruelty yea Murder in Parents to deny the Application of Baptism to their Children as Mr. Burkit says The Antient Fathers from that in John 6. 53. Unless a Man eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood he hath no Life in him gave Infants the Lord's Supper thinking our Saviour like as the Papists do meant that Sacrament when indeed he meant only of seeding by Faith on Christ crucified But however their Argument for giving Infants one Sacrament was as good as yours for giving them the other But when they are as capable to repent and believe and are helped so to do as they are and do eat Bread or receive a Medicine for a Bodily Distemper let them have both Baptism and the Lord's-Supper and till then if God's Word be the Rule of our Faith and Practice and not our own Fancies they ought to have neither yet the Remedy or Medicine which is Christ's Blood we deny not but dying Infants may be capable of tho the way of its Application we know not as to them that is a Secret as to us You know the Church of England positively affirms Repentance whereby a Person for sakes Sin and Faith whereby he stedsastly believes the Promise of God made to him in that Sacrament are required of those that are to be baptized nay and of little Babes too therefore the Sureties answer for them that they do believe and repent or forsake the Devil and all his Works c. the Child answers by Proxy The Church of England baptizes no Child but as a Believer and a true Penitent Person All that are proper Subjects of Baptism are comprehended in the Commission and must be as such whether Adult or Infants who profess Faith and Repentance But you it may be foresaw the Snake in the Grass viz. That Godfathers and Godmothers is a Tradition and none of God's Appointment nor are they able to perform those things for the Child which they promise for him and in his Name And therefore make use of another Argument and would have them baptized without Faith or upon their Parents Faith of which the Church of England speaks nothing As to your Comparison it is not worth mentioning Baptism as I have told you doth not cure the Soul of Sin or save any Person but it 's the Blood of Christ applied by Faith Not that we say no Child can have the Benefit of that Soveraign Remedy because not capable to believe by reason Men and Women must receive it by Faith or perish God as Dr. Taylor observes may have many ways to magnify his Grace through Jesus Christ to them which we know not of who die in their Infancy yet have we no Authority to baptize them any more than to give them the Lord's-Supper Pedo-baptists talk at a strange rate as if they regarded not what they say or affirm while they bring Similitudes to teach People to believe Baptism is the Balm to cure the Contagion of Sin and as if the Application of it saved a little Babe from Hell and they guilty of murdering the Souls of their Children who deny to baptize them I had thought they would not have laid greater Stress upon Childrens Baptism than on Childrens Circumcision since they would fain have them run Parallel-wise Pray what became of the Jews Female Infants were they damned and what became of their Male Infants who died before eight days old for they broke God's Law if they circumcised them tho sick and like to die if they were not full eight days old Let such blush for the sake of their precious Souls and take more care for the time to come to what they write and preach I am grieved to see my blessed Master's great Commission thus inverted and abused Suppose the King should send you with a Commission into a remote Plantation and command you to act and do exactly according to the express
when they will for in this Secrament there is nothing common to her that brings forth and that which shall be brought forth from her Womb because in that Confession the Liberty of every ones Choice is declared Whence we may infer 1. That in that age there seemed to be that aversness from baptizing Children that they were not willing to admit Women great with Child to Baptism lest it should be thought that the Child was baptized with them 2. That in those times in the Confession of Faith in the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ which was done in a Publick and Solemn manner in their Baptism a liberty of Choice and Consent was required as preparatory to it for the incapacity of the Infant in the Womb to declare this Choice and Consent is the reason why they conclude that the Infant was not baptized with the Mother 3. That it was then judg'd necessary to have the Consent and Choice of those who were to be baptized Dr. Du-Veil citing the same Synod on this passage viz. that concerning the Baptism of a Woman with Child that her Baptism concerns not her Child for every one is to give a demonstration of his own Faith and Confession saith however the interpreters draw it to another purpose it does appear that the Question was made of a Woman big with Child because it did seem that the Child was baptized together with the Mother which notwitstanding ought not to be used nor to be baptized except of its own proper Election and Profession Dr. Barlow Late Bishop of Lincoln in his Letter to Mr. T. saith I believe there is neither Precept nor Example in the Scripture for Pedo-Baptism nor any just Evidence for it for above 200 Years after Christ Tertullian condemns it as an unwarrantable Custom and Naziarzen a good while after dislikes it Sure I am saith he that in the primitive times they were Catâ—cumâ—ni then Illuminati or Baptizati and that not only Pagans and Children of Pagans Converted but Children of Christian Parents The Truth is I do believe Pedo-Baptism how or by whom I know not came into the World in the second Century and in the third and fourth began to be practised though not generally and was defended as lawful from the Text John 3. 〈◊〉 grosly misunderstanding it upon the like 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 6. 53 they did for many Centuries both in the Greek and Latin Church Communicate Infants and gave them the Lord's Supper and I confess they might do both as well as either c. Thus Bishop Barlow 〈◊〉 saith Pedo-Baptismus duobus primis a Christo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fuit incognitus c. Pedo Baptism was unknown in the two first Ages after Christ but in the third and fourth it was approved of by a few in the fifth and following Ages it began to be generally received And therefore as afterwards he saith the right in indeed observed by us as an ancient Custom but 〈◊〉 an Apostolical Tradition The same learned Author saith De peccato Orig. Numb 〈◊〉 saith Morem Infantes Baptizandi non capisse 〈…〉 Seculum c. That the custom of 〈◊〉 infants did not begin till the Third Age 〈◊〉 Christ but in the two former no footsteps of it appear And afterwards saith Sine ipsius Christi 〈…〉 it was introduced without the command of Christ Athanasius in sermone 3 contra Arianos saith our Saviour did not slightly command to baptize but first of all said Teach and then Baptize that true Faith might come by teaching and Baptism be perfected by Faith Haimo in Postilla upon the Text Go teach all Nations Fol. 278. In this place saith he is set down a Rule rightly how to baptize that is that Teaching should go before Baptism for he saith teach all Nations and then he saith and baptize them for he that is to be baptized must be before instructed that he first learn to believe that which in Baptism he shall receive for as Faith without works is Dead so Works when they are not of Faith are nothing worth Idem in Annatationibus in mar The Apostles were commanded first to Teach and then to baptize The Jews were brought by Ceremonies to the Knowledge of the Truth but Christians must learn to know them first Beda saith all those that came to the Apostles to be baptized were instructed and taught concerning the Sacrament of Baptism then they received the Holy Administration thereof Rabanus the Catechi which is the Doctrine of Faith must go before Baptism to the intent that he that is to be baptized i. e. Catechamenus may first learn the Mysteries of Faith Arnobius Thou art not first saith he baptized and then beginnest to effect and embrace the Faith but when thou art to be baptized thou signifie unto the Priest what thy desire is and makest thy Confession with thy Mouth Jerom upon Matt. saith The Lord commandeth his Apostles that they should first instruct and teach all Nations and afterwards should baptize those that were instructed into the Mysteries of the Faith for it cannot be saith he that the Body should receive the Sacrament of Baptism till the Soul have received the true Faith Sir What think you now of the Testimony of the ancient Fathers and of the practice of the Churches after the Apostles days Sure the Reader must needs conclude we have the advantage here too and you must yield whether you will or no and give up the Controversie But to proceed Your first Demonstration to prove Infant Baptism in the days after the Apostles is this viz. because that Children had Hands laid upon them in their Minority Ans This signifies nothing for as the Fathers changed the Ordinance of Baptism from believing Men and Women to ignorant Babes so they changed imposition of Hands which I own to be a principle of Christ's Doctrine Heb. 6. 12 to such young People who in their Minority had learned the Articles of the Christian Faith But clear it is in the primitive Apostolical times none but baptized Believers were admitted to that Ordinance of laying on of Hands as Acts 8. 14. and 19. 6. But your Brother Mr. Burkit acknowledgeth that formerly there were such called Catechumeni Persons taught or instructed and afterwards baptized He saith further that there were two sorts the last he brings for his purpose but I know not where he hath his Testimony and therefore pass it by So much to your first Demonstration from the Fathers Your second Demonstration to prove Infant Baptism is this viz. because in the primitive times Infants were admitted to the Lord's Supper therefore you conclude they were admitted to Baptism Ans And they had say I as much Ground for the one as for the other and there is the same parity of reason to conclude as they erred in one so they did in the other Why doth you not from hence give Infants also the Lord's Supper The Reason you give I have before proved insignificant As to his third Demonstration