in Ceremonies I have intituted my Book as you see The last and most Friendly Debate concerning Infant-Baptism And glad should I be to see an end of the Controversy by an Agreement in the Truth or a brotherly Condescension in such things on either part as may be without Sin. That I have undertaken this Task was not the Fruit of my own Choice but indeed I was particularly desired by Letter from some Persons of Quality and Learning to give a brief and distinct Answer to the Contents of the Case of Infant-Baptism which they commend for the temper 〈◊〉 which it is framed and for that it is very nervous in Argument insomuch that till it was answered it was so satisfactory that more need not be said on their part And now I hope they will do me the Justice as to read me with Patience and to judg without Prejudice knowing that shortly we must all appear before the Judgment-Seat of Christ and receive from him the things done in the Body whether they be good or bad The Last and Most FRIENDLY DEBATE CONCERNING INFANT-BAPTISM CHAP. I. That the Covenant Gen. 17. strictly taken was not a Gospel-Covenant nor Circumcision a Gospel-Ordinance as is affirmed by the Doctor THE Learned Author of the Book now under Consideration may rationally expect some Reply from those whom he calls Anabaptists or else interpret their Silence to be either a sullen slighting of his Endeavours to convince them or that they are not able in their own Judgments to shew the Insufficiency of his Arguments and the rather because he has more obliged us to consider his Writing by his modest and friendly management of the Controversy than many of his Brethren who have bent their Stile against us We shall therefore God willing with no less Modesty and friendly Demeanour shew our Reasons why in our Judgment his Labours have not only come short of proving the baptizing of Infants to be warrantable by God's Word but has rather given us great cause to think that the Case of Infant-Baptism cannot be made good by all that Learning and Art can do it being wholly without Divine Authority And to make this good we will now consider the chief of his Strength in the several Pages of his Learned Treatise In pag. 1 2. he would have it believed that the State of the Church from Abraham to Moses and from Moses to Christ was parallel'd by the differing State of the Christian Church from Christ to Constantine and from Constantine onwards For saith he there is ground for this distinction in the reason of the thing as is evident to any Man who is capable of considering the difference betwixt the Church Christian before and after its Vnion with the Empire But here seems to be a very great mistake in the very entrance of his Book for it is certain that the Jewish Church from Abraham to Moses had very little of the Face of a Church-state till his time being as yet destitute of most of her Laws both for Constitution and Government Abraham himself owning a Priest superior to himself even after he was called of God and had received the Promise both of being that Person in whose Seed all Nations should be blessed and that to his Seed God would give the Land of Canaan as will appear to such as shall peruse these Scriptures Gen. 12. 1 2 3. 13. 15 16. 14. 18 19 20. Now this Covenant which God made with Abraham that in his Seed all Nations of the Earth should be blessed Gen. 12. which was indeed an Evangelical Promise or Covenant and in the Faith of which Abraham was justified near thirty Years before Circumcision had any being in the World cannot be called the Covenant of Circumcision Neither yet when Circumcision was instituted was the Seed of Abraham formed into a Church-state in contradistinction to all the World beside for still Melchisedec was Priest of the most High God and many righteous Men were then living who outlived Abraham himself and were truly Church-members yea and Governors of Churches too as well as Abraham and yet they were not at all concern'd in the Covenant of Circumcision And hence it 's evident they being under the Covenant of Grace the Covenant of Circumcision and the Covenant of Grace were then distinct and not the same Covenant so but that the one might and did subsist without the other This then may serve to shew the Doctor 's great Mistake in making the Church of Christ from Christ to Constantine parrallel to the Church from Abraham to Moses when in Truth a greater Disparity can hardly be shewed For though the Seed of Abraham till Moses was in a State of Peregrination as also was the Church of Christ till Constantine yet the Church Christian was then not only in her Purity but also both for Constitution and Government as compleat as ever she was since having received from Christ and his Apostles all the Rules of his holy Word even the whole Counsel of God necessary to her Church-state and therewith all the Gifts of the holy Spirit in most plentiful manner by which to stand perfect in all the Will of God. And on the other side the Seed of Abraham till the Times of Moses had neither Law Priest-hood nor Sacrifice in a settled Church-way only they were distinguished by the Covenant of Circumcision as a People from whom in time the Saviour of the World should proceed and that they should be separated from the Nations and settled in a plentiful Country with Laws and special Protection from the Almighty till Shiloh should come and when the Messiah was manifested to Israel the Covenant of Circumcision ceased and the glorious Gospel-Covenant was now plenarily to be made known to all Nations for the Obedience of Faith Rom. 16. And here we will take notice of that excellent Passage in Mr. Baxter The Jews saith he were not the whole of God's Kingdom or Church of Redeemed Ones in the World but that as the Covenant was made with all Mankind so amongst them God had other Servants besides the Jews though it was they that had the extraordinary Benediction of being his peculiar Sacred People Now as this was true all along so it was more particularly manifest in the times of Melchisedec and other holy Men that outlived Abraham What the Doctor means to compare Constantine with Moses is very doubtful Is it to make Christian Magistrates Legislators to the Church of Christ We know indeed Moses was a great Prophet and appointed of God to give Laws and Statutes to Israel but Constantine was not his Antitype but Christ only and whosoever will not hear him shall be cut off but not by the Imperial Sword as God knows since the uniting of the Church Christian to the Empire viz. the Civil and Ecclesiastical Power for the management of Church-matters there has been a very bloody Scene of Affairs in most Places where such a kind of Unity of the
Church with the Empire or Worldly Government has been found and for the most part those who held to the Truth in the greatest Purity and Power of it became a Prey to that Church who obtained that Grandeur and Advantage of which England has of late as well as formerly been a terrible Instance Another remarkable difference betwixt the Church Christian from Christ to Constantine and that of the Seed of Abraham from his Days to Moses was this The latter so far as it may be called a Church in that time was National and dependant on the Family of Abraham none being permitted to dwell in the same Family unless circumcised But the Church Christian from Christ to Constantine was not National nor dependant on any Family as such but consisted only of such in any Family as feared Ged and wrought Righteousness Acts 10. 34 35. And this being considered will shew that the Church from Abraham to Moses was not so Spiritual and Evangelical as the Doctor would have it but were rather natural Branches of Abraham's Family and the greatest part of them grosly ignorant of the Evangelical Covenant made with Abraham before he was circumcised which plainly appeared not only in that they understood little of Moses as he foreshewed the Coming of Christ but also when Christ the true Seed to whom the Promise was made came to accomplish it they knew him not nor the Voice of their own Prophets The Doctor brings Gal. 3. 17. Rom. 4. 13. to prove that the Jewish Church was founded upon an Evangelical Covenant for substance the same with that which since is made betwixt God and us through Christ And he gives a Paraphrase upon Rom 4. from ver 9 to 15. Gal. 3. from v. 5 to 10. to prove that Faith was the Condition of the Abrahamical Covenant which being understood of the Covenant or Promise Gen. 12. of the blessing all Nations in the Seed of Abraham and the Obligation or Condition of believing that Promise to extend only to such as had Means and Ability to believe it is not denied by us nor can it signify any thing to the Doctor 's purpose for sure he cannot bring Infants under this Condition which is the thing he drives at But for a more full Answer Let us consider where the stress of the matter lies between the Doctor and us He would have this Evangelical Covenant to be the Covenant of Circumcision Gen. 17. We say 'T is the Covenant or Promise Gen. 12. Now in the Doctor 's Text Abraham is promised that Nations shall come out of him and that he shall be a Father of many Nations but not a word of the Blessing which concerns all the Nations of the Earth Now in our Text we have it full In thee shall all Families of the Earth be blessed But the best way is to let St. Paul resolve this Doubt even as he is quoted by the Doctor Rom. 4. The Promise that he should be Heir of the World was not given to Abraham or to his Seed through the Law. And what Law was Abraham under but the Law or Covenant of Circumcision The Apostle adds But through the Righteousness of Faith and yet more plainly Rom. 4. 10. How was it then reckoned when he was in Circumcision or in Vncircumcision Not in Circumcision but in Vncircumcision St. Paul most clearly refers to the Promise made Gen. 12. near thirty years before Abraham was circumcis'd Now whether Circumcision be of the Law or whether it was a Gospel-Ordinance is the business to be considered The Doctor does expresly affirm that Circumcision was a Gospel-Ordinance p. 24. And we say directly contrary that it was a Legal or Jewish Ceremony To prove that Circumcision was no Gospel-Ordinance we argue thus That which could profit no Man except he kept the whole Law was no Gospel Ordinance c. The Apostle proves the minor Rom 2. 25. Circumcision verily prositeth if thou keep the Law but if thou be a Breaker of the Law thy Circumcision is made Vncircumcision And we argue further from Gal. 5. 2. If Circumcision bound Men to keep the whole Law then it was no Gospel-Ordinance c. The Assumption is proved by the Text I testify again to every Man that is circumcised that he is a Debtor to do the whole Law. Circumcision therefore could never be a Gospel-Ordinance for as the Gospel frees us from the condemning Power and from the Servitude of the Law so every Gospel-Ordinance holds forth that blessed Freedom to all faithful Men in both Respects And hence it is clear that howsoever Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to Abraham it could not be so as a Gospel-Ordinance for he was a Breaker of the Law after this any more than his Offering his Son Isaac upon the Altar Jam. 2. 21 22. In which he was justified by Faith. And so was Abel in his Sacrifice Gen. 4. Heb. 11. Yea these were evident Seals and Pledges of their Faith as much as Circumcision was to Abraham yet none of those can hence be proved to be Gospel-Ordinances For indeed at the rate of the Doctor 's arguing all the Sacrifices propitiatory performed by faithful Men in the time of the Law may be proved to be Gospel-Ordinances as well as Circumcision And by his Consequence all that took part in these Sacrifices have a right to participate in all Gospel-Ordinances which hold forth Christ and him crucified as well as in Baptism And because the Doctor builds much upon this Topic we will further try the Strength of it That which was always in Comparison of the Gospel a weak and beggarly Element was never a Gospel-Ordinance But such was Circumcision The Major is clear because 't is the Property of all Gospel-Ordinances to represent those that are under them perfect in Christ Jesus Gal. 1. 28. So that the Gospel-Ordinances are neither weak nor beggarly but as they are a part of the Gospel it self are said to be the Power of God unto Salvation The Minor is true because the Ceremonies of the Law made nothing perfect for if they had then they had not ceased Heb. 7. 18 19. and 10. 1. And it is evident St. Paul calls the whole Ceremonial Law a part whereof was Circumcision beggarly Elements Gal. 4. 9. And they are all equally ceased And seeing upon this Ground the Doctor boldly affirms the Covenant of Circumcision to be an Evangelical Covenant because Circumcision did initiate thereinto p. 5. My next Undertaking shall be to prove that the Covenant of Circumcision strictly taken was no Gospel-Covenant though called so very frequently by the Doctor as p. 3 and 4. all which he would make good because St. Paul calls Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith and because it signified the Circumcision of the Heart Deut. 10. 16. and 30. 6. The contrary will appear from the very Recital of the Covenant it self as set down Gen. 17. from the Nature of Circumcision being
soever the Covenant of Circumcision made betwixt Abraham's Family and the rest of the World It is certain it could not separate them nor any Persons in the World from the Covenant of Grace there was nothing but Sin could do that otherwise it had been a dismal Separation indeed And can the Doctor once think that Let was now separated from the Covenant of Grace because he was not in the Covenant of Circumcision Sure he was a righteous Man for all this Yea and other Holy Patriarchs were yet living as Heber Salah Sem and so was Melchisedec if he were not one of them being Priest of the most high God. And as these and doubtless many more were good Men so it 's not to be questioned but they had their Holy Societies and Congregations Melchisedec being then the most eminent Type of the Son of God that ever was as he was King of Peace and Priest in which Offices he must needs be serviceable to many as is well observed by Mr. Cox on the Covenants p. 154. The Doctor is greatly out in making the Infants of Unbelievers to be in as ill case as the Vnbelievers themselves seeing Unbelievers must perish Mark. 16. 16. But it is not revealed yet to be the Will of God that so much as one dying Infant shall perish And as to the rest of Mankind Mr. Baxter says very well That as the Jews had by Promises and Prophecies and Types more means to know God than any other Nations so they were answerably obliged to more Knowledg and Faith than other Nations were that had not nor could have their means More Proof p. 95. And why may not this be true That the Effects of the Evangelical Promise to Abraham to be a Father of the Faithful in all Nations had very little Relation in a Gospel-way to the Age in which he lived nor indeed till the times of the Gospel or till Christ the Seed to whom the Promises were made did come And then indeed it was graciously verified When by the Commandment of the everlasting God even Christ who is here so called the Gospel was made known to all Nations for the Obedience of Faith Rom. 16. Nor shall the Doctor 's Allegations p. 7. of the great Numbers of divers Nations which turned Jews prejudice that which we have said seeing St. Peter affirms that the Mystery of the Gospel was hid from these Nations and Ages notwithstanding their Circumcision For it is not to be supposed that these who turned Jews were better skill'd in the Mystery of the new Covenant or Covenant of Grace than the Jews themselves who God knows were generally Strangers to the Steps of Abraham's Faith and therefore little better in our Saviour's Judgment for being Abraham's Children John 8. 37 39. Nay so ignorant were the believing Jews themselves of the true Seed of Abraham according to the Nature and Extent of the Covenant Gen. 12. 3. That when Peter preached to the Gentiles they contended with him as doing that which was not lawful for they yet understood not that the Grace of Repentance unto Life did belong to the Gentiles nor did Peter till a Miracle convinc'd him understand this Grace himself Acts 10. The great Accession therefore of other Nations to the Jews Religion is no Proof that they were in the Covenant of Grace or that Circumcision was a Gospel-Ordinance though there might be many among them that so feared God and wrought Righteousness as to be through his Mercy accepted of him and the like in other Nations even all Nations too Acts 10. 34 35. Yet these Accessions did contribute much to the Fulfilling God's Promise to Abraham in other Respects as to make the Name of the God of Abraham to be great in the Earth and also to advance the Name of Abraham the Friend of God. The Doctor tells us p. 3. That Faith was the Condition of the Abrahamical Covenant that it was made with Abraham as the Father of the Faithful and in him with all Believers But considering what we have proved before with respect to Abraham's peculiar Interest in the Covenant we may well enquire what Covenant and Faith the Doctor means seeing it could not be the Gospel-Grace and Faith which was the Condition of the Covenant of Circumcision as that Covenant belong'd to all that were circumcised Because St. Paul tells us whilst the Law was in force a part of which Law Circumcision was as we have proved the time of Faith was not yet come And that the Jews were shut up to the Faith which was afterward to be revealed Gal. 3. 23 25. And that the Law a part whereof was Circumcision was added because of Transgression till the Seed to wit Christ should come And shews likewise that there was no Law as yet given which could give Life The Covenant of Grace made with Adam Gen. 3. And the Promise to Abraham Gen. 12. And the Renewal of the Covenant of Grace to Noah between them both must of Necessity be here excepted And therefore Eternal Life could not be had by the Covenant and Law of Circumcision as made to Abraham's Posterity otherwise than as it served as a Type or Figure to direct them to look for the Messiah to be born of Abraham's Seed according to the Flesh And therefore the Promise so much celebrated Gal. 3. can by no lawful means be referr'd to the Covenant of Circumcision strictly taken and then all that the Doctor has said to make the Covenant of Circumcision a Gospel-Covenant and Circumcision a Gospel-Ordinance will come to nothing and consequently his whole Book because it is mainly built upon this Foundation And that the Promise mentioned by St. Paul Gal. 3. may and ought to be distinguished from the Covenant of Circumcision will appear from the Date of the Promise which was 430 Years before the Law Gal. 3. 17. but the Covenant of Circumcision wants 25 Years of this account This is plain to such as will consider that that great and blessed Promise that in the Seed of Abraham all the Families of the Earth shall be blessed Gen. 12. 3. was at least 25 Years before the Covenant of Circumcision Gen. 17. And this is granted by the Learned Willit who in his Hexapl. in Gen. p. 145. writes thus From this Promise Gen. 12. made to Abraham are we to count the 430 Years which St Paul saith were between the Promise and the Law Gal. 3 and hereunto agreeth the Computation of Moses Exod. 12. 40. that the Israelites dwelt in Egypt 430 Years not in Egypt only but in Egypt and Canaan as the Septuagint do interpret the place Now how this Promise had its Effect in the Ages before Christ's Incarnation or how all the Families of the Earth were blessed in this promised Seed then God only knoweth for though the World had a Promise of a Saviour from the Beginning Gen. 3. 15. yet that he should be born of the Seed of Abraham was not revealed till now And
a Legal Ceremony as we have proved and chiefly because the Covenant of Grace was not peculiar to Abraham and his but common to others though they were not circumcised To begin with the very Expressions of the Covenant Gen. 17. from ver 4 to 15. Whoso shall diligently read it will not find one Word of the Promise of Blessedness to all Nations But that Promise of the Messiah in whom all the Nations of the Earth should be blessed was made as we shewed near thirty Years before this Covenant of Circumcision was made But it was rather a Recital of God's Promise to Abraham Gen. 13. when Abraham and Lot parted asunder And indeed of all the eight times which God spake to Abraham we find the Promise of Blessing to all Nations in the Seed of Abraham only expressed in the first time Gen. 12. and in the last time that God spake to him Gen. 22. And yet it is also true that St. Paul does include Abraham's Fatherhood over the Faithful in that Covenant Gen. 17. 5. and 15. 5. And so Circumcision was to him a Seal of the Faith which Abraham had with respect to the Promises made at the former Appearings of God to him But then it is as true that of this Faith it could be no Seal to any other Person no not to Isaac himself because it was Abraham alone that should have this Honour to be the Father of the Faithful After this manner the ancient Christian Church seems to have understood the Covenant of Circumcision as appears in Chrysostom and Theophilact as translated by two learned Writers in these words Circumcision was called a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith because it was given to Abraham as a Seal and Testimony of the Righteousness which he had acquired by Faith Now this seems to be the Priviledg of Abraham alone and not to be transferred to others as if Circumcision in whomsoever it was were a Testimony of Divine Righteousness For as it was the Priviledg of Abraham that he should be the Father of all Faithful as well circumcised as uncircumcised being already the Father of all uncircumcised having Faith in Vncircumcision He received first the Sign of Circumcision that he might be the Father of the Circumcised Now because he had this Priviledg in respect of the Righteousness which he had acquired by Faith therefore the Sign of Circumcision was to him a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith. But to the rest of the Jews it was a Sign that they were Abraham ' s Seed but not a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith as also all the Jews also were not the Fathers of many Nations And says another learned Writer It is no ways difficult to conceive that Circumcision might have a different respect according to the differing Circumstances and Capacity of its Subjects yea that it had so in another Instance hath been shewed already It was a Seal of the Inheritance of Canaan to the Children of Israel and did ensure the Promise thereof to them and their Seed but it gave their Bond-Servants no such right or claim Even so it was to Abraham a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had c. but this arose from the peculiar and extraordinary Circumstances and Capacity that he was in For it is not possible to conceive that Circumcision should be a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to one that never had Faith nor the Relation of a Father to all Believers as Abraham had And it is equally absurd to say that Circumcision was a Seal to all its Subjects of the Righteousness of Faith which they had while uncircumcised as to affirm that it was a Seal of a paternal or fatherly Relation to all Believers unto every one that received it Again From St. Paul Gal. 6. 15. we may fairly argue thus If the Covenant of Circumcision had been the Covenant of Grace and Circumcision the Sign of the Covenant of Grace as the Doctor would have it then had all true Subjects of it as such been new Creatures in Christ Jesus But the true or right Subjects of the Covenant and Sign as such were not new Creatures in Christ Jesus c. This whole Argument is proved from the Text which saith In Christ Jesus neither Circumcision availeth any thing nor Vncircumcision but a new Creature Plainly thus the Jews were never the better as to a Gospel-Church-state for being the Seed of Abraham or circumcised nor the Gentiles never the worse as to a Gospel-state for being not the Seed of Abraham and uncircumcised For there was no other way for either to be brought under the Priviledges of the Church Evangelical and so to be in Christ Jesus but by Repentance Faith and Baptism or to be born again for if any Man be in Christ in a Gospel-Church-way he is a new Creature 2 Cor. 5. 17. Gal. 3. 26 to the end and 5. 24. I desire the Reader to peruse these Scriptures We have proved already that Circumcision was no Gospel-Ordinance yet we shall add It could not be a Gospel-Ordinance because Moses gave it as an Obligation to keep the Ceremonial Law or that intolerable Yoak of Bondage which none was able to bear For though Circumcision was before Moses yet it was given by him John 7. 22. for this purpose Gal. 5. 2 3 4. and it self was a part of the Yoke of Bondage Sacrifices were before Moses as well as Circumcision yet they were given also by Moses And hence when Paul opposed Circumcision it was objected that he taught Men to forsake Moses Acts 21. 21. And Circumcision is expresly called the Law of Moses by Christ himself John 7. 23. And therefore the Doctor was not well advised to affirm it to be a Gospel-Ordinance Again The Covenant of Circumcision and the Sign it self were not Evangelical because the Obligation to be circumcised was peculiar to Abraham and his Seed or Family in such a sense as none but they were obliged to be circumcised Men might and did walk with God and please God without being concerned in the Covenant of Circumcision as we have fully shewed But all Men are equally bound to obey the Gospel and all the Ordinances of it who have means to know them they do belong to all Families all Nations as much as to any Matth. 28. 19 20. Mark 16. 15 16. Rom. 16. 26. So did not the Covenant of Circumcision How unlike the Covenant of Circumcision was to the Covenant of Grace especially in Respect of Infants might have been perceived by the Doctor from his own Words p. 8. where he tells us God made Abraham thus separate the Children with their Parents from all the World and look upon them as a part of his chosen peculiar People by which they became relatively Holy and differed from the Children of Vnbelievers as much as their Parents did from Vnbelievers themselves Sure this is a cruel Sentence against poor innocent Babes But I answer What Separation
says the Law is not of Faith and that if those that are of the Law be Heirs Faith is made void and the Promise of none Effect And how Christ calls Circumcision the Law of Moses and tells the circumcised Jews themselves that they must be regenerated and born again or they could not enter into the Kingdom or Gospel-Church which shews plainly they were not regenerated in Circumcision and if they were not then there is little hopes that their Slaves bought with Mony as Blacks are now by us had such benefit by Circumcision Nay the Doctor is more bold and tells us That always it was understood that Children were called and elected by God in their Parents which is such a Scriptureless Doctrine and of such dangerous Consequence that we cannot but wonder that so wise a Man should assert it Does not St. Paul expresly teach the contrary where he saith The Children of the Flesh are not the Children of God And that all are not Israel that are of Israel And though they be the Seed of Abraham yet are they not all Children How was it possible that he should think that the Slaves and their Children were elected only because they were circumcised when Abraham's own Posterity are not therefore elected because Abraham was their Father and also circumcised And will it not follow from the Doctor 's Opinion that Infants are also reprobated in their Parents Yes he says no less I think when he makes the Unbelievers Infants to differ from those his Elect Infants as much as the Unbelievers themselves differ from the circumcised Parents whom he calls Believers God be merciful to us and bless us from such Doctrine as this that his antient way of Truth may be known upon the Earth and his saying Health among the Nations for Job and all holy Men and poor Infants too which were not circumcised might for all that be elected Seven or eight Pages the Doctor spends mostly to shew how Christ did alter the Oeconomy of the Church in many Particulars which do not directly concern our present Controversy in which there are many Dictates unproved about the Reasons why Christ made this Change. But we shall content our selves in setting down these two which he thinks moved our Lord to lay aside Circumcision and his first is Because by it the Jewish Nation was become odious and ridiculous to all other People upon the account of it But this Passage seems to cast a Scandal upon God himself as that he should appoint any thing that should make his People odious Sure other Nations had Usages far more offensive than this could be in their Idolatrous Services and particularly the burning of their Children to Moloch But the true reason why it was laid aside was because the distinction which it made between the Seed of Abraham and other People as the Posterity from whence Christ should proceed was now unnecessary because Christ was born and manifested to the World and chiefly because the Ceremonial Law to which it was a strong Obligation and also a part of it was now to be disannulled and taken out of the way as an Handwriting of Ordinances which was against us and was contrary to us Heb. 7. 18 19. Coloss 2. 14. Acts 15. 10. it was therefore meet it should be taken away His second Reason is more tolerable but yet not true for though Circumcision was a painful Ordinance yet the Gospel requires as painful things as that was of all that will be Christians indeed as the denying a Man's self and particularly in parting with House Land Wife Children a right Hand a right Eye a right Foot and our very Life when God calls for them in service to the Defence of the Gospel Yea let me tell the Doctor had he come to Baptism it self after the Example of Christ who came from Galilee to Jordan I suppose 60 Miles and that in the depth of Winter to be dipped in a River as Christ was in Jordan he might possibly have found it as ungrateful to Flesh and Blood as some have found it to part with their Foreskin and add to this such Repentance as truly qualifies for the Reception of Baptism and the whole of it might possibly seem as ridiculous in the Eyes of the wise Men of this World as Circumcision it self We conclude then that the Wisdom of God was great to try the Pride and Haughtiness of Man in appointing Circumcision in the Time of the Law to bring Men to Legal Priviledges And it is no less his Wisdom in appointing Baptism to bring down the Pride of the greatest Nobles and most delicate Ladies as well as others by submitting their Bodies under the Hands of a poor Minister to be dipped in Water at all Seasons as they are found qualified for it by Faith and Repentance to admit them to Gospel-Priviledges CHAP. II. That the Story of the Jews baptizing Infants is either a Fable or if they had such a Humane Tradition it 's rather destructive of Sacred Baptism to ground it on that Tradition than any way advantagious to it IN pag. 18. the Doctor says Hitherto I have given the Reasons of altering the Jewish Oeconomy But then my Undertaking obliges me to prove that Christ and his Apostles did build with many of the old Materials and conformed their new House as much as they could after the Platform of the Old. This will appear from Baptism it self which was a Ceremony by which Proselytes both Men and Women and Children were initiated yet so much Respect had our Saviour for the antient Orders and Customs of the Jewish Church that being obliged to lay by Circumcision he consecrated this instead of it though it were but a meer human Institution to be the Sacrament of Initiation into his Church and a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith. So likewise the Lord's Supper was certainly of Jewish Original Answer This Doctrine that Christ and his Apostles did build their new House of the old Materials of the Jewish Church and that they conform'd their new House as much as they could to the Platform of the Old seems to hold no Agreement with the Doctrine and Practice of Christ and his Apostles whether we consider the Subjects Ordinances or Ministery of the Church The Doctrine and Ministery of John the Baptist is called the Beginning of the Gospel Mark 1. 1. And he would not admit of one Stone or Member of the old Church as such to be laid into the Gospel-Church Begin not to say within your selves we have Abraham to our Father God is able of these Stones to raise up Children unto Abraham Bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance Every Tree which bringeth not forth good Fruit is hewn down Matth. 3. So great a Change do we find that the old Materials in respect of Membership in the new House would not do when yet there was but an Introduction to make ready a People prepared for the Lord. Christ came to fulfil the Ceremonies of
quoting the Text thus In whom also they are circumcised with the Circumcision made without Hands in putting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ Having been buried with him in Baptism Does not the Doctor by this Addition to the Text assert the thing which he would deny or else denies what Paul asserts for St. Paul does make Circumcision a Shadow or Figure of the Circumcision of Christ made without Hands why else does he call the Work of Grace in the Heart by that Name of Circumcision as he also doth Rom. 2. 29 But the Doctor does refer this Circumcision to Baptism having been buried with him in Baptism but then if this be his meaning Circumcision must needs have something in it umbratical of Baptism which yet he denies and therein contradicts Mr. Philpot who affirms even Baptism to be the Circumcision made without Hands The Truth is this Text can never be made serviceable to Infant-Baptism as Mr. Philpot and the Doctor would have it seeing no more are here said to be baptized than had put off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh Nor as we have it Rom. 6. no more are here buried with Christ in Baptism than were dead with him And this alone might serve to shew that God expects not that Infants should be baptized seeing they can neither die to Sin nor rise to Newness of Life and to what purpose they should be buried before they be dead no good reason can be shewed Here we are told again that Circumcision was a real Consignation of the Covenant of Grace every way as real and substantial an Ordinance as Baptism is now It is only called a Seal in the special case of Abraham And if it was every way as real and substantial as Baptism is now to what end were the Circumcised baptized also in the Jewish Church as the Doctor says they were And why does Paul call it a beggarly Element And how could it be the Yoke of Bondage or the Obligation to it and a Seal of the Covenant of Grace too A Seal or Sign of the Covenant of Grace frees Men from the Yoke of Bondage and of this Evangelical Baptism is a real and substantial Consignation where the Subject is qualified for it Had Circumcision been such a real and sustantial Ordinance to consign the Covenant of Grace it would not have ceased if St. Paul's Argument hold Heb. 10. 1 2. But it is abolished as well as other Ceremonies of the Law which is a sign it did not make the Comers thereunto perfect any more than the other Legal Ceremonies Whereas had it consign'd the Covenant of Grace more could not be expected from a ritual to make the Subjects of it perfect And this Perfection have the Ordinances of the Gospel as we have shewed before but here the Ceremonies of the Law failed CHAP. III. Wherein the Doctor 's first Question is answered viz. Whether Infants are capable of Baptism THE Doctor counts it Rashness to deny Infants to be capable of Baptism and saith Nothing can reflect more Dishonour upon the Wisdom of God and the Practice of the Jewish Church And the Sum of what he brings to prove them capable of Baptism is to repeat what he has said before about the Identity of the Covenant of Circumcision and that which is made with us in the Gospel and concludes that because Infants were admitted to Circumcision therefore they are to be admitted to Baptism and affirms that Circumcision was as spiritual an Ordinance as Baptism yea that it was a Gospel-Ordinance If therefore I repeat the same things which I have said before the Reader will I hope hear with that for Answer then I say though we deny not but that the Covenant of Circumcision did comprehend all those Dignities which pertain'd to Abraham for the Greatness of his Faith to be the Father of many Nations yet every Man that reads and considers the Tenor of the Covenant as set down Gen. 17. may easily see these things belonged to none but him and therefore Circumcision could seal the Righteousness of Faith in those peculiar Promises whether we consider the numerousness of his Seed or that Christ should be born of his Seed and so the Nations blessed in his Seed but to Abraham only because none of these Promises were made to any but to him We have also shewed how and in what respects the Covenant of Circumcision could not be the Covenant of Grace because none but Abraham ' s Family was bound to keep it nor damned no nor blamed if they did not enter into it but the case is otherwise with the Gospel for now God commandeth by the Gospel all Men every where to repent and he that believeth not the Gospel when made known to him shall be damned Can it enter into the Doctor 's Heart to think that all the World was now left under Condemnation without Mercy except Abraham and his Family Surely it was not in the Days of Abraham as it was in the Days of Noah as if God had only found Abraham righteous before him in all the Earth No we have proved there were other righteous Men and some superiour to Abraham himself wherefore God's peculiar Kindness to Abraham did not argue that God had rejected and taken the Covenant of Grace from all the World besides but it is certainly a presumptuous way of arguing that because God made Infants of eight days old capable of Circumcision by his Command to circumcise them that therefore we ought to take them to be capable of Baptism tho we have no Command to baptize them and then fly to the Identity of the Covenants to make it good when there is no Identity at all to be found between them But to concess a little Let us now suppose for Argument sake that the Covenant of Circumcision was the Covenant of Grace as the Doctor would have it yet it will not follow that an Interest in the Covenant of Grace does infer an immediate Right always either to Circumcision or Baptism and this the Doctor must grant because Infants of five six or seven days old had an Interest in the Covenant made with Abraham and yet had no right to Circumcision till the eighth day Also the Infants of the other Patriarchs had an Interest in the Covenant of Grace yet had no right to Circumcision at all Nor could they nor the Patriarchs themselves be cut off from the Covenant of Grace tho they were not circumcised And all the Females of Abraham's Family had Interest in the Covenant of Grace but had no right to Circumcision and the reason was God did not appoint them to be circumcised And yet so foolish have some Nations been as to circumcise Females without any command from God and therefore it s less strange that Men now force on their Superstition of Infant Baptism without God's Command also But what if all the Infants in the World be under the Mercy of
the new Covenant as it respects the Abolition of the condemning Power of Original Sin and Gift of eternal Life as I think whatever the Doctor says at some turns yet he will grant me this at least for the substance of it for all that die in Infancy yet he will not say that all Infants in the World in Abraham's time who were Males ought to be circumcised or that all Infants in the World since Christ's time are to be baptized And therefore suppose the Covenant of Grace before in and since the Law to be the same yet it 's clear that an immediate Right to the Mercy of the Covenant in the sense before explained does not infer an immediate right to partake of Ordinances but some other particular Qualifications and God's Direction must give immediate right to participate of them or else we act and do we know not what Let us then calmly consider what were the necessary Qualifications for Circumcision and what are the necessary Qualifications for Baptism and then we shall soon be able to answer this Question Whether Infants are capable of Baptism Infants Qualifications for Circumcision were these They must be the Seed of Abraham according to the Flesh or born in his House or bought with Money or the Children of Proselytes and they must be Males and they must be eight days old else they could not lawfully be circumcised I say it was not all Infants as such that might lawfully be circumcised but Infants under such Circumstances or Qualifications Wherefore in the next place let us consider the indispensible Qualifications for Baptism And here I shall chiefly make use of that Text Col. 2. 11 12. so much insisted on by the Doctor with its parallel place Rom. 6. 1 2 3. From these Texts it plainly appears that Baptism is a mystical Burial and therefore every one of the faln Race of Mankind which are lawfully baptized are buried with Christ in Baptism So then there is an indispensible Necessity that all who are to be thus buried be first dead for it is directly against these Scriptures and against all Reason and Religion to bury any Person before they be dead The Question therefore is what Death is here meant It cannot be a corporal Death for then none but dead Bodies should be baptized which is absurd Nor can it be a Death in Sin for if that did qualify for Baptism then all unregenerate Persons were fit Subjects for Baptism but that also is absurd It must therefore be a Death to Sin and to the Rudiments of the World. And thus does St. Paul himself expound it How shall we that are dead to Sin live any longer therein Rom. 6. 11. Wherefore reckon your selves to be dead indeed unto Sin but alive unto God. Col. 2. 20. Dead with Christ from the Rudiments of the World. This is that Death which is so absolutely necessary to the Baptismal Covenant that the Doctor knows it to be granted by the Church of England that Repentance whereby we forsake Sin which is the same thing which St. Paul calls a Death to Sin is required of all that are to be baptized Another indispensible Qualification is every Subject of Baptism ought first to be a Child of God by Faith in Christ Jesus or to be a new Creature Hence it is said of the whole Church Militant Ye are all the Sons of God by Faith in Christ Jesus for as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ Gal. 3. And as every Member of this Church is said to be buried with Christ in Baptism so they are said therein to be risen with him through Faith. And to this also the Church of England gives Testimony that Faith is required of all that are to be baptized even such Faith as whereby the Promises of God made in that Sacrament are stedfastly to be believed And that it 's necessary the Party baptized be a new Creature they boldly affirm when they have sprinkled the Infant when perhaps fast asleep that he is born of the Spirit c. And that to be born again is a necessary Qualification for Baptism The Word of God is clear Tit. 3. where Baptism is called the Washing of Regeneration And St. Peter calls it the Answer of a good Conscience And unto this Doctrine all the ancient Writers of Christianity agree with full consent And for Brevities sake as also because Augustine is thought to be as eminent as any of the Fathers that were before him and more eminent then any that did succeed him I will content my self with his Testimony who saith Per fidem renascimur in Baptismate by Faith we are born again in Baptism Serm. 53. And again Primo fides Catholica Christiano necessaria est per ipsum renascimur in baptismate Salutem aeternam impetramus first of all the Catholick Faith is necessary for all Christians by the which in Baptism we are born again to obtain eternal Salvation And that Infants have not Faith he testifies in these Words Si illis minati essent ipsum Baptismum 〈◊〉 susciperent cui videmus cos cum magnis stetibus reluctari From these Premises I think we may safely conclude that Infants are not capable of Baptism for what Man with any Truth or Fairness of Discourse is ever able to bring Infants under these Qualifications or to shew that Baptism may lawfully be administred to Persons of whom we can have no Knowledg nor Evidence from themselves that there is any thing of these Prerequisites to Holy Baptism but as far as they are able Augustine being witness they do oppose and withstand it If Infants were illuminate they would gladly receive Baptism which we see them strive against with great crying Now all that Augustine the Church of England or the Doctor can say in this case amounts but to this That Infants do perform this Repentance and Faith by their Godfathers c. which is so poor an Answer so dellitute of Divine Warrant that it is to be lamented that ever wise Men should satisfy themselves with such a Speech as no Man can know to be true but by all Experience is found to be false insomuch that no Man could ever yet I suppose give Thanks to God for that Faith and Repentance which their Godfathers performed for them nor do the Godfathers themselves know that they do the Infant any good in or by any Supply the Infant does receive from them in respect of Repentance or Faith. But p. 24. the Doctor proceeds thus If the relative Nature of Circumcision considered as a Sacrament was the same under the Law that Baptism is under the Gospel it must needs follow that Children under the Gospel are as capable of this supposing no new Command to exclude them as under the Law they were of that But by the Doctor 's favour we do not exclude Children from Baptism but bring them to it as soon as lawfully we can but we must not make more haste
than good speed nor outrun the Rule which God has given to direct us Now these Words Exclude Infants from Baptism are rather scandalous than pertinent Does the Doctor exclude Children from the Lord's Table because he does not bring them to Communion there in their Infancy sure he does what he can to bring them to obey God in that Ordinance with what speed he lawfully may and so do we in the case of Baptism As for the relative Nature of Circumcision though it was no Absurdity to make Infants Members of the Jewish Church by it when God bad them do so yet had any Man taken upon him to have made them Members of the Church in the old World by such a Sign it would have been absurd enough It was no Absurdity for Abraham to offer up his Son Isaac to slay him with his own Hand when God did command it but it would be Absurdity to purpose for us to do so having no such Command and yet we are to sacrifice all that 's dear to us even our own Lives but it must be in such a way as God requireth This talk therefore of the relative Nature of Circumcision is very vain we say did the Lord require us to baptize our Infants and to give them the Communion there could be no Absurdity in either but then he would have diversified the time for Participation of these Ordinances as he did in the case of Circumcision for the 8th day though it was the precise time for the Admission of Infants yet it was no rule at all to the Adulti Shew now that God has required Baptism at a precise day to the younger sort and prefixed no precise day of Age to the elder sort for thus he did in the Circumcision and the Dispute will soon end Circumcision did relate necessarily to all Servants bought with Mony in Abraham's House as Members of his House but the case is not such in Baptism And it was yet never proved that those Persons who were thus circumcised were to be qualified for it by Faith and Repentance but it rather seems to have been done at first in Abraham's House either in Obedience to Abraham's Authority over them as his Bondmen Servants or Child or else by plain force for seeing Abraham circumcised all his that very day they had little time to have Faith and Repentance wrought in them nor is there one word of Abraham's preaching any thing to them But 't is said He took Ismael his Son and circumcised him and all that were born in his House and all that were bought with Mony every Male the self same day Here was bloody Work and Dr. Willit thinks the Number of the Males was so many that Abraham could not circumcise them in one day and that he used the help of others to do it And what Faith and Repentance could be expected from Ishmael at 13 Years of Age especially considering that he was not the Child of Promise nor to have the Covenant established with him And who will say that Abraham or the Jewish Church either had any Commission from God to teach all Nations circumcising them this way he never went but if he bought any of them them he would and did circumcise And where is the new Birth made the Qualification for Circumcision No Man can give an Instance of it But nothing is more common in the case of Baptism surely the plain Truth in short is this Circumcision did relate generally to a carnal Seed and to a Terrestrial Inheritance but Baptism relates only to a spiritual Seed and a Celestial Inheritance And let not the Doctor reflect upon us as he does p. 27. but we pray the Doctor to consider whether God was not as wise and had as great Goodness for and care of Infants and others too from Adam to Abraham as from Abraham till Christ's time And yet the Doctor knows there was no outward sign appointed for initiating Infants as the Doctor speaks and wherein does it appear that God was more gracious to Infants by or through Circumcision than he was to the Infants of the other Patriarchs The Fathers tell us as quoted by learned Protestants that Circumcision did not profit the Soul of the Infant nihil animae Circumcisionem illum profuisse Chrysost Hom. 39. in Gen. And yet the Wisdom of God was great in appointing Circumcision so early seeing it must be the Mark to distinguish the Family of which Christ should be born c. for the pain was more easy to be born in Infancy than when they attained to Manhood Neither is it by any means to be supposed that God by giving this Ceremony to Abraham c. did neglect all the Infants in the World as to the Business of Salvation which I must mention because the Doctor ever and anon is dropping such Passages as may deceive his Reader with such Apprehensions though I am sure the Doctor does believe no such thing He was still the God of the Spirits of all Flesh and all Infants were still his Offspring and never rebelling against him his gracious Nature would not suffer them to perish without Remedy and Remedy they could have none by Circumcision for it was not appointed for them And indeed to conceit our selves that our wise and good God should make either Circumcision or Baptism or any other Ritual necessary to the Salvation of poor dying Infants is a poor low conceit of God and contrary to all Rules which he has given to Men to extend Mercy or Justice For seeing it is not possible for them to have the one or the other but at the Will of others God's ways are so equal that he will never punish them for want of either but the Truth is he required the first but of a few in comparison and the latter not so much as of one Infant whence then is there such a quoil about Infant-Baptism One great Pretence of the Doctor for Infant-Baptism is taken from the ends of Baptism some of which he will have Infants to be capable of and therefore to be baptized This is the sum of what he says in a multitude of Words in several Pages But upon a right Discovery of the ends of Baptism as they are really such his Antecedent will vanish The Ends of Baptism be they what they will are to be considered in such a sense as that ordinarily without Baptism such things cannot be obtained And of these ends Remission of Sins and Eternal Life are the principal Acts 2. 38. Mark 16. 16. Now where ever or upon whomsoever God calls for Obedience in Holy Baptism as the way in which these Ends are by them to be obtained there the Duty of Baptism being refused these Ends are lost as appears in the Case of the Pharisees and Lawyers Luke 7. 29. They rejected the Counsel of God against themselves being not baptized Now I deny that Remission of Sins and Eternal Life are propounded to or in the Case of Infants as the
indeed where this Principle is neglected many Innovations are introduced and many Truths are neglected under as fair shews of Antiquity as can be pretended for Infant-Baptism The Doctor then had little reason to call this a slavish Principle which is indeed the Principle which delivers us from Slavery to Jewish Fables Mens Inventions and Traditions Pag. 53 54. the Doctor to support Infant-Baptism tells us how he builds many Points of Faith and Practice nor upon certain Evidences of the Scripture otherwise than as interpreted so or so by the Catholick Church as 1. That Christ is of one Substance with the Father 2. That there are three Persons in the Trinity 3. That it is necessary for Christians to assemble on the Lord's Day 4. That the Church be governed by Bishops 5. That Women have the Lord's Supper 6. That Infants are to be baptized And these things he makes necessary no otherwise but as the Catholick Church has interpreted divers Scriptures to justify them to be so Sure this is strange Doctrine for a Protestant But were a Man disposed to trace him in all these Particulars it might appear that the Churches in most Ages have been divided in all or the most of these Points that so that he makes the Catholick Church as it is commonly taken so great a Foundation of his Faith as he here pretends to make her will meet with many Difficulties to discourage and take off his Confidence And particularly if I desire him to resolve me but this one What sort of Christians are this Catholick Church But he adds We can prove Infant-Baptism from the Scope and Tenor of the Gospel and from many Passages of it as they are interpreted according to the Practice of the ancient Primitive Church But this is a vain Boast and I demand what Church or what Apostle did interpret any part of the Doctrine of Christ or of the Gospel to such a sense The Doctor replies It is unreasonable to presume that the Gospel would not extend the Subject of Baptism as far as the Jewish Church extended the Subject both of Circumcision and Baptism But I answer if this be granted yet the Doctor gains nothing for 1. The Jewish Church had no Baptism at all of Divine Institution and therefore could not extend that she had not 2. Her Circumcision was limited to Abraham's Family and perhaps not extended to much above a third part of that Family neither seeing all Females and all Males that died before the eighth Day were debarred of it Whereas the Gospel extends holy Baptism to all Nations to the End of the World to both Male and Female as they are qualified for it Thus for his Argument from the Scope Let us now see his particular Passages to prove Infant-Baptism P. 55. The Doctor gives us these Texts as interpreted by the Catholick Church for Infant-Baptism John 3. 5. Mark 10. 14. 1 Cor. 1. 16. Acts 16. 15 33. 1 Cor. 7. 14. 1 Cor. 10. 2. Good Reader look upon these Scriptures and thou wilt not find one word of Precept or Example for Infant-Baptism in them all The first Place shews that none can be Church-members lawfully under the Gospel except they be regenerate and have the washing of Regeneration by Water but Infant-Regeneration is a Secret no Man can know it God will fit them for Heaven if they die in Infancy this David knew for his Child which was begot in Adultery and died without Circumcision yet he nothing doubted its Salvation The second Text our Saviour pronounceth unbaptized yea I say unbaptized Infants to belong to Heaven how unwise then was the Doctor to bring it for Infant-Baptism If these very Infants which were brought to Christ's own Person yet were not by him appointed to be baptized it can never prove that other Infants are to be baptized And seeing our Saviour declares that unbaptized Infants belong to Heaven therefore that Place John 3. 5. cannot by any means be understood of Infants Look well also upon 1 Cor. 1. 16. and compare it with 1 Cor. 16. 15 16. and thou wilt find tho the Catholick Church say nothing that the Houshold of Stephanus were such as had been converted and were the first Fruits in Achaia and had addicted themselves to the Work of the Ministry and then these could be no Infants As for the two Housholds Acts 16. it's admirable that wise Men should bring them to prove what they do sufficiently confute For Lydia had no Husband we read of And there is no Infant found in her House but the Persons of her Family received Instruction from Paul and Silas Acts 16. ult therefore no Infants And of the Jaylor's Houshold it is expresly said that Paul spake the Word to all that were in his House and that he rejoiced believing in God with all his House And they went out about Midnight to be baptized All which being well weighed no Man no Church can honestly interpret this Text for Infant-Baptism And for that Place 1 Cor. 7. 14. the Doctor does injure it as he did before in thrusting in the word common And it is ill done to make any distinction of common and unclean from holy which God has not made but rather taken away as we proved from Acts 10. 15. No Man as such is now to be called common or unclean and therefore no Infant is to be called common or unclean but being born according to God's Ordinance they are as such a holy Seed or a Seed of God. See the learned Diodate upon the Place Mal. 2. 14. Marriage ought to be of one with one and two in the same Flesh God's chief End in this Proceeding was that the Posterity might be sanctified being born in chaste Wedlock according to his Appointment whereas it is defiled by all manner of unlawful Conjunction And to concude I wish that my self and the Doctor my Opposâ—â—â— in this case be found at last as holy as a dying Infant of a Jew or poor Indian and we shall be sure to go to Hea-Heaven for I could never find that it is the Will of our Heavenly Father that one of these little ones should perish We come now to his last Text 1 Cor. 10. 2. where we find and the Doctor does ingenuously acknowledg that the Baptism here meant was but an Vmbrage or Shadow of Baptism not a real Baptism Nor does the Text speak of Infants being baptized in this umbratical Baptism it seems as clearly restrained to the Fathers in the case of Baptism as the eating and drinking spiritually of Christ is restrained to them ver 3. So that nothing can be urged from this Text for Infant-Baptism which will not with equal Truth and Reason conclude for their coming to the Lord's Table Read Mr. Diodate upon this place he was for Infant-Baptism yet does not infer Infant-Baptism from this Text as indeed there is no reason so to do For it is certain that all that passed through the Sea were not baptized to Moses