To your latter part Infants-Baptism disproved.
CHAP. I.
IN p. 97. Whereas you say, ther's no Example or command in the Scripture, to warrant the Baptism of Infants, but the Scripture is wholly silent therein, not one syllable, you say, to be found in all the New-Testament, of any such practice; and therefore, it is no Ordinance of Jesus Christ:] besides what hath been already said, I shall first distinguish, and then deny your assertion; and lay down the contrary.
I might first deny your Enumeration of particulars, as an insufficient Induction (for a promise in Scripture, would be a sufficient Warrant; as well as a Command, or Example; which you have left out:) But I shall hasten.
Things may be truly said to be, and to be commanded, in Scripture two ways;
1. Expresly, in so many words. As Mat. 28.19. Go ye teach (or Disciple) all Nations.
[Page 75] 2. Implicitely, as Acts 13.46, 47. Lo! saith the Apostle, we turn to the Gentiles, for so hath the Lord commanded us. And then he brings in Authority to prove it, from a Promise of God the Father to Jesus Christ; I will give thee for a light to the Gentiles, Isa. 49.6. and 42.6, &c. Which the Apostle renders, I have set thee to be a light to the Gentiles, that thou shouldst be for Salvation unto the Ends of the Earth.
The Apostles preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles, was a matter of greater import than the Baptizing of Infants, and part of the great mystery of Godliness, 1 Tim. 3.16. a Mysterious thing; and yet, he counted this Inference sufficient Authority for him. Let this be the more carefully marked, because Inferences and deductions from Scripture, concerning Infants-Baptism, are denyed.
So for Examples; some are more expresly and explicitly laid down: others more implicitly and covertly. You have given instances of the former; and I have given instances of the latter. Lydia and her House. The Houshold of Stephanas Baptized.
Again, Go ye and Disciple all Nations, Baptizing them. Here is an express-command to Baptize such as are Discipled, but what this Discipling is, and who are these Disciples, is not expresly laid down here; but we must [Page 76]look what may be gathered from other Scriptures, to give us light therein; which I have spoken to before.
This distinction thus cleared, I must deny your Assertion, and positively affirm the contrary; That there is a precept implied in the New-Testament, for the Baptizing of Inchurched-Parents-Infants; and as clear, if not more clear, than that you produce, for Womens receiving the Lord's Supper. You own the one, though the Command and Example you produce be very implicite, and entangled with many things that occasion doubting; and yet, you own not the other.
I suppose you may easily discern, that the Testimonies you bring out of Luther, Calvin, and some others, have respect only to an express Command, and Example, and not to an implicit one. And therefore, if you had dealt like a candid, and punctual Antagonist, you would either have owned what they held and thought as they did, concerning an Implicit Command, or else you would have contravened and opposed that only. As for Calvins judgment see his Institutions. lib. 4. Chap. 16. Artic. 5, 6, 7. He gives divers arguments to prove, that the Baptism of Infants was instituted by God.
[Page 77] 1. saith he, We have the same Promise, that ‘ Israel had heretofore in Circumcision, for Infants. Therefore, they are not to be driven away from the sign of Baptism, when they are partakers of the thing-signified. And then in the Article, he tells you, the Covenant is the thing-signified to them.’ Diserte namque pronunciat Deus, Circumcisionem infantuli, loco sigilli futuram, ad obsignandain foederis promissionem. That is, God expresly saith, that the Circumcision of a little Infant, should be instead of a Seal to confirm the Promise of the Covenant.
2. His second Argument to prove it to be instituted of God, is taken from the Covenant of Abraham, which is common to us Christians.
3. His third Argument is taken from the Act of Christ, so courteously embracing the Infants, that were brought unto him. See there more at large. By all which it appear's that though Calvin might deny, that there was any express Command for Baptizing of Infants; yet he held an Implicite Command; which is the thing, I was to evidence.
CHAP. II. To your Chapter second, of Infants-Baptism disproved.
AS for your humane Authorities against Infant-Baptism, they are of little force to overthrow it, when we have so much reason out of the Holy-Scripture (as hath been shewn) to establish it. But whereas you assert that there was no authentick practice of it, for 300. years (to wit, next after Christ and his Apostles) I shall in opposition thereunto, give you what Mr. Philpot, that honoured Martyr of Christ, hath left us, in the Book of Martyrs. vol. 3. pag. 607. 608. in a Letter to a friend of his, Prisoner in Newgate, at the same time, concerning Infant-Baptism; who out of divers ancient Authors, produceth the contrary to what you affirm.
The Baptism of Infants (saith he) was not denyed, till above 300 years after Christ. (And you say, that the Baptism of Infants, came not into the Church, till above 300 or 400 years after Christ.)
‘His words are these, Auxentius, one of the Arrian-Sect, was one of the first that denied the Baptism of Children; and next after [Page 79]him Pelagius the Heretick: and some others there were, in St. Bernards time, as appear by his writings. And in our days (saith he) the Anabaptists (an inordinate kind of Men, stirred up by the Devil, to the destruction of the Gospel, see pag. 607.’ (They are his words and not mine; for I Believe and hope better things, of many in our days, what-ever they might be then.)
And afterwards, pag. 608. finally (saith he) I can declare out of Ancient-Writers, that the Baptism of Infants, hath continued from the Apostles times unto ours. Neither that it was instituted by any Councils; neither of the Pope; nor of other Men, but Commended from the Scripture by the Apostles themselves.
Origen (saith he) who lived 200 years after Christ) upon the declaration of the Epistle to the Romans, expounding the sixth Chapter 8. v. That the Church of Christ received the Baptism of Infants, from the very Apostles.
Hierom ( about 400 years after Christ) maketh mention of the Baptism of Infants; in the third Book against the Pelagians; and in his Epistle to Leta.
Augustine about 400. years after Christ) reciteth for this purpose, a place out of John, Bishop of Constantinople, in his first Book against Julian, Chap. 2. [...], [Page 80] &c. For this cause we Baptize Children, &c. And he again to Hierom. Epist. 28.8. That Cyprian ( who lived about 250 years after Christ) not making any new decree, but firmly observing the Faith of the Church, judged with his fellow-Bishops, that as soon as one was born, he might be lawfully-Baptized. The place of Cyprian (saith he) is to be seen, in his Epistle to Fidus.
Augustine, in writing against the Donatists lib. 4. Chap. 23, 24. saith, That the Baptism of Infants was not derived from the Authority of Man, neither of Councils, but from the By Tradition] he means not an unwritten Tradition, but a Scriptural one; such as the Apostle mentions 2 Thes. 3.6. 2 Thes. 2.15. Tradition, or Doctrine of the Apostles.
Cyril ( who lived in Julian's time) upon Levitic. cap. 8. approves the Baptism of Children, and condemns the iteration of Baptism. These Authorities of Men (saith he) I do alledge, not to tie the Baptism of Children, to the Testimonies of Men; but to shew, how Men's Testimonies, do agree with God's Word; and that the verity of Antiquity is on our side; and that the Anabaptists have nothing but lies for them; and new imaginations, which feign the Baptism of Children, to be the Popes Commandment. Thus far Mr. Philpot.
To which let me add, out of Calvin's Institutions. Lib. 4. Chap. 16. Art. 8. ‘In English thus, Quod autem apud simplicem vulgum disseminant—longam annorum seriem post Christi resurrectionem praeteriisse, quibus incognitus erat Paed obaptismus, in eo faedissime mentiuntur. Siquidem, nullus est scriptor tam vetustus, qui non ejus originem ad Apostolorum seculum pro certo referat. That which they scatter among the simple Common-people (saith Calvin,) that a long tract of years passed, after the Resurrection of Christ, wherein Paedo-Baptism was unknown: in that (saith he) they most shamefully lye; for there is no Writer so Ancient, which doth not refer it's Original to the age of the Apostles, as an undoubted-Truth.’
If you would see more, how Ancient Authors, brought by some against Infant-Baptism, do indeed, either not speak against it, or else do speak for it; read Mr. Cobbet's vindication of the Covenant, and Church-Estate of Children, &c. From pag. 213. to the end of the Book, by which you will discern, how Men have at least misapprehended, and mistaken them; and brought them to witness, what was never in their thoughts, nor the import of their words. See the like in Doctor Homes; to whose answers you should have replied, and not have brought in the same things, as if nothing had ever been said against them.
CHAP. III. In Answer to your Chapter third.
AS for the Arguments, drawn from humane Tradition, for Baptizing Infants; I leave them to those, that are willing to build their Faith upon humane Tradition. But as for consequential Arguments, deduced from Scriptures, to justifie the Baptizing of Infants, those I must stick unto; as knowing that nothing can naturally, and (per se) of it self flow out of the Scriptures of Truth but Truth. And every grain of Truth is to be prized above the World. And you have no more but Consequences, to prove that Women should partake of the Lord's Supper; and those also much entangled, and obscured with difficulties.
I must profess, if consequences be not valid, that naturally flow from Scriptures rightly understood, I know not what to make of much of the Holy Scripture; neither will you.
As to that, Math. 19.13, 14. Calvin will tell you how Baptism comes to ‘ be concerned in it. Institut. lib. 4. Chap. 16. Artic. 7. This is not lightly, (saith he) to be passed by, [Page 83]that Christ commandeth Infants to be brought unto him; adding a reason; to wit, because of such is the Kingdom of Heaven; and afterwards he declareth his will by his deed; when having embraced them, he commends them to his Father, by his praying, (for them, and blessing of them. If it be meet, that Infants should be brought to Christ; why not also, that they should be received to Baptism? which is the badge of our Communion & fellowship with Christ? If theirs be the Kingdom of Heaven, why should the sign be denyed them? &c. See more there.’
As to that of John, 3.5. Let them plead for the Baptism of Infants from that Text, that see more than I do in it. I shall not side with them, nor conclude as they do, that there is no other way to Regenerate and save Infants; though I dare not exclude Baptism, if God please then to work.
Nor shall I deduce the Baptism of Infants from Mark, 16.16. upon this ground, that they are Believers; or upon any other inspired habit of Grace within them (which is wholly hidden from man) having a clearer, surer, more solid, and visible ground, to build upon, not only from Christ's Commission, (as hath been proved;) but also from the Covenant made with Abraham and his Seed, externally, in a Church-way, Gen. 17.7. and [Page 84]repeated, Acts 2.39. together with the Analogie of Baptism, with Circumcision, than the initiatory Seal of Gods Covenant, and dispensed to Infants; and also, from that federal holiness mentioned, 1 Cor. 7.14. which you deny, and make it to be only a Legitimacy of such Children.
What if others saw it not in ages past, that Holiness there is taken for federal Holiness: Neither did you your self see formerly many Truths, that now you do; and yet they were in the Scriptures then, as well as now. We have cause therefore to bless God, that hath given to any of his Servants to discern the Truths, that lay hid from the former Ages; and in particular, this among others, of the federal Holiness of Children of Inchurched-Parents. I confess my self, not so much an Antiquary, as to say, who was the first founder of this Interpretation; nor have I ancient Commentators at hand to examine; but if Zuinglius were the first (as you affirm) we have cause to honour him, and to bless God that revealed it to him. And now I come to answer to your reasons given against it.
1. It doth not contradict the Gospel-Dispensation; but well suits with it; the Lord not having straitned, but enlarged his Grace, now in Gospel-times, and the visible tokens of it.
[Page 85] 2. This federal Holiness of Infants of Inchurched-Parents, is not an entayling Grace to Nature; nor Regeneration to Generation; but is an entayling of God's Covenant in it's External and Ecclesiastical dispensation, to the natural-Seed of Inchurched-Parents, which they should improve also, for their Regeneration. It is therefore your mistake, to take Grace] absolutely, and only for Regenerating Grace; as if we held this Holiness, to consist in Regeneration, and Inherent Sanctification: For we acknowledge, that we and our Children, are all by Nature Children of wrath, as well as others, Eph. 2.3. But we and our Seed, being, at least Externally, in God's-Covenant, have an advantage left us by our Gracious God, to press him for regenerating Grace for our Children, which he hath indefinitely and conditionally promised; And our Children when they come to discretion, for themselves. This priviledge and advantage they want, who are strangers from the Covenants of promise, as being without Christ, without hope, and without God in the World, Eph. 2.12. but being under the Covenant, they have a visible ground for their hope; which they should improve, for converting-Grace, leaving secret things to God.
If then you ask, what Holiness this federal Holiness is; It is a Relative Holiness by way of separation and Consecration. God hath Externally-Consecrated Inchurched-Parents and their Seed, to be his people, comprehending them within the External and Ecclesiastical-dispensation of his Covenant; and thereby hath entitled them to the Initiatory Seal thereof, the susception of which, even infants are capable of.
And here again I must mind you, that your Assertion doth necessarily imply, that whosoever is Baptized must be truly-regenerated, and sanctified; which hath been often confuted before.
3. Hence this federal Holiness of Infants, doth not at all contradict the experience of former and latter times; as you say it doth.
Had not Abraham an Ishmael, and Isaac an Esau? And yet both of them, when Children were federally Holy. What I pray did Esau sell, when he sold his Birth-right, for which he is called a profane person? Heb. 12.14. And what if Parent's now Inchurched neglect their Duty, and have Children, that when grown up, do slight their Priviledge, and walk wickedly, neglecting their Duty required of God, as indispensably-necessary to the establishment of Covenant-Relation; and transgressing those Commands they were obliged [Page 87]to observe? Is it not an aggravation of their Sin, that they were once Children, that were devoted and consecrated to God? You will easily grant, that it was a great Sin to turn any consecrated thing to a common and profane Use. And is it not so here? for Children that were externally consecrated and related to God in his Covenant, to turn from him, in stead of seeking him; and to give up themselves to Sin and Satan and the World? Doth not God tax the Israelites, Ezek. 16.20. Thou hast taken thy Sons and thy Daughters, whom thou hast born unto me, (saith the Lord) and these hast thou Sacrificed, &c. And thou hast slain my Children, v. 21. And how were they the Lord's, but by virtue of his Covenanting with them in their Parents, v. 8. and not only in common, by Creation? Here was something, that was not common to Heathen-Children. And this will agree with our Interpretation of that Text, 1 Cor. 7.14. of federal Holiness, but not with your Inference which you would fasten upon us, as an absurdity.
4. Hence again, this federal Holiness of Infants of Inchurched-Parents, doth not necessitate an owning of the Doctrine, of falling from Grace, as you infer; for when we say, They are federally Holy, we do not take it for Inherent-Holiness, and sanctifying Grace; [Page 88]Therefore, they cannot fall, from what they never had. But we grant they may fall from federal-Holiness, by their sinful slighting, rejecting or mocking at the Covenant, and Heirs of the Promise, as Ishmael and Esau did. I shall therefore return your Argument upon you; when you, in your way, Baptize Adultpersons, upon certainty of Regeneration, and infallible Inherent-Holiness (which you pretend to, and your Argument against us implies so much) and then afterwards they fall away (as your own experience will tell you; then, it is your opinion, and interpretation, that holds the Doctrine of falling from Inherent Grace, and not ours. For many who are Baptized in your way, do fall away, and are never renewed again unto Repentance.
I cannot therefore concur, with your reading, nor Interpretation of that Scripture, 1 Cor. 7.14. You say it should be read thus, The unbelieving Husband is sanctified to the Wife: and the unbelieving Wife is sanctisted to the Husband. And you say the Preposition [...], doth sometimes signify so; and give an instance in Acts 4.12. where it is translated among Men] you say, it should be to Men. But by your favour; you must give us a clearer Proof, before we can receive it. That the Preposition [...], signifies among] is apparent in [Page 89]sundry Scriptures. Take one for all, Col. 1.27. [...]. To whom God would make known, what is the Riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles: viz. more generally; and more particularly among you Colossians; which is Christ among you, the hope of Glory. So I rather read the words than Christ in you. The word is the same in both. And this will give us light to the other, Acts 4.12. No other name given among men] Jesus Christ is the only Saviour, and God hath appointed, that he alone should be preached among Men, that those, that should be saved, might believe on him, and others left without excuse. This is English proper enough and suitable to other Scriptures; and therefore not to be translated, and tied up, to the Word To] to maintain your opinion, and overthrow the genuine sence of the Text under debate.
Nor is there any reason why [...] should be rendred To], Gal. 1.16. It's very proper, and Emphatical, and I scarce ever heard, or read that Text applied, and opened by our English Divines, but they insist upon the propriety of it. It pleased God, not only to reveal his Son To me, but In me.
That we may find out the true and genuine sence of the Text, 1 Cor. 7.14. I shall consider the Apostles scope, and his manner of [Page 90]arguing, which I find elaborately opened by Mr. Cobbet, the sum of which I shall give you, with some little Addition thereunto.
Amongst other questions propounded to the Apostle, by the Church of Corinth, this was one. Whether persons being unequally yoked, the believing party might abide with the Infidel; and with a good Conscience might continue cohabitation, and conjugal-Communion?
This he begins to Answer, v. 12. forbidding the believing-party, to reject, or depart from the Infidel, if the Infidel were willing to continue; and that for four reasons.
1. Because Inward and outward Peace, is furthered by such cohabitation, v. 15.
2. Because thereby, an opportunity might be had, of gaining the Infidel-Party to the faith, v. 16.
3. Because Christians are bound to be content with their calling, v. 17, &c.
4. (Which is first in the Text, but I put it last, to avoid repetition) Because, from such cohabitation, and conjugal-Communion, no pollution of Conscience, ariseth to the believing-party; but on the contrary, a Sanctification of the Infidel, not only To, but also In] the believing Party, v. 12, 13, 14. In this lay the great weight of their scruple; [Page 91]and therefore the Apostle backeth, and confirmeth this reason with another; which the Church of Corinth, (that sent to be resolved in the Case) could not deny, but did own. The reason lies in these words; Else were your Children unclean, but now they are holy. That is, if the unbelieving party were not sanctified in the believing one; your Children would be unclean; but now they are holy, as you cannot deny; therefore it must needs follow, that the unbelieving party is sanctified in the believing one. I shall open the words, by answering.
—1. Negatively.
1. By Sanctified] here, is not meant, made Holy, by inherent Grace. That might possibly be the issue of it afterwards, but it was not so at present; for if it had, then the Question would have been needless.
2. Nor by Sanctified] here is meant, a being made a lawful Husband, or a lawful Wife; for that they were before; and there was no scruple concerning that. They were lawful Man and Wife, when they were both Infidels as your self do acknowledge, Marriage-fellowship was honourable, and the Bed undefiled, yea even among Indians and Pagans, Heb. 13.4. They had a lawful civil use of each other, when they were both of them Infidels; and that could not be denied, [Page 92]when one of them was a Believer. If therefore, a lawful use only were intended by the word Sanctified, then one of these two absurdities would follow:
1. That either there is nothing in this Text peculiar to the Believing party, which is directly cross to what the Apostle affirms. The Ʋnbelieving Husband is sanctified in the believing Wife, &c. — Or,
2. That Infidel-couples are sanctified each in other; for, they were lawful man & wife, when both of them were Infidels. How cross are these to the holy spirit, speakingin & by the Apostle? — 2. Positively. By Sanctified in the Believing Husband, and in the Believing Wife] are these two things meant.
1. That the believing-party had, and might have a sanctified enjoyment, and use of the unbelieving. The civil enjoyment, and use of each other in a conjugal way, was lawful, when they were both Infidels; but now one of them is a Believer, that believing party hath a Sanctified enjoyment, and use of the unbelieving One. The Infidelity of the one, doth not make that conjugal use, which before was lawful, to become defiled, to the other that believes. Believers, as to all lawful things, have a lawful use of them, as they are Men; but they have also this more, than any Unbelievers have; to wit, a [Page 93]Sanctified Use of them as they are Believers. To the pure all things are pure Tit. 1.15. that is, not only lawful; for so, Meat Drink, Physick, Plowing, Marriage, &c. are even to Heathens; but they are also holy, in and for the use of Believers. But to the impure, and Unbelieving, Meat, Drink, Apparel, Marriage, Plowing, &c. though in themselves lawful, yet nothing is pure, and Sanctified to them, but even their Mind and Conscience is defiled. The Plowing of the wicked is Sin, Prov. 21.4.
2. Though this Sanctified Use and Enjoyment, is necessarily implied, in that phrase, Sanctified in the Believing Husband, and in the believing Wife] yet, that is not all; but there is somewhat more intimated, which is more to our purpose, and to the scope of the place; and why we should lose a grain of it, I see no reason. Mr. T. For both the Parents being (as it were) the common root of the Child, if both are unholy and unbelieving, the Child is unclean, in the Apostl's sence. But saith the Apostle, If either the Father or the Mother be a Believer, the Child is not unclean but holy, notwithstanding one of the Parents be an Unbeliever. For that Parent, which is an Unbeliever, is sanctified in that Parent, which is a Believer. I say, sanctified in him, [Page 94]so, that by vertue of that Parent, who is a Believer, the other that is an Unbeliever, becomes with the Believing Parent, the root of an holy Child, as if he, or she, were a Believer too; the Blessing following the Believing party. The Ʋnbelieving Parent is Sanctified In] the Believing one, and so, with the Believing one, is the root of an holy Seed. Hence we see, that there is no reason, why we should change the signification of In into To]; but great reason, why we should give it, it's proper signification.
As to that of Ezra, 10. It was an Obligation peculiar to the Nation of the Jews, before Christ came in the flesh, and before the Partition-Wall was broken down between Jews and Gentiles. And that it respected the Jews only, and also, for that space of time, is apparent; thus. An Infidel-Husband turning Proselite, was not bound to put away his Wife, though she still continued an Infidel. And thus much to that phrase, Sanctified in the Believing-Husband, and Sanctified in the Believing-Wife.
Now, of the Childrens being Unclean, and Holy; I assert,
1. Negatively, By Ʋnclean] here is not meant Illegitimate, or Bastards, nor such only as have Sin in them; for so those Children the Apostles calls Holy have.
Nor by Holy] is meant Legitimate. Nor do the Scriptures you alledge make it good, From what I pray was the Bastard, who was Illegitimate excluded? Deut. 23.2. not from Legitimacy only, but from the Congregation of the Lord. He was accounted unclean, and unholy, in reference to that, and might not partake of the priviledges of the Covenant, as other Children might. He was not to be accounted federally-Holy, as other Children of the Jewish Church were which your self doth grant p. 190.
And as to that of 1 Thes. 4.3, 4, 5. It doth not prove Legitimacy to be Holiness, but there is something more in it. For the Apostle speaks not here to the Gentiles, that knew not God; v. 6. but to visible Saints-Inchurched, who were (visibly at least, and in the judgment of Charity) in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ, Chap. 1.1. And it was the Will of God, that they should walk, not only in a Civil and sober manner (for so, many Gentiles did, that knew not God) but also in a Sanctified manner, that every one of them should possess his Vessel in Sanctification and Honour, even in their married-estate, and not in the lust of Concupiscence. God expects that his people even in a married-estate, should not only be honest, but also Holy. That they should consecrate themselves [Page 96]whole to God. And again; that by honesty, and purity the Saints might be discerned from them that know not God. Beza in loc.
And as to that of Malachy 2.15. it doth not at all oppose what we hold. The words are not, a Holy Seed] as you render them, pag. 199. but a Seed of God] that is, God instituted Marriage between but one Man, [...] and one Woman; he created and joined but one Woman to one Man, (though he might have made many more; but one, I say) that their Children might be a Seed of God. And Legitimate Children, may be called a Seed of God, because born in Marriage, which was instituted of God, for all Mankind. But this Seed of God (common to all Children, born of Parents in lawful Marriage) is not equivalent, unto those Children, which the Apostle calls Holy] 1 Cor. 7.14. for, their Holiness depends, not only upon that lawful-Marriage of the Parents; but principally and properly upon one of them as a Believer; Denominatio sumi [...]ur â potiori. in whom, as a joint-root of the Child, the Unbeliever is said to be Sanctified, ut supra.
Again; neither by Holy] is meant such as they might make a holy use of. For so, a repenting and Believing Parent, might of a Bastard; or of other Children of Infidels. Nor is it meant the same, with the Infidels being Sanctified in the Believer.
2. Affirmatively and Positively;
1. By Ʋnclean] is meant, such Children, one of whose Parents was not at least a visible-Believer, who never consecrated himself, and his Children to God in his Covenant.
2. By Holy; is meant, such Children, one of whose Parents at least, was a visible-Believer, and Member of the Church of Christ; who had given up himself and his Children to God in his Covenant. Such were Holy, with a Covenant and Church-holiness. Mr. Cobbet. Antiochus destroyed the holy people, or people of the Holy ones, Dan. 8.24. among which were Children destroyed, as well as Parents. And how were they Holy? Even by vertue of the Holy-Covenant, Dan. 11.28.30, 32. in which all the Jews Externally and Ecclesiastically were, together with their little Ones. Deut. 29.11, 12. Against which Holy Covenant the Enemies had indignation, Dan. 11.30. The Children were a part of that body of people redeemed from Egypt, which were called Holy, [Page 98] Deut 14.2. and Deut. 26.18, 19. and cap. 28.9.
Take the sum of the words in this ensuing Paraphrase.
Unless your Interest in the Covenant of Grace, and your Faith therein, which in a Church-way ye profess, have so much influence on your Infidel Yoke-fellows, as to Sanctifie them, not only to your Conjugal Use, but also to Sanctifie them in you, (both of you being together, one Common-root of your Children) it cannot be of force to your Children, to render and denominate them Holy; but they must be unclean, as if ye had been both Infidels. But this latter ye do not question, to wit, whether your Children are Holy? And therefore, why should ye question the other? to wit, whether you may conscionably abide, and have Conjugal Communion with your Unbelieving-Yokefellow? This sence of the Text is plain and clear and suitable to the Apostles scope.
And hence; as long as this Covenant-Interest holds in force; neither rejected by the Parents, (as Rom. 11.20) nor they suspended, nor cut off by a just Church-Censure (as 1 Cor. 5.4, 5.) nor by God's just hand (as Rom. 11.15, 17.) even so long, as the Covenant is Ecclesiastically of force, to the Childrens federal and Church-Estate; see Ezek. 16.8.20.21, 23. And thus I hope, [Page 99]I have cleared this much controverted Text of Scripture; wherein I suppose are answered, the main things that are brought against it; but yet I shall answer as briefly as I can to some particulars, that such as are not so well able to discern them under other heads might see them here.
To pag. 194. Argument second. It seem's to me an unweighed and inconsiderate Assertion; to say, that the Holiness of the Children, 2 Cor. 7.14. is of no other nature, than that spoken of the unbelieving Parent in the Text; and therefore, that if one will entitle to the Ordinance, so will the other— This is neither consistent with the Truth (as may be seen before) nor with your self; for you tell us pag. 192. that the unbelieving-Husband's being Sanctified to his Believing Wife, is, that she might freely-converse with him in the Conjugal-Estate, &c. and the Holiness of the Child, was his Legitimacy. Judge impartially whether these are the same.
To your third Arg. p. 194, 195. That this Text is not to be limited to Infants, &c. I Answer; it is to be limited to Infants, and Children in minority. For if they be 30, 40, or 50. years old, as you speak, they are to profess personally their Faith and Repentance, and to lay hold of the Covenant themselves, before they can regularly be Baptized.
To your fourth Argument, p. 195. Why this federal Holiness of Children (that we speak of) cannot be a New-Covenant-Holiness that must qualifie and entitle to Baptism; first, because it cannot be known, say you, for the Parent professing may be a Hypocrite—and then you Baptize a wrong Subject.—In Answer to which,—1. Though I am heartily sorry in some respect, yet in another I am glad, to hear you speak so plainly. In other places you are more dark and silent, but here you plainly express your mind. It seem's then, you Baptize no Hypocrites; and I heartily wish you did not. Do you certainly and infallibly know, that all that are Baptized in your way, are true real Christians, and not Hypocrites? Surely that cannot be known by you. And why then are they Baptized? It's too apparent, that divers such persons are Baptized in your way. I pray consider, how this your principle, and practice can consist, and stand together. As for us, we know that such Parents are Church-Members, whose Infants we Baptize: but when you Baptize a Hypocrite, you Baptize a wrong Subject. Ex ore tuo, &c.—2. We do not Baptize a wrong Subject, when we Baptize the Infant of an Inchurched-Parent that is an Hypocrite. He appears a Saint to the Church, and as such they received him; his Hypocrisie is hid from [Page 101]them, as Judas's was from his fellow-Disciples. A Member of the Church he is, and hath as good a right (in foro Ecclesiae) before the Church to all Church-Ordinances, as the most sincere Christian in the Church hath, both for himself and his Child.—3. That this federal-Holiness, is a New-Covenant-Holiness, and sufficient to entitle the Child to Baptism. Is there not an External and Ecclesiastical Dispensation of the New-Covenant now, as well as an Internal and Spiritual? And is there not an Ecclesiastical and Church-Holiness, (which Hypocrites may have as well as true Saints) which is also a New-Covenant-Holiness? Whereby they have an external-right to New-Covenant-Ordinances? Hath not the Hypocrite Baptized in your way, a New-Covenant-Holiness? Is he not Externally in the New-Covenant, and therefore you admit him to be Baptized? you think also, that he is spiritually and savingly in the New-Covenant; but afterwards it appears you were mistaken. And so, it is your Opinion, that tends to Baptize a wrong Subject, and not ours. We go upon more sure, and certain grounds, and such as may be known, and through Grace we know. Consider good Sir, of these things, which in Love to the Truth, I present to your self, and to others.
You add a second Reason; thus, If this federal-Holiness be a New-Covenant-Holiness, that must qualifie, and entitle to Baptism, then no Unbelievers Child is in Covenant, or Elect.
I must profess, this is strange Arguing; and wants a deal of Rational Glue to joyn the Consequent to the Antecedent. When we speak of federal-Holiness; we speak of what is Visible, External, and Ecclesiastical, and if you have not taken notice of it formerly, I beseech you observe it now; for I perceive, and have long observed, that the want of a right apprehension of this, is one great cause of difference, about Infant-Membership and Baptism. But to your Argument. If you repeat the whole Syllogism, you will find four terms in it. The Antecedent of the Proposition, speaks of an External Right to Baptism; and the Consequent is of a saving-Interest in the Covenant; and of Election, which is yet higher. We easily grant, that an Unbelievers or Pagans Child, may be Elected from Eternity, and may be (if God please) savingly in the Covenant of Grace, and a true work of Grace in his Soul, in a way and time unknown to Man; and yet we can truly say, that such an Infant, his Parents being Infidels, hath not that federal-Holiness, which the Children of Inchurched-Parents [Page 103]have, and so, hath not an Immediate Right to Baptism. For—1. He hath no Right by means of of his Parents; for they are both Infidels. —Secondly nor by his own profession, for he is not capable of making any; and so the Church can have no knowledge of it. I grant he hath fundamentally a Right, but not formally. Jus ad rem, but not jus in re. A remote Right, not an Immediate.
It seem's to me by your expression, and what I have heard from some others of your perswasion; That you make on's being in the Covenant, and Election, to run parallel, without distinguishing of the one, or the other; which I have observed, to be a cause of great mistakes, especially to many honest, and simple-hearted-Christians, who are not able to see their way through it. I shall therefore speak something to it.
Election falls under a two-fold consideration in respect of the Object unto which persons may be said to be Elected.
1. To Eternal Life and happiness, and the Graces of the Spirit, preceding it as means certainly tending thereunto, 2 Thes. 2.13. 1 Pet. 1.1, 2, 3, 4. Eph. 1.3, 4.
2. To External Church-Ordinances and Priviledges, Deut. 7.6, 7. Psal. 65.4. likewise the Covenant is considered, as Internally and savingly Dispensed; or as Externally [Page 104]and Ecclesiastically Dispensed. Now if you take both of these together, in sensu composito, in a compound sence, then I grant, that the Covenant is no larger than the Vein of Election, but they run parallel: But if they be taken in sensu diviso, in a divided sence, for Election only unto Eternal Life and Salvation, and Saving-Graces; then I deny them to be equal. For there is also an Election of some unto External Church-Covenant-Ordinances, and Priviledges, who are not Elected unto Salvation. A Church-Member living and dying in Hypocrisie, was within the Covenant Externally and Ecclesiastically dispensed. Else, how came he to be a Member of the Church, which consists by the Covenant, which is as the Cement that joyn's them together. Yet such a One was never in the Vein of Election unto Eternal-Life; which is absolute and not conditional, as some Blasphemously hold.
Hence, when it is said, the Covenant is no larger than Believing] that is, It belongs to none but true Believers; It is thus to be understood, to wit, as to the enjoyment of the saving benefits of it, it belongs as Immediately to none but true Believers; but as to the External proposal and tender of them, and Ecclesiastical and Temporary Priviledges of the Covenant, so, it may and doth belong, [Page 105]not only to true Believers, but also to such as make a credible profession of true Faith, in a visible congregation, though they be not true Believers indeed; & to their Children also.
To conclude this; If the Covenant be no larger than the Vein of Election unto Salvation, and no larger than true Believing, then some of these absurdities must needs follow;
1. Either there must be no Hypocrite in any visible Church (for he is not in the Vein of Election to Eternal Salvation, and therefore, Matth. 13.37, 38, 39, &c. 47, 48, 49, 50. not within the Covenant:) and this is flatly-contrary to the Scripture, and to known experience: see also, Rom. 9.1, 2, 3, 4.
2. Or if there be any Hypocrites in the visible-Church, they must be certinaly-Elected to Salvation. For, Being in the Visible Church they are within the Covenant as hath been proved; and the Covenant being no larger than Election, they must of necessity be Elected.
3. Hypocrites in the visible-Church, must be Damned or Saved. Damned they cannot be, because they are within the Covenant, as I have proved. And the Covenant being of the same Latitude with Election, they are Elected to Salvation, and must not be Damned; or if they be, God must change his Decree; [Page 106]which is Blasphemy even to think. —Again; Saved they cannot be; for God never Elected any unto Salvation, that lived and died Hypocrites, and he will not change his mind. And hence, according to that Tenet, Hypocrites can neither be Damned, nor Saved.
4. If the Covenant be no larger than Election unto Eternal Life and Salvation, and no Infants are in the Covenant, then all Infants-dying must be damned. For according to this Opinion, they being not in the Covenant, are not Elected; and not being Elected, cannot be saved, unless the unchangeable God change his Decree; that is change himself. Hence we see, that what we hold, is free from that absurdity; which you would fasten upon it, and the absurdity lies at your own Door.
But it seem's all my labour is in vain, that I have spent in proving this Holiness of Children, 1 Cor. 7.14. to be a federal-Holiness; because, say you, Be the Holinese here what it will, it is neither here, nor else-where, assigned to be a ground of Baptizing Children upon, &c.
To which I Answer, 1. That if this Holiness be federal (which you acknowledge all Children under the Law had); yea, I shall also add, as the Children Inchurched in Abraham's [Page 107]Family had, which was long before the Law) then if those Children were by God's appointment, sealed with the Initiatory Seal, Circumcision; the same Covenant, that God made with Abraham and his Seed, being come upon us Gentiles, Gal. 3.14. with Acts 2.39. Our Inchurched Children also, are to be Sealed with the Initiatory Seal of the Covenant, now under the Gospel. Especially considering this, that God hath never revoked it, but hath brought Baptism into the place of Circumcision, Col. 2.11, 12. And you your self grant so much implicitely, in saying that Circumcision and Baptism serve to the same end; and that there is an Analogy in some things betwixt the one and the other, Pag. 223.
But 2. I have already proved out of Christs Commission, that Inchurched-Parents Children are Disciples, and so federally Holy, and by the same Commission, to be Baptized. And the reason why Women and Females under the Law were not Circumcised, nor commanded to be Circumcised, was, because of an Incapacity in Nature; they having no Praeputium or Foreskin, as the Males had; and what other Reason there might be, is hid from us. With Reverence I may say, It could not suit with the Wisdom and goodness of God, dealing with his people in the way [Page 108]of a Covenant of Grace, to command a thing impossible. I pray, what was there in the first Institution of Baptism, in John the Baptists time, concerning the Baptizing of Women? We hear nothing of them expresly till a long while after, Acts 8.12.—And as for their right to, and receiving of the Lord's Supper, I suppose we have shewn you as much obscurity in it, as you can object to us, concerning the Baptism of Inchurched Infants.
CHAP. IV. Answer to your Arguments of Circumcision examined, p. 204. and to the Questions you make, and Answers, seven in all.
Quest. 1. WHether Circumcision called the Gospel-Seal, did belong of old, to all in Gospel-Covenant?
—First; you deny Circumcision to be the Seal of the Gospel-Covenant to all Believers, and so do I; there were many Believers before Circumcision was instituted; and so, they could not be Sealed by it.
Be it so, that Circumcision was tied to the Church in Abraham's Family; and afterwards to Jacob and his posterity. Might [Page 109]not God do with his own what he would? What if God denyed it to others out of the Church in Abraham's Family, and afterwards in Jacob's posterity, that people might joyn themselves to them as Proselytes; which is most probable? Are not many Believers without the Seals of the Covenant now, because they do not, or cannot joyn themselves to a Gospel-Congregation? Will you therefore deny Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, to be the Seals of the Gospel-Covenant, to all Believers? Are they not instituted of God, to be Seals unto them, if they come in a right way to enjoy them?
Again you say, there were some to whom the Covenant, did not belong, who received that, called the Seal of Circumcision; as Ishmael. You indeed Answer this your self in the next words, when you say, This Covenant was not to be Established] with him, but with Isaac, Gen. 17.20, 21, 25. It was not to be Established with him] to be made to stand and abide with him. He doth not say, that the Covenant, in that External-Dispensation, did not belong to Ishmael, or that he was not in the Covenant, in that Ecclesiastical administration of it, when he was Circumcised: from what was he cast out? was it not from the Covenant, (against which he mocked in Isaac, Gen. 21.9, 10.) and from the Church [Page 110]and the External Priviledges of it, in which he was Externally before? Here you again miss it, because you do not distinguish between the Covenant in its several administrations. Some of those you mention, that you say, were not Sealed with Circumcision, were within the Covenant Spiritually and Savingly; others that were Sealed, were in the Covenant Ecclesiastically and Externally, to which latter sort alone Circumcision was annexed. Some were only Ecclesiastically in it, and some others, were both. And some only Spiritually and not Externally and Ecclesiastically. — Your Argument therefore, makes not against us at all; for you speak not ad idem; and so, there can be no opposition. If you had dealt as an artificial and candid Disputant, you would have singled out that, wherein the difference lay, and have opposed that only; and not have fallen into the Paralogism of (Ignoratio Elenchi) of the mistake of the state of the Question.
This Answer concerning Ishmael, will serve to the rest; and I see no cause to doubt, whether the New-Covenant-Promises, under this Ecclesiastical-Dispensation, did belong to all the strangers in Abraham's House, that were Circumcised, according to God's appointment. They were part of Abraham's Church-Seed.
Quest. 2. ‘ Whether the New-Covenant, and that mentioned, in Gen. 17. be the same? To which the sum of your Answer, is, that the Covenant in Gen. 17. was a mixt-Covenant, as the Seed was; which you thus explain; to wit, as Abraham by Promise, stood in a double Capacity; to wit, The Father of a Nation to wit, the natural Israelites: So to be also a a Father of many Nations, comprehending the Spiritual Israel, whether Jews, or Gentiles: And so accordingly the Promises (say you) were of two sorts; sometimes respecting his natural Seed, whether Domestick or National, who were (say you) Typical of the Spiritual, &c. and others again, respecting in a peculiar-manner, the spiritual Seed, the Family of the Faithful; viz. the Elect of whom, through Christ he was Father, and which are Evangelical, and in special manner, belonging to the New-Covenant — And hence you infer, that much of the mistake and errour lies in this, by applying that to the one, which belongs to the other, for want of distinguishing the promises, that are often so mixed, that the one may be taken for the other.’
I shall first gather up the sum of this, into divers positions, and then give in my Answer.
1. You say, The Covenant in Gen. 17. was a mixt Covenant, to wit, because the promises of it were partly of Temporal, partly [Page 112]of Spiritual things. I suppose this to be your meaning.
2. As the Seed was; and so you make the Covenant to depend upon the Seed, which you say, were Natural-Israelites, or Spiritual- Israel, the Elect.
3. You say, the Natural Seed, was Typical of the Spiritual.
4. That the Temporal Promises respected his natural Seed, and the Spiritual and Eternal ones, his Spiritual Seed, viz. Elect and true Believers.
5. And that these Spiritual and Eternal (or Promises of Eternal and Spiritual Blessings) do in special manner belong to the New-Covenant now in these Gospel-days. I judge this to be the sum, of what you assert.
To which I reply.
1. That the Covenant in Gen. 17. was no more a mixt Covenant, than the Covenant is now, in these Gospel-days. The New-Covenant doth not now exclude Temporal Blessings. Godliness hath the Promise of this Life, and of that which is to come, 1 Tim. 4.8. The Lord indeed then, made them an express Promise of Temporals, the Land of Canaan, which was also a Type of Heaven: and Promises of Spiritual and Heavenly things more covertly and sparingly. And now he makes Promises of Spiritual and Heavenly [Page 113]things more clearly; expresly, and frequently; and of Temporals more implicitely and sparingly. May not you as well call this a mixt-Covenant?
2. The Covenant doth not depend upon the Seed, (as you intimate) but the Seed upon the Covenant. The natural Seed then, were the natural Children of Abraham running in the posterity of Isaac, through Jacob and his posterity. And these Natural-Seed of Abraham, were also his Church-Seed; and to these the Covenant Externally-belonged, as also to the Proselyts and their Children. The Spiritual Seed of Abraham, that were Elected to Eternal Salvation, were also a part of that Natural and Church-Seed. God promised to be a God to both in a diverse respect. And so he is now in these Gospel-days, if rightly-understood. Gospel-Churches are the Church-Seed of Abraham, and God is their God Externally in Covenant, as he was to the Church of old. And he is the God of the Spiritual-Seed, that are now those that are Elected unto Salvation: to both in a diverse respect, as before. And your not owning of this, is the fundamental cause of this Controversie; which yet is so plain, that I know not how you can deny it. For are not Hypocrites in Gospel-Churches, the Church-Seed of Abraham, who profess such a Faith [Page 114]as Abraham did, though they have not the Truth and reality of it? Hypocrites they are; and yet you look upon them as within the Covenant of Abraham, and therefore you Baptize them; and yet, they prove not to be so at last. I have spoken largely to the substance of this before.
3. You say, The natural Seed, was Typical of the Spiritual. As the Birth of Isaac (to wit; not by strength of Nature, but by Promise; which did prefigure those, that are born of the Spirit, and that look for Righteousness and Life alone by Faith in Christ; I suppose this is your meaning, according to Gal. 4.23, 24, 25, 26.)—To which I Answer.
That this Spiritual Seed (which you say, is typified by the natural) as it respects Gospel-times, is to be considered, either as such indeed; or as such in shew, and appearance only, in the judgment of the Church, (who are to judg after the sight of their eyes, and the hearing of their Ears, and cannot look directly into the heart, and know (â priori) as Christ doth by the power of his Godhead.) Isa 11.3. And thus it makes not against us but for us, and against you. For, do not Gospel-Churches consist of the one, as well as of the other? Nay, when Christ the Bridegroom [Page 115]shall come again, will not the Kingdom of Heaven (to wit some Gospel-Churches) consist all of them of foolish Virgins; which shall have Oyle in their Lamps, to wit, a profession and outward appearance of true Faith and Grace; but no Oyl in their Vessels; none of the Spirit and true Faith, and Grace, in their Hearts? Matth. 25.1, 2, 3, &c. What can be more plain?
4. The Temporal Promises, say you, respected his Natural Seed, and the Spiritual and Eternal-ones, his Spiritual-Seed; viz. the Elect and true Believers.
For Answer to which,
The Temporal-Promises included in that Covenant of Grace, which was dispensed to Abraham in a Church-way, respected his Natural Seed, no otherwise (as I conceive) than as they were, and should continue, his Church-Seed. For though Ishmael, the Son of Abraham by Hagar, were at present within the Covenant in a Church-way dispensed, and also Circumcised; yet God would not establish his Covenant with him, but with Isaac, Gen. 17.19, 21. Nevertheless God gives this as an overplus, and by the By, in Answer to Abraham's request; I have blessed him ( viz. with outward things which are often called Blessings, and they are materially so) and will make him fruitful, and will multiply [Page 116]him exceedingly, &c. v. 20. So likewise to Esau, the blessing that God gave him, was not the Blessing of that Covenant (for Jacob had all that before, Gen. 27.27, 28, 29.) in allusion to which, seems that Speech of Jacob to Esau, I have all. So the Hebrew. Gen. 33.11. [...] But another by-the By] v. 39.40. The Temporal Promises of the Covenant therefore, respected not the Natural-Seed of Abraham, any further than they were, and continued to be his Church-Seed.
Nor did they respect his Natural Seed only, in opposition to his Spiritual (to use your terms) for the Spiritual. Seed were Abraham's Church-Seed also, & had those Promises of Temporal things, as well as the others had. See both proved, Psal. 111.5. He hath given Meat unto them, that fear him, he will ever be mindful of his Covenant: Spoken of the Body of the Israelites, who did not all of them savingly fear him as some of them did; but they did at least Externally serve him, and worship him in his own Institutions, which is usually called fearing him. Both to the one, and the other of them, he gave Meat out of Covenant; as he also did give them Canaan, the Heritage of the Heathen, v. 6. And hence, when they fell to Idolatry or neglected God's pure worship. And Externally brake God's [Page 117]Covenant, he brought Temporal-Judgments upon them, 2. Chron. 15.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Dan. 9.10. to 15. with Deut. 28.15. to the end: and Levit. 26. See also Judg. Chap. 3, 4, &c.
Again, though it be true, that only the Spiritual Seed, true Believers, had the saving good of those Spiritual and Heavenly Promises of the Covenant; Yet in the Tender and outward Proposal of them, they were held forth to the whole Church; and their Sins were the more aggravated, Ezek. 20.16.24. that they despised them. Even as they are now also in Gospel-days, and their Damnation the greater, John 3.18, 19, 20.
The sum then is briefly this. Both the Temporal & Spiritual Promises of the Covenant, belong unto the Church Indefinitely; but none of them do savingly-partake of the Spiritual and Heavenly ones, but those that truly-Believe, as Abraham did. Promises are either tending to Conversion and Union, or there are Promises of Communion. The former belong to the Unconverted, the latter to the Converted only, as to the enjoyment of the Spiritual and Heavenly Benefits held forth in them.
5. That these Spiritual and Eternal Promises, (or rather Promises of Spiritual and [Page 118]Eternal Blessings) do in special manner belong to the New-Covenant, to wit, now in these Gospel-days. I judge this to be your meaning. And I can grant the Words in a safe sence, if I may be my own Expositor. But your scope is, to prove the Promises of the New-Covenant now, to be only Spiritual and Heavenly, belonging only to true Believers, and not to others, thereby to thrust out Infants out of the Gospel-Covenant, and from Baptism the Seal of it.— Now, though I have already said, what I hope may satisfie impartial-persons, and such as are not prepossest; yet doth not this your scope, really cut off Hypocrites, as well as Infants.
To conclude this, I shall add a word to your Inference and Conclusion, That much of the mistake and error, lies not in this (as you affirm) by applying that to the one, which belongs to the other; for want of distinguishing the Promises as you would have them distinguished; but for want of distinguishing, between the Spiritual-Saving Dispensation of the Covenant of Grace, and the Ecclesiastical only: Or, as some others word it; Between the Covenant of Grace considered absolutely in it self, or cloathed with Church-Covenant, that is, considered in reference to a Visible-Church-Estate. And thus [Page 119]besides what hath been said to it before, you have also an Answer to your third Question, to wit, Whether the Seed mentioned, Gen. 17.7. were Abraham's Natural or Spiritual Seed? only, I shall add a word to your evil and dismal Consequences as you term them, pag. 211, 212, 213.
If God made his Covenant of Grace, with the Posterity of Believers, (as this Doctrine, say you, asserts) then, all the Posterity of Believers, should have Grace bestowed upon them; that is, as your after-words and the scope of your discourse implies; Spiritual Saving-Grace, opposite to Children of wrath by Nature. To which I reply;
It doth not follow, that hence, all the posteity of Believers, should have Inward Spiritual Saving-Grace, bestowed upon them; but External Covenant-Grace. See Malachy 1.2. I have loved you, saith the Lord to the body of the people of Israel, the posterity of Jacob. Yet, ye say, wherein hast thou loved us? was not Esau Jacobs Brother, saith the Lord? yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau, and laid his Mountains and his Heritage wast, for the Dragons of the Wilderness, v. 3. What was this Love, as to the Body of the people of Israel (many of which had no Saving-Grace within them) but External Covenant-Grace? He shewed his words unto Jacob, and his Judgments [Page 120]unto Israel, he hath not dealt so with any Nation, &c. Psal. 147.19, 20. with Deut. 4.5, 6, 7, 8. And doth not Jacob thankfully acknowledge this great favour of God to his Posterity, in saying to Joseph, The blessings of thy Father, have prevailed, above the blessings of my Progenitors, Gen. 49.26. For, this Covenant-Grace was bestowed on all Jacob's Sons, and to run along in their Posterity, and none of them rejected, as Ishmael and Esau, and their Posterities were, even from this External-Covenant-Grace; until by their neglect of performing their Duty, they deprived themselves, and their Children of it. You cannot but know this to be the sence of those, that plead for Infant-Baptism, that have searched so much into their Writings; and I cannot but wonder, that you harp still upon the wrong String. Nor do those words you mention, out of Mr. Blake (to wit, that the Child of a Christian is a Christian) if taken in a right sence, and as he intends it, at all contradict, either the Scripture, that saith, We are Children of wrath by Nature; or former and latter experience. Paul was a Child of wrath by Nature; and yet Paul being a Jew by Nature, and not a Sinner of the Gentiles and Heathens, Gal. 2.15. was under this External-Covenant-Grace which the Gentiles then were not, who were Strangers from the Covenants [Page 121]of Promise, and Aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, in the 12th. verse of the very same Chapter. Overthrow this Truth if you can.
Again, another of your Inferences, is, If God made his Covenant of Grace, with the Posterity of Believers, then, say you, would Grace be a Birth-priviledge, and Regeneration tied to Generation, contrary to John 3.3. and John 1.12, 13.
This hath been fully Answered to before. This External-Covenant-Grace we hold, is a Birth-priviledge of the Children of Inchurched-Parents; and is an advantage, to Parents to cry to God for Converting-Grace for their Children; and a strong engagement to them, to train them up in the way of the Lord: and to Children when grown to cry to God for Converting-Grace for themselves. The Lord thy God, will circumcise the heart of thy Seed, to love the Lord thy God, &c. Deut. 30.6.
Again you infer; Then must all the Posterity of Believers be saved, unless you will hold falling from Grace.] To which I reply; that what hath been already said, will easily Answer this. It doth not at all, yield such an Inference. But this we may safely say, and hold, that the Posterity of Inchurched-Believers, have an advantage tending to Conversion [Page 122]and Salvation, that other Children have not; & it will be their great sin, & greater Condemnation, if they improve it not. Nor do we hereby, necessitate the Doctrine to be true, that Men may fall from Grace; that is, from inward sanctifying Grace. They may indeed fall from that outward Covenant-Grace; as Ishmael and Esau did; But as we do not hold this, to be Inward Sanctifying Grace; so we cannot necessitate the Doctrine to be true, that Men may fall from it; for then they must fall from what they never had.
Another of your Inferences is; Then must we tie up, and confine the Grace of God's Covenant, to the Children of Believers only; and then, what hope, say you, for the Children of Unbelievers? Contrary to the Experience of all Ages, &c. To which I return, which also hath been mentioned before;
1. Grace is — either External Covenant-Grace: or Internal, Spiritual and Saving Grace. We do not tie up (by our Tenet) the Internal, Spiritual and Saving-Grace, to the Children of Believers only, but leave unto the Soveraign Lord his Prerogative-Royal, to bestow his Grace upon whom he will, Rom. 9.15, 18.
2. But this I must affirm; that Infidel-Parents, and their Children, want that priviledge, [Page 123]that Christian Inchurched-Parents, and their Children have. I pray, what Visible help have you that deny this, to encourage your Faith to Believe, and put you on to pray, for the Conversion and Salvation of your Children. What? no Promise from God concerning them, in which you may wrestle with him in their behalf? and no Promise left for them, to further them in it, any more than Children of Heathens? This were sad indeed. I bless the God of all Grace I have experienced the contrary; and do daily. I knew a Godly Parent of your perswasion, who was sadly perplext about the Eternal Estate of a dying-Infant. What visible ground of hope have we for dying Infants, if there be nothing left us in Gods-Covenant.
Your last Inference is; Then is the Covenant of Grace overthrown, concluding an Interest without Faith, Rom. 4.14. derivng a Title by natural Generation. To which I reply, that hath been Answered already. The Covenant of Grace is not thereby overthrown, but established. For — 1. The Faith of one Inchurched-Parent at least, hath been visibly professed, and the Covenant visiby-accepted; which hath given an Interest to the Child. — And 2. Hence, the Natural Legitimate Child of such a Parent, hath thereby a visible [Page 124]Title; which is that we plead for.
Then you come, pag. 213. to that Scripture, Acts 2.38, 39. which you grant, if rightly-understood, to be Parallel with that, Gen. 17.7. But I cannot agree with you in your sence of it. For, first, what you say, agrees not with the Truth.—Secondly, nor with your self.
1. Not with the Truth. For, the Promise there seems not the Promise of the Spirit, in those extraordinary gifts of it, wherewith God adorned the Church then; mentioned out of Joel, 2.28. For first, that Promise of Extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, doth not belong to all Believers and Inchurched-Parents in all Ages, as that other doth, Acts 2.38, 39.—Secondly, nor is effectual-Calling the only condition of obtaining those Extraordinary Gifts. For many that were and are effectually-called, had them not, and some might then have them, that were not effectually called; as is apparent in Matth. 7.22, 23.—Thirdly, Remission of sins is here Promised to all these Jews, and is here held forth to them as Externally belonging to them, to urge them to Repent and Believe; which is not so much as named, in Joel 2. —Fourthly, it is apparent, that the Guilt of that cursed wish, Matth. 27.25. His Blood be upon us, and our Children] did stagger [Page 125]them; and occasioned the Apostle, in express-Terms to mention that promise to them & to their Children, which the Promise of those Extraordinary Gifts, could not cure. They were prict in their heart v. 37. For that great Sin especially, and needed remission of sins; and wounded for that curse, they had wished upon their Children; and the holding forth of this Promise, was, to oure them both; which thing the other of Extraordinary Gifts, could not do. — Fifthly, though Sons and Daughters might fall under the notion of their Children; yet Old men mentioned as distinct from them could not so, which yet are mentioned in Joel 2. These two Scriptures then, speak not to the same thing and so are not the same Promise.
Yet, if any do still suppose them to be the same; let them read what Mr. Sydenham hath said upon that Text, in his Book for Infant-Baptism. Thus I have shewn, why I conceive, that your interpretation of that place in Joel, doth not agree with the Truth, in making it the same with Acts 2.
2. I shall now shew, that it doth not agree with your self. In pag. 213. You say, that that Promise Acts 2.39. is the giving of the Spirit, Joel 2.28. and doth follow [Page 126]the Receiving of Christ in the Gospel, and the obeying his Commands, Ephes. 1.13. Gal: 3.14. Acts 5.32. Therefore (say you) Acts 2.38. Peter exhorts them to Repentance and Faith, in order to the receiving of it.— And afterwards you say, therefore the Promise (to wit, in Acts 2.39.) is not made but upon condition of Calling, and Faith and Baptism. And in pag. 214. The Promise, is given as a Motive, why they should Repent, and be Baptized. I must confess my weak understanding cannot reconcile them. Review them more distinctly and judg of them.
The Promise, Acts 2.39. is the giving of the Spirit, prophesied, Joel 2.28.
The same Promise follows the receiving of Christ.
Peter Exhorts them to Repentance and Faith in order to the receiving of it.
The (same) Promise is not made but upon condition of Calling, Faith and Baptism, and yet, the (same) Promise given as a Motive, why they should repent and be Baptized; I must acknowledge I cannot apprehend, how they can consist. Let him reconcile them, that hath a larger reach than I have.
Hitherto I have been shewing, what that Promise, (held forth to those prick't-hearted Jews) was not; rather than what it was. I now come to give you, by the assistance of [Page 127]Christ, what I conceive, to be the mind of God in it.
By Promise] in Gal. 3 17. is clearly meant, the Covenant of Grace. And that it is so to be taken here, is evident by this; because it hath Baptism, the Seal of the Covenant now in Gospel-days, annext unto it; and also, holds forth Remission of Sins. Repent, and be Baptized for the Remission of Sins; for the Promise is to you, and to your Children.
This Promise or Covenant of Grace, unto which they had External and visible Right, is here urged upon these Jews, to move them to Repent, and in that I agree with you; and not as a Condition if they did Repent. It's urged as a Motive, not as a Condition. Repent, for the Promise is to you. See the like Acts 3.25. Ye are the Children of the Covenant God made with our Fathers; Repent therefore and be Converted, v. 19. For to you first, God hath raised up his Son Jesus, to bless you in turning you a way from your iniquities, v. ult. And why first, but because they were the Children of the Covenant that God made with their Fathers? This sence and scope of the Text is plain, and rational, and suitable to the scope of the Apostle.
And whereas you say, that by Children there, is meant Posterity; my Child is my [Page 128]Child say you, though he be forty or fifty years old.] Yet, let me tell you, that such Adult-Children, are by Gods Ordinance, if not Baptized already, to be Baptized upon their own profession, and not upon the account of their Parents; as you your self do grant; and therefore it must be meant of Children in Minority. However, I hope, you will not exclude little Children, from being a part of Posterity, and so, will grant them their share in it at least.
By these afar-off] is plainly-meant the Gentiles, Eph. 2.11, 12. (And perhaps also the ten Tribes, who were long before divorced, and as to their present Condition, not then actually in External-Covenant with God.)
The Promise to them afar-off; doth not presuppose them to be already-called; but it is to them at present, as by the Lord, they might be called afterwards. Here was now a way opened by Christ, to preach, and tender the Gospel to them, which before was not, though as yet, it was not actually-tendred to them, unless to some few; untill the Jews should actually reject it, and God reject them for rejecting it, Acts 13.46, 47. Rom. 11.12, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22.
Here therefore we may observe a difference between these Jews and their Children, and those, that were yet afar-off, and their [Page 129]Children; for though the Promise were then to them all (as the Word Is] doth intimate; yet not them all] in every respect, alike. It was now at present, to those Jews, and their Children, Actually, Visibly, and Externally, before Men. But to them afar off, Intentionally and before God; and should be Actually to them, and to their Children, (as now it was to the Jews, and their Children) when God should Actually call them.
These Jews and their Children, were not yet discovenanted, and Unchurched, though they had deserved it. See Acts 2.22, 23, 23, 36.
And this was after Christ's Death, Resurrection, and Ascension into Heaven, that these words are spoken to them, and that by the Holy Ghost, in the mouth of the Apostle. They were not afar-off, as the Gentiles (and probably the ten Tribes were at that time; who were then Strangers from Actual-External Interest in the Covenants of Promise; until such time as God should Actually-call them. But these Jews were nigh, as to their External-Covenant-Station, the External-Adoption, the Covenants, and Promises, Rom. 9.4. though Really in themselves Children of wrath, and bad enough, v. 1, 2, 3.
But how can it be said, that it is] now, to them that are afar-off, when it had not yet reach ed them?
Answ. It was then so,—1. In God's Intention and purpose. It was then so, in foro Dei; before God.—2. It was so then, because Christ had opened the way, broken down the partition wall, Eph. 2.14, 15. which before stood between Jews and Gentiles. The way was shut before; but now opened, that Christ might be made known unto them.—And Thirdly. It should not be long, before Christ would send out his Ambassadors to call them in; and then they should Actually-enjoy this priviledge, both for themselves, and their Children, as those Jews then did. For what reason is there, that their Children should be left out, any more than the Children of these Jews, when they were brought into the fellowship of the same Covenant for the Substance, where there is no difference between Jew and Gentile, Scythian, Barbarian, Bond and Free? This Call then, hath Reference to the Gentiles, who were yet Actually afar-off, Strangers from the Covenants of Promise, and not to these Jews, who were Externally within it, and their Children also.—To prove this yet a little more, take notice, that in the Scripture, God makes over External Covenant-Grace, as in the present, to them that are not yet in Being, Deut. 29.14, 15. Neither with you, saith the Lord, do I make this [Page 131]Covenant, but with him, that standeth here this day; that is, the Jew and Proselyte, and the little ones (see the Text) that were present: and also with him, that is not here with us this day; to wit, those that are yet unborn, as well as those that might be absent. With both, saith the Lord, do I at present make my Covenant. In the Parents of such unborn-Children it was done at present Actually before Men; Vide Mr. Cobbet. but as to those unborn Children themselves, Intentially before God.
The Sum of all is briefly comprized in this Paraphrase.
The Promise, or Covenant of Grace, Externally-administred, is [now] Actually to the Jews, & to your Children on whom you wished the Curse of the Blood of Christ: and it is also at present (Intentionally & before God, & also preparatively before men, Christ having now opened the way; it is I say at present) to them that are afar off, (to wit, the Gentiles, (and probably also the ten Tribes); even as many (who are yet Externally Strangers from the Covenant) as the Lord our God shall call. When God's time is come to call them, the Gospel shall be then sent among them, to call them in; and to all such, as obey that call, the Covenant shall at least Externally, [Page 132]Actually be unto them and their Children as it is now unto these Jews and their Children.
And here let me also shew you the Inconsistency of your Conditional sence of this Promise, which you mention before; thus, the Promise is to you Jews, if you Repent and Believe: and to your Children, if they Repent and Believe; and to those that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call; to wit, if they Repent and Believe. For, those words, As many as the Lord our God shall call] being according to this Interpretation, the exegesis, exposition and limitation of all that went before, and in your sence, taken for effectual Calling only, it must necessarily be added. And then this must needs follow, that one may be effectually called, and yet not Repent and Believe; whereas Repentance and Faith, are infallible fruits of effectual Calling. Besides, here is another absurdity will also follow, that the Promise, and Covenant of Grace (as we have shewed, it is) doth not belong unto them, until they were also Baptized; for that also is mentioned, together with Repent. And then it will follow, that one must be Baptized before he hath any Way, Right, and Interest in the Covenant of Grace; which indeed is, according to the Proverb, to put the Cart before the Horse.
Having thus opened, and cleared that Scripture, Acts 2.38, 39. I shall now argue from it.
Prop. That part of Mankind, which was once by God's appointment Externally in the Covenant of Abraham, and sealed with the ordinary Initiatory Seal of that Covenant, and were not cast out by Christ at his coming, but on the contrary confirmed therein; have still by God's appointment an External-Interest, both in the Covenant of Abraham and in the ordinary Initiatory-Seal thereof, now in these Gospel-days.
Assump. But Children of Inchurched-Parents are a part of Mankind, which was once by God's appointment Externally in the Covenant of Abraham, and sealed with the ordinary Initiatory Seal of that Covenant, and were not east out by Christ at his coming, but on the contrary confirmed therein.
Conclusion. Therefore, Children of Inchurched-Parents, have still by God's appointment an External Interest both in the Covenant of Abraham, and in the ordinary Initiatory Seal thereof, now in these Gospeldays.
The Assumption is apparent; as hath been already shewed. And if you deny it, we require of you, in the name of the Lord, to shew us out of the Holy Scripture, when, or [Page 134]where, Christ by his coming cast them out; either by himself in person, or by any otherimployed by him. I have already shewed, that he did it not by John Baptist; nor by his Apostles; For, by them in Acts 2.39. he hath confirmed it. And that he did it not in his own person, appears by his courteous Reception of Infants brought unto him, and rebuking his Disciples for hindering them to be brought. That they were once Externally in Abraham's Covenant by God's appointment, is plain. I will be thy God, and the God of thy Seed, Gen. 17.7. That they were Sealed you your self instance in Esau, pag. 206. who, you say, was not in the Covenant, and yet Sealed, viz. with Circumcision. See your Margin there, with that in the line. We shall add more, in replying to the fourth Question.
The Proposition is plain and clear; If they were once interessed Externally, by God's appointment in Abraham's Covenant, & the Seal of it, & not cast out by Christ but by him Confirmed therein; they must still have an Interest in them. Thus much to your third Question, and your Answers to it.
Now to your fourth Question, and your sence of it.
Quest. 4. Whether Circumcision was a Seal of the New Covenant to the Children [Page 135]under the Law? so pag. 205. But in pag. 216 you use other terms; viz. To the Believers and their Seed? You roundly deny it, to be a Seal to the Children; and much less a Seal to them of the New-Covenant. It was only say you, a sign put into the flesh of the Infant; but a Sign and Seal only to Abraham, &c. And in p. 218. Your humane Testimony, which you approve of, saith, It was a sign to the rest of the Jews, that they were Abraham's Seed. That is, only that they were Abraham's Seed must be your meaning, or else you speak fallaciously.
To which I Reply.
1. Of what was it a sign to Abraham's Seed? was it indeed only that they were Abraham's natural Seed? was it not a sign unto them of the Circumcision of their heart, to love their Covenant-God, with all the heart and all the Soul? which God promised, Deut. 30.6. and called for from them, Jer. 4.4. that they might improve it by seeking to God to do it for them? And were not their Parents to make the same use of it, in reference to their Children? How can you evade this? Nay, do not you your self afterwards grant, p. 223. that Circumcision signified Heart-Circumcision.
2. And why not a Seal unto them also? Not that they did already Actually-Believe, [Page 136]as Abraham did, before he was Circumcised; But,
1. That God was their God Externally in that Covenant, Gen. 17.7. and would continue to be so, if they did not afterwards reject him, 2 Chron. 15.2.
2. And that in particular, God would be found of them; if they sought him, 2 Chron. 15.2. and would not only Communicate the outward and Temporary Blessings of the Covenant to them, but also means of Grace; and not only so, but Converting-Grace by those means, 1 Chron. 28.9. Thou Solomon my Son, know thou the God of thy Father, and serve him with a perfect heart, and a willing mind.—If thou seek him, he will be found of thee, but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever.
You grant, pag. 217. that Circumcision was a Seal, or Confirmation of that Faith, which (Abraham) had before; and to assure him, of those special Promises, made to him, and his Seed, both Carnal and Spiritual.] It seem's then, you made not a full enumeration of all the particulars of which Circumcision was a Seal to Abraham, in pag. 216. I would here ask you; Were not those Spiritual Seed Carnal, before they were Spiritual? If so, (as you cannot deny) was not Converting-Grace for them promised and Sealed [Page 137]to Abraham, in his Circumcision according to this your Assertion? And seeing Abraham could not know the particular persons, that should be so made his Spiritual-Seed (nor any Man; else) in after-Ages, did not God therefore make the Promise of their Conversion Externally in general and Indefinitely; Deut. 30.6. and Sealed it to Abraham and his Seed: that so, those that were in Gods Eternal purpose to be converted and saved, might through Grace, lay hold of it; and others, that wickedly slighted it, might be left without Excuse? If this were Sealed to Abraham, and the same Promise came along to his Seed, and they also had the same Seal, that Abraham had; how then comes it to pass, that it should not be a Seal to them also (who were so deeply-concerned in it) to assure them, that God would Circumcise their hearts, if they sought him in his own way? for, he saith, He will yet be inquired of, by the House of Israel, to do it for them, Ezek. 36.37. with v. 26, 27. Blessed be God, I have heard a Child, upon his dying-Bed, plead this Covenant with God, for his Grace, to the great satisfaction of my Soul.
To come now to the Second part of your Answer; that as Circumcision was not a Seal to Children under the Law; so much less a Seal [Page 138]to them of the New-Covenant; say you, pag. 216. In stead of which, in pag. 218. you say, New-Testament.
Answ. I like not the changing of your Phrases, as you have done, in this Question, and your Answer to it. You cannot but know, that there lies a fallacy in this Phrase, as you have applied it here, and changed it. Pardon my boldness. I have before distinguished, of the New-Covenant; It may either be taken for the Covenant of Grace, in opposition to the Covenant of Works; or for the Covenant of Grace under the New-Testament-Dispensation, as opposed to that same Covenant under a more legal-Dispensation. So it is called New, Heb. 8.7, 8, 13. It being the Covenant made with Abraham revived, Gen. 17. freed from all those legal Ceremonies, wherewith it was burdened before, which have had their accomplishment in Christ; and having only a few plain and simple Ordinances annexed to it, 2 Cor. 11.3. suiting with a pure Gospel administration; even as that Covenant made with Abraham had, suitable to that Dispensation, before the Law was given.
This being premised, I Answer; That Circumcision, Gen. 17. was a Seal of the New-Covenant, to wit; the Covenant of [Page 139]Grace, as it was opposed to the Covenant of Works, made with Adam before his fall: and also, as it was opposed to the same Covenant for the substance of it, under that Legal Administration at Sinai, and afterwards. And though there be a difference between the Administration of it in Abraham's Family, and the Administration of it now, under the New-Testament, in some few circumstances of New Ordinances; yet, the Ordinances then were but few, and suitable to that Administration, of the Covenant of Grace then made with Abraham and his Family; Circumcision then being one of the ordinary Seals of that Covenant in a Church-way dispensed; and the Passeover the other. For, it's useful for us to observe that Circumcision began not with the Ceremonial Law at Sinai but was long before a Sign and Seal to Abraham, and the Church in his Family: (which was more correspondent to a New-Testament Church in Gospel-times, than the national Church of the Jews was.) And hence saith Christ, Moses gave unto you Circumcision, not because it is of Moses, but of the Fathers; John 7.22. that is, of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that were long before Moses. To conclude this, Circumcision, we see, was both a Seal to Children under the Law; and a Seal of the Covenant of Grace, Externally and [Page 140]Ecclesiastically dispensed, beginning in the Church in Abraham's Family, and continued all along in the Church of the Jews, until Christ put an End unto it, by his death.
I had almost slipt-over that Expression of yours, pag. 218. That nothing is a Seal of the New-Testament, but the Holy Spirit. Eph. 1.13. and 4.30.] I confess, it's a strange Paradox to me. Is Believers Baptism no Seal with you? Nor the Lord's Supper no Seal? Alas! poor Believers! How have you been deluded? Have you so often come to have the pardon of your sins sealed, and God's love in Christ fealed unto you in the Lord's Supper and now you are told it is no Seal. Ther's none else (if you will believe it) but the Holy Spirit? I thought it had been an External-Seal appointed by our Lord himself? Surely such Assertions as these are, do tend to destroy all outward Ordinances of Christ; though I hope, you never intended it.
This is like to that of some others, there is no word of God but Christ; and so do destroy the Authority of the Holy Scripture. And like that, 1 Cor. 1.12. I am of Christ and care not for Paul nor Apollos, nor any Ministers whatsoever.
Again; you say, neither is Baptism more than Circumcision, called a Seal; it is called a Figure say you, 1 Pet. 3.21, and a Sign [Page 141]—proper only to Men of understanding, &c. And not as Circumcision, which was a Sign not improper for Infants; because it left a signal impression in their flesh, to be remembred all their days; but so cannot Baptism be to any Infants, say you, p. 218— For Answer;
That Circumcision was a Seal, and that also to Infants, hath been proved; and your self have acknowledged it, to be a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to Abraham, though you deny it to be so, to all others.
And though Baptism be no more a Seal, than Circumcision was, yet I hope, you will allow it to be as much a Seal, as that was.
The Gracious Lord hath made a Covenant of Grace; and is willing his people should be confirmed of the Truth of it. And hath he put no Seals to it, to confirm it? Certainly, this is a new and strange Doctrine, which the Faithful knew not in former Ages.
You say Baptism is called a Figure, and a Sign, &c. 1 Pet. 3.21. I Answer; The Apostle there speaking of the Souls saved by water, in Noah's Ark, tells us, that Baptism was a Figure or Type ( [...]) like to that Type. Cui nunc respondens, exemplar vel Typus Baptismi, saith Beza. The Ark born up by the Water, wherein Noah and his Family were; was first a Physical and Instrumental-cause and means of their Temporal preservation; [Page 142]of the saving of their lives. Secondly, God appointed it to be a Type and Sacrament to them to signify and Seal Eternal Salvation, to them through Believing in Christ; without whom no Salvation is to be had. Now, saith the Apostle, Baptism is a Type Answering that Type; signifying and sealing Externally, Salvation to all those, and only those, that are, or shall be, in Christ by Faith.
But, say you, it is a Sign and Figure, proper only to Men of Understanding, representing Spiritual things, and not as Circumcision, &c. I Answer, first, The want of the Use of Reason and Understanding, in an Infant, is no Essential Defect, or Impediment, as to the External Susception of Baptism; no more than it was heretofore of Circumcision; which was a Seal of God's Covenant (as hath been proved) and signified the same things (as to the main, and substance of them), that Baptism now doth. By your Argument therefore, no Infant should ever have been Circumcised. 2. The God of Grace, in the External administration of the Covenant of Grace, to the Infants of Inchurched-Parents, is before hand with them. I will be the God, of thy Seed Gen. 17.7. and will Circumcise the heart of thy Seed, Deut. 30.6. & put's his Seal to it, for their assurance, and encouragement to seek God for Converting-Grace. And they are to be instructed [Page 143]in it when they come to understanding. 3. Hence, the Infants of Inchurched-Parents are engaged to the Lord; and Circumcision of old, and Baptism now, doth Seal that engagement; and is of use to Children, when come to Understanding, to mind them of their Duty. We are Children of the Covenant that God made with our Fathers, Acts 3.25. And Sealed it unto us in our Infancy; and shall we turn our backs upon God? far be it from us. 4. Circumcision of old, and Baptism of Infants now, is for the use of the Parents as well as the Children, and they are supposed to have the use of Reason. You grant, that Abrahams Circumcision was to assure him of the Promises made to him, and his Seed, p. 217. It seems then, that Godly Parents have need of something to help their Faith, concerning their Seed, their poor Children; and the Initiatory Seal of the Covenant to their Child is such a help to them. Besides, the Church have an use of it, as hath been shewn before; and they are supposed to understand. 5. The present ability to make use of Baptism, is not the Ground upon which it is to be dispensed to an Infant; but the Gracious Covenant of God, under which the Infant of an Inchurched-Parent, Externally and Visibly is: together wiih his command in the like case of old; which as to the substance, [Page 144]was never yet reversed.
You say, Baptism, is not as Circumcision which was a Sign, not improper for Infants; and you add the reason, to wit, because it left a Signal impression in their flesh, to be remembred all their days; but so cannot Baptism (say you) be to any Infants.
And why (I pray) is not Baptism, also, a Sign not improper, yea, very proper, for Infants? It seems it is, because it leaves no signal impression in their flesh, to be remembred all their days. I shall examine your reason, and then you will see the weakness of it.
1. How could circumcised-Infants tell when they came to Age whether they were not born, without a praeputium, or foreskin. Experience shew's, that there are often very strange defects and obliquities in Generation. Some are born Eunuchs, Math. 19.12.
2. Or if it were cut off when they were Infants, how could they tell by what means: Some Children, (as Paracelsus that famous Chymist and Physician) have had their privities, or some part of them, bitten off by a Swine, or some other Creature. And what could assure them, that they were not so?
3. Suppose it were cut off by Men; yet how could they tell, that it was done, in way of an Ordinance of God? They could have no assurance of all, or of any, of these things [Page 145]but from humane Testimony only (unless you will say, They had it from Divine Revelation, for which you have no ground). Hence then, an Infant Baptized in Infancy, hath as good ground of assurance, from a humane Testimony, and may as well remember all his days, that he was Baptized, though he hath no signal-impression in his flesh, as an Infant-Circumcised might have, that had that signal-Impression in his flesh, that he was Circumcised in his Infancy. The one hath a humane Testimony or Tradition to assure him, and the other in conclusion, hath no more; which is sufficient in this, which is only a matter of fact.
4. Even an Adult-person when he is dipped, hath no more than a humane Testimony, that he was Baptized; for he cannot hear the words of the Baptizer, when he is under the water. Yet he takes it for granted, that he was Baptized into the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and remembers it all his days. By these, I hope, you will see the weakness of your Reason. And so I come to your fift Question and Answer.
Quest. 5. Whether Circumcision was administred to Believers, as Believers, and to their Seed only? p. 205. which you alter p. 218. and say, to their Seed after them, and [Page 146]add; as such to which Baptism was to correspond. Your Answer is, By no means. And your Reason is, because Circumcision was an Ordinance, which by the Institution, belonged to all the natural Lineage of Abraham, good or bad, &c.
I Reply;
1. Circumcision was by God's appointment administred to those Males, that were of the Church in Abraham's Family, and afterwards; that were of the Church of the Jews, and so continued, and to their Male Children also, Gen. 17. And Baptism now in these Gospeldays, is by the appointment of the same Gracious God, to be administred to such persons as are of a Gospel-Church, and so continue, and to their Infants also. Go ye and Disciple all Nations, Baptizing them, &c. Matth. 28.19. As Children of Inchurched-Parents were Discipled into the Church of the Jews, and were Circumcised; so now Children among all Nations, that are Discipled, by means of their Discipled-Parents, should be Baptized, by Christ's Commission, as hath been proved. And were not those Inchurched-Parents, to Believe in Christ to come; as now Inchurched Parents are to Believe in Christ already come? Was not their attendance upon the Sacrifices, and Ceremonial-Worship, a profession of their Faith in Christ to come; at least in the [Page 147]judgment of Charity? What if many of them did not savingly Believe? Is it not so now also? Are all, that are Baptized in your way, true Believers? do all of them Believe with all their heart? I Believe you dare not say so.
You grant, Abraham was a Believing-Parent, and a Father to them all, but you say, He was a publick Common-Father, which reacheth not the Case in hand. To which I Reply, Abraham may be considered in a twofold capacity. 1. As an Inchurched-Believer, and the natural Father of Children. 2. As the Father of the Faithful then and also in all after-Ages, and as Heir of the World. In this latter sence, no Believer ever was, or shall be such a Father as Abraham was. But in the former sence, Every Inchurched Believer, that hath an Infant, or Infants, is to be such a Father as Abraham was. Abraham as an Inchurched-Believer, was such a Father to his natural Children as by God's appointment, did Externally interess his natural Children in God's Covenant, and the Visible Initiatory-Seal thereof. I will be thy God first, and then the God of thy Seed; therefore Circumcise them. And this Priviledge the Children of Inchurched-Parents have now under the Gospel.
But you say, if that were granted, that Priviledge would not stand the natural Children of Abraham in any stead, to admit them to Baptism, Matth. 3.7, 9. John rejects them, calling them a Generation of Vipers, who said, they had Abraham for their Father. For Answer;
1. These were not Infants, to whom John spake but gross notorious Hypocrites, who carried their Hypocrisie in their foreheads, so as that John could perceive it? and continued obstinate and Impenitent.
2. The Baptism of John was an Ordinance now newly-instituted, and belonged to the New-Testament-Dispensation, Mark 1.1, 2. &c. And those Pharisees being Adultpersons, and notoriously corrupt, standing in opposition to Christ and to the purity of the Gospel, and power of Godliness; there was good Reason why John should require them to repent, before they were Baptized. For though the Church of the Jews, were then the Church of God (of which those Pharisees were Members) yet it was sadly corrupted. Suppose a Member of a Corrupt-Church should desire to Communicate with another purer Church; should they not require his Repentance, before they received him? I suppose you will easily grant it.
[Page 149] 3. But what is this to the Infants we are speaking-of? to wit; Infants of Inchurched-Parents, who walk regularly in a Gospel-Church? Here's a vast difference between them. More hath been said to this before.
I shall conclude this fifth question with this; That Circumcision was administred to Inchurched-Parents and their Male-Seed (who alone were capable of it); yea, such Inchurched-Parents, as made a Visible-profession of Faith in Christ to come; though many of them did not truly Believe.
Quest. 6. Whether Baptism did succeed, in the Room, Place, and Use of Circumcision? Your Answer is, by no means, which I shall examine.
First, you say, not in the Room and stead. And your Reasons are,
1. Because then, only Males, not Females would be Baptized. This Reason I conceive, will not hold; because it springs Ex falso supposito, from a falshood taken for granted, to wit, That whatever succeeds into the place of another thing, must not be larger than it, in any Circumstances; which you will see to be a great mistake, if you consider the Enlargement of Grace, now in these Gospel-days; in which, if the Lord hath by changing his Ordinances, given us those that are more large and extensive, how [Page 150]should we praise his Grace, and not pick quarrels with it?
2. Because then say you, some, not all Believers should be Baptized; for all Believers out of Abrahams Family, were without Circumcision, &c. I Answer, it follow's not. But rather the Grace of God is the more to be admired, now in those Gospeldays, for enlarging the extent of these Ordinances, that his Goodness hath given in stead of those that were narrower.
3. Because, say you, then, the Circumcised, needed not, to have been Baptized, if they had been already Sealed with the New-Covenant-Seal. Neither will this Reason hold; for, 1. If God appoint, whether Men need it or no, it is their duty to submit to what he appoints. Hence, saith Christ, when John stuck at Baptizing him; Suffer it to be so now; for thus it becometh us to fulfil all Righteousness, Math. 3.15. that Reason satisfied John. And it be it be to fulfil Righteousness, in obeying any command of God, it should satisfie us also. But—2. The New-Covenant falling now under a New-Testament dispensation, by God's appointment, and a New-Seal being added to it, it could not but be of great Use to the people of God, Circumcised before, who were still imperfect and needed to have their Faith strengthened.
So much to your Reasons, why you judge Baptism did not succeed in the Room, and Place of Circumcision. And now, let me give you my Reason, why I judg it did succeed it in the Room and Place of it; out of Colossians 2.
The Colossians were not only Believers in Christ, but Believers in Church-Order, Chap. 2.5. Hence the Apostle exhorts them, as they had received Christ Jesus the Lord, so, they would walk in him; to wit, both in Believing more in him, and in their Church-Order also. v. 6. Rooted and built up in him, and established and abounding therein. v. 7. Then he gives them a Caveat, to take heed of those Persons and things that might hinder them, and lead them away from Christ, v. 8. and then gives them a Reason v. 2. Because in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodilly; which he amplifieth by an Argument in reference to them, v. 10. And ye are compleat in him, which is the head of all principality and Power. Eph. 1.3. 1 Cor. 1.30. Compleat in him] not only in Respect of all saving-Benefits, and spiritual Graces; But also, in respect of all outward Ordinances.
But they might object; we want Circumcision, which the Jews had. Why, saith the Apostle v. 11. Ye are also Circumcised in him, [Page 152]with the Circumcision of Christ: which he expounds, v. 12. Buried with him by Baptism. Baptism there, I conceive, is called the Circumcision of Christ; even as Christ in the Lord's Supper, is called our Passeover, 1 Cor. 5.7. which plainly shew's, that both the Lord's Supper succeeds in the Room and place of the Passeover; and Baptism in the Room and place of Circumcision.
Secondly, you come to shew, that Baptism did not succeed Circumcision, as to the Ends and Uses of it. Your Reasons are these.
1. Because Circumcision was a sign of Christ to come in the flesh; and Baptism, that he was already come in the flesh.] To which I Answer, that the End and Use of both of them, by your own Confession, respected Christ; So that they differed not in the main substantials; but in some circumstances only. They differed not in their End and Use as to the Essence of the thing, but in the Adjunct of Time only; the one pointing at Christ to come; the other to him already come.
2. Circumcision, say you, was to be a partition-Wall, betwixt Jew and Gentile; but Baptism testified the contrary, to wit; that Barbarian, Scythian, Bond and Free, Jew and Gentile — were all on in Christ, &c.
To which I reply; 1. That Circumcision was not that Partition-Wall, but the whole Ceremonial Law, and Legal-worship; as Beza well expounds it, Eph. 2.14. Circumcision was long before the Ceremonial Law, given to Abraham; as we intimated before, John 7.22. And was one of the two ordinary and standing-Seals of the Covenant, Externally and Ecclesiastically dispensed, at first, to Abraham, and the Church in his Family; and distinguished those of the Church, then and afterwards, from all others whatsoever. Even as also Baptism now doth; or should do at least, Legitimately dispensed. It's true, that while Circumcision lasted as God's Ordinance it signified, that Christ had not yet broken down that Partition-Wall between Jew and Gentile, and so the difference still remained: the Commission as yet, was not given, to go forth into all the World, and Preach the Gospel to every Creature; but his Words, Statutes and Judgments, formerly given, still remained with Israel, and no other Nation yet had them, Psal. 147.19, 20. The Gentiles were yet afar off, Strangers from the Covenants of Promise, Eph. 2.12. which priviledge belonged alone to the Church of the Jews, Rom. 9.4, 5.— Rom. 3.1, 2. So that this doth not reach your purpose, nor prove, that Circumcision was the Partition-Wall. 2. You [Page 154]say, Baptism testified the Contrary. I Answer —First, if your opposition had been Logical and Legitimate; you should have said; Circumcision testified that there was a Partition-Wall betwixt Jew and Gentile: but Baptism testified the contrary. But there's no opposition, as you frame it, Opposita enim eidem attribuuntur secundum idem, ad idem, &c. And if you had made the opposition aright, it would not have been against us at all. For I shall acknowledge that Circumcision, whiles it lasted as Gods Ordinance, did testifie; that the partition-Wall still stood between Jew and Gentile; and Baptism after the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, testified that it was broken down; but not so, when it was first instituted, and Administred by John Baptist, nor by Christs Apostles before his Death. For, the Partition-Wall stood then, Math. 10.5, 6. They might not go into the way of the Gentiles, &c. Secondly, But how do you prove, that Baptism testified, that Barbarian, Scythian, Jew and Gentile were all one in Christ?] Baptism indeed after the death of Christ was a Seal of the New-Covenant, under the New-Testament-Dispensation, wherein the God of Grace extended it not only to the Jews, but the Gentiles also; giving a free offer of it to the unconverted-Gentiles, to bring them in; and an assurance of the enjoyment [Page 155]of the blessings of the Covenant, to those that were brought in; as well as to the Jews. But this is accidental to Baptism, to signifie or testifie that they were all one in Christ; it was Christs Commission enlarged, to which, Baptism was annexed, which properly and immediately testified, that the difference between Jew and Gentile, was removed. And by this Dispensation of the Covenant they were all one in Christ, though Baptism had never been annexed to it.
—Thirdly, But suppose it were as you assert; must not Baptism succeed into the place of Circumcision, because it hath more Ends and Uses, than Circumcision had? Or because it hath some Ends and Uses, that Circumcision had not? Will you deny the Soveraign Lord God the Liberty to enlarge his Grace in these Gospel-days? Both Circumcision and Baptism are Seals of God's Covenant, and each of them suitable to that manner of Dispensation of it, unto which they are appropriated. Your reasoning therefore is, ex falso supposito, to wit, That, that cannot succeed into the Room and Place, of another thing, whose Ends and Uses differ in some circumstances; though for the main substance, they signifie the same. When you have proved it solidly, you may expect it may be Embraced, and not before. This general Answer, will [Page 156]reach the rest of your Ends and Uses, wherein you say they differ. Now to the third.
This is, as if one should say, the Ammonites did not succeed the Zanzummims, and dwell in their stead, because they were not Gyants as they were: Contrary to Deur. 2.20, 21.
3. Circumcision, say you, Initiated the Carnal Seed into the Carnal Church, and gave them right to the Carnal Ordinances; but Baptism was to give the Spiritual Seed an orderly entrance into the Spiritual-Church, and a right to partake of spiritual-Ordinances.] To which I Answer,
1. They were initiated Externally by the Covenant into the Church, before they were Circumcised; and thereby they had a right to Circumcision, (as hath been proved before) which was the Sign & Seal of their Initiation.
2. It seems to be a carnal Expression, to call the Church in Abraham's Family, a carnal Church. The Church of the Jews indeed, when they became National, had a worldly Sanctuary, Heb. 9.1. and carnal Ordinances, v, 10. but that it was a Carnal Church, is an Expression that I find not in the Holy Scripture, and I dare not call it so. By Worldly Sanctuary] he means the Tabernacle, and all the External glory of the Levitical Service, only as it was the Earthly-Representation of Heavenly [Page 157]things, by which Earthly shadows they were by Faith to look at Heavenly things which were the substance. And Carnal Ordinances]; Either because the Levitical Ceremonies were severed from the things they signified, as the Carnal Jews took them, and rested in them: Or; because carnal things were used in those Ordinances to represent Spiritual. But as they were joyned with their significations, so, See Mr. Dick. son, on Heb. 9. there were Promises of Atonement made, and annexed to them, which True Believers did enjoy. If it were a Carnal Church, and no Spirituality in it, how then could any be saved in it? The faithful then, no doubt, did look at Christ, in those Carnal Ordinances; to wit, the Bulls and Goats and other things that were offered in Sacrifice; and Christs Spirit was among them, Hag. 2.5. Isa. 63.11.
3. Baptism was not to give the Spiritual Seed an orderly entrance into the Spiritual Church; as hath been proved before; but was to signifie and Seal the Entrance they had by God's Covenant, before they were Baptized; even as Circumcision was, by your own Confession, p. 223.
4. You do not here plainly tell us, who those Spiritual Seed are; but by the Current [Page 158]of your discourse, it appear's you mean only True Believers in Christ; and then, what makes an Hypocrite in any of your Congregations? Why was he Baptized?
5, Nor do you here tell us, what you mean by Spiritual Church, and Spiritual Ordinances. I conceive you mean, a visible Gospel-Church, and Gospel-Ordinances; which if opposed to Carnal-Ordinances; must signifie the plain, and simple Ordinances of the Gospel, representing Christ as in a Looking-Glass, 2. Cor. 3. ult. and not under the Veil of Ceremonies, where the Blood of Bulls, and Goats, and other Carnal things, were used by God's appointment, to signifie and set forth Christ unto them.—
Let us now gather up the sum of your Argument.
If Circumcision Initiated the Carnal Seed into the Carnal Church, and gave them right to the Carnal-Ordinances; But Baptism, the Spiritual Seed into the Spiritual Church, and gave them a right to Spiritual Ordinances; then the End and Use of both, is not the same and so, Baptism doth not succeed into the Room of Circumcision. At;—Ergo — Besides the flaws in the Antecedent, I deny the consequence of the Proposition; For,
3. By your own arguing, the End and Use of Both, is to enter them (as you say) [Page 159]into the Church: and the Church in Abraham's Family where Circumcision began, was the Church of God, a Spiritual and not a Carnal Church (as you term it) and their Ordinances then were few, and fit to represent Spiritual things unto them; suitable to that time. And as for Circumcision, it was not one of those Legal Ceremonies, but a Seal annexed to God's Covenant, in Abraham's Family, long before the Ceremonial Law, consisting of Carnal Ordinances, was given.
Yea afterwards, when the Ceremonial Law was brought in (whose Ordinances in some sence are called Carnal; yet it appears they had a Spiritual signification, & led to Christ, Gal. 3.24 & therefore in a right sence, Spiritual Ornances, as to their signification and tendency.—
Hence, the End and Use of both, as to the main substance, is the same; and therefore, Baptism may well succeed into the Room of Circumcision, by your own Argument. And so I come to your fourth Use.
4. Circumcision, say you, was to be a Bond and Obligation, to keep the whole Law of Moses; but Baptism witnessed, that Moses Law was made void, and that only Christ's Law was to be kept, I Answer.
Your Assertion is doubtful for want of explaining [Page 160]your self. Your words seem to relate to Gal. 5.2, 3. when Circumcision was abolished by the death of Christ, and no Ordinance of God; the Apostle tells them then, that if they were Circumcised, Christ would profit them nothing; for it would be as if they had said, and held, that Christ had not died and satisfied for sin; and so, such a one would be a debtor to do the whole Law; Circumcision being one of the Ordinary Seals of God's Covenant, under that Legal Dispensation, until Christ should come to fulfil the Law, would now, by their abuse, and perverting of it, engage them to perform perfect obedience to the whole Law in their own persons; under penalty of Eternal damnation. He speaks to such, as it seems, would joyn their own performances, and legal Ceremonies, and Christ's Righteousness together. So that this doth not reach your purpose; for you speak of Circumcision as it was a blessed Ordinance of God in force, engaging the Jews to keep the whole Law of Moses in an Evangelical manner, looking to Christ alone for Righteousness to justifie them; and the Apostle speaks of it, as now abolished by Christ, and perverted by some of these Galatians, who would make a mixture of their own personal Righteousness, the Legal Ceremonies and Christ's Righteousness together, [Page 161]in the business of their Justification.—
As for the rest of the phrases, had you told us, what you mean by the Law of Moses; and what by the Law of Christ? We should then have been able to judge of your Argument; but now it must remain with your self. If in Moses Law, you include the Moral-Law, I must assert, that, that also is the Law of Christ, and brought under Christ, for Gospel-Ends, which I suppose, you will not deny. Thus much to the fourth.
5. Circumcision, say you, was administred to all Abraham's natural Seed, without any profession of Faith, Repentance, or Regeneration; whereas Baptism—to the Spiritual Seed was only upon profession of Faith, &c. which more fully appears by three Instances, &c. For Answer;
1. It was by God's command to be done upon Infants of Inchurched-Parents, who were not capable then of making any such profession, and we know no absurdity, that Baptism should now be administred to Infants of Inchurched-Parents, though they can make no such profession of Faith, &c.
2. Circumcision was administred not only to all Abraham's natural Seed, but to his Church-Seed; to wit, Proselites and their Male-Children; and the Children of [Page 162]his Servants who were themselves Circumcised, Exod. 12.48. when Abraham was, Gen. 17.
3. As for Adult-Persons to be circumcised, why was not the same, or like profession of Faith and Repentance required of them, as of Abraham himself? God requires of him, the Fruits and effects of both, and that before he was circumcised, Gen. 17.1. I am God Almighty, walk before me and be upright. And how could he do so, either Invisibly to men, or Visibly, without Believing and Regeneration, suitable to those? Your self grant, that Abraham received the sign of Circumcision, the Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith, which he had before. And it is an impregnable Truth, that Circumcision did mediately signifie and Seal Regeneration, Jer. 4.4 with Deut. 30.6. and Heart-Circumcision; as your self have granted p. 223.
How therefore can you prove, that those of years, that were to be Circumcised, were to make no profession of Faith and Regeneration? It's probable, that it was not, indeed, so manifest and express, as what is required now in Gospel-times; but that there was not any at all, suitable to the Church under that. Dispensation, is gratis dictum, and without proof. Did Proselytes make no kind of profession of Faith, before Circumcision? [Page 163]How then could the Church of Israel know, what difference there was between them, and their Heathen Neighbours? Did they no more, but offer themselves to be Circumcised only? And did the Church admit them upon that offer, without any further transaction? certainly, that would have been the way to make bad Church-work. When you give better proof, we shall either Embrace, or else Answer your Argument. I now come to examine your three Instances.
First, what you mean by a Spiritual-parent I cannot understand; only I guess, you mean the Holy Ghost; and then, that Instance (as to the substance of it) hath been Answered before. An Inchurched Parent, both then, and now, gives right to the Initiatory Seal to the Child.
Secondly, because say you, a Legal, p. 222. Ecclesiastical, Typical Holiness (when Land—Houses—and Trees were holy) qualified for Circumcision; whereas only Evangelical, and personal Holiness, was a meet qualification for Baptism. I Answer,
As Ecclesiastical and Federal Holiness qualified for Circumcision of old, so Ecclesiastical and Federal Holiness doth now for Baptism, (as hath been proved). What you mean by Typical Holiness here, and of what [Page 164]was Typical, I understand not, because you have not here declared it, But you seem to make the Holiness of Children then, the same with Land and Trees. Was the federal Holiness of Children then, the same with that of Land and Trees?
If there be not now an Evangelical-Ecclesiastical-Holiness, what Holiness is that, which a Hypocrite hath, whom you Baptize? A legal-Ecclesiastical Holiness, it is not; for that, say you is past and gone; Typical Holiness it is not; for that, be it what you please to call it, is also vanished. Real Spiritual-Holiness it is not; for he is an Hypocrite. What then will you call it? If it be not an Evangelical-Ecclesiastical, and Federal Holiness, it is none at all; and why then is he Baptized?
Thirdly, say you, because strangers, and Servants bought with mony, and all ignorant Children of eight days old; yea Trees, were capable of Circumcision; whereas only Men of understanding capable to Believe with all their heart, and give an account with their mouths, were to be esteemed capable subjects of Baptism. I Answer,
1. Were not those strangers and Servants bought with mony, Men capable of understanding?
[Page 165] 2. Were they not instructed by Abraham, before they were Circumcised? Abraham was a long time a Believer, before God put him and his Family into that Church-Estate, and commanded them to be Circumcised; as you will easily grant. And God speaks of him as one that had experience, of Abraham's Care, Industry and Faithfulness, that way, Gen. 18.19. And how do you know, that God gave not a Blessing to his Endeavours, at least so far, as that they outwardly made some profession of Faith and Regeneration, suitable to the State of the Church in those days? Is it probable or rational to think, that Abraham ran upon the Men of his Family, as upon a Company of Bruit Beasts, to Circumcise them, without instructing them, what the mind of God was in it? Surely, that had been to deal with Beasts and not with Men.
3. Children of inchurched-Parents, of eight days old, were capable of Circumcision then; and so they are of Baptism now; though they cannot give an account with their mouths, which I hold their Parents ought to do.
4. But that Trees also were capable of Circumcision, I suppose, you will not be able to prove. If you diligently examine the Text, and consult judicious Commentators upon it, [Page 166]you will find no such sence as you and some others put upon it. Levit. 19.23. Hear what the Learned Buxtorfius, that great Hebraician and Antiquary in the Jewish writings saith upon the Hebrew word [...]. First, it signifies to hold or account one uncircumcised, [...] Praeputiatum vel obthuratū habuit, vel censuit, Levit. 19.23. Et ob thurabitis obthurationem ejus, juxta Rab. Solomonem. i. e. arborem impuram, & fructus ejus pollutos, & abominabiles cenfesebitis, sicut praeputium, seu cutis obthurans membrum virile. Interdum significat, praeputium absculit; quasi Depraeputiare dicas: Depraeputiabitis; i. e. auferetis praeputium ejus i. e. fructus ceu impuros decutietis; ut Chaldaice [...] &c. removendo removebitis fructus ejus; i. e. abjicietis, tanquam immundos. Buxtorf. or closed up. Hence Rabbi Solomon upon Levit. 19.23. Ye shall close up the closing thereof; that is; ye shall account the tree unclean; and the fruits of it polluted, and abominable, even as the foreskin, or skin that closes (or stops up) the member of a Man. Secondly, It signifies to take away the foreskin; or Uncircumcision of any thing; and then it is as much as if he said; Ye shall shake down the fruits of it, as unclean.—Or as the Chaldee, by removing, ye shall remove the fruits thereof; that is, ye shall cast them away as unclean. For the first three years, they might [Page 167]not eat any of the Fruits, not put them to any profitable Use, nor sell them to Infidels; and if any did eat, but so much as an Olive, he was to be beaten by the Law, saith Ainsw. out of Maimony, upon that Scripture.
It's plain hence, that the Uncircumcision and Circumcision here, was in reference to the impurity of the Fruits of the Trees, and not to the cutting, or gashing of the Tree: the Fruits were to be unclean, and as uncircumcised unto them.
It will be time now, to gather up your Argument, that we may see the Validity of it.
If Strangers, Servants, &c. all ignorant Children of eight days old; yea and Trees also were capable of Circumcision; then Circumcision was administred to all Abraham's natural Seed without any profession of Faith, Repentance and Regeneration. At—Ergo.— Let reasonable Men judge of the inconsequence of this Proposition, having before read, what I have Answered to the particulars in it. I now come to your sixth proof.
6. Circumcision was to be a Sign of Temporal Blessings and Benefits, to be enjoyed in the Land of Canaan: whereas Baptism was to be a Sign of many Spiritual Benefits, viz. Remission of sins, Justification, Sanctification— and Eternal Salvation.] To which I reply;
[Page 168] 1. And why was it not a Seal, rather than a Sign; or at least, as well as a Sign, to assure them of the Promise of that Land unto them? was it not a Seal of God's Covenant to them (as hath been shewed before?) And is not Baptism now the like? Doth it not Seal outward Temporal Blessings and Benefits promised though implicitly in the Covenant, as well as Circumcision did?
2. And was Circumcision a Sign and a Seal only of Canaan unto them? You by and by after grant, that there are in some things an Analogy betwixt Circumcision and Baptism, to wit; both of them signifying Heart-Circumcision, and an Initiating into the Church, p. 223. And why did you not express them also, when you said, Circumcision was to be a Sign of Temporal Blessings and Benefits, to be enjoyed in the Land of Canaan? As if it had signified only those Temporal Benefits to them? This Seem's not fair dealing, but rather an imposing upon your inadvertent Reader. And had you fairly granted this sooner, it would have spared you a great deal of needless Labour. Circumcision then, by your own grant, signifies Heart-Circumcision and Initiating into the (Visible) Church, even as Baptism also doth, which is that we plead for. And if it did signifie so; then both the Parents and Children-Circumcised, [Page 169]had an advantage hereby, to seek unto God, to Circumcise their hearts who had signified and Sealed it to them in that Holy Ordinance.
3. If Circumcision signified Heart-Circumcision, to those that were Circumcised, then it must also signifie Remission of sins, and Justification by the Blood of Christ; and Sanctification also; and consequently Eternal Salvation following those Benefits, which they were in that Order to look after, of which Canaan was a Type unto them. And then, what substantial difference, is there between Baptism and Circumcision? This were to Seek a knot in a Bulrush, as the Proverb is.
4. To wave the force of your own grant you tell us, though it were a Sign of Initiating into the Church, yet it was a different-Church, different Subjects, and Church-Members, upon different Grounds, and to different Ends, &c. To which I return; what if it were a different Church in some Circumstances? Was it not a Church of God? a Church of God's instituting and constituting? Did it not consist of the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham, and afterwards continued unto his Posterity; into which the Christian Gentiles were ingrafted, and into [Page 170]which, the Jews and Israelites shall be again ingrafted, in these latter days of the Gospel? see Rom. 11.17, 23, 24, 26, 27, 31. Were not their Children then, Externally and Ecclesiastically in Covenant, and Members of the Church, as the Children of Inchurched Parents, and did then partake of the Initiatory Sign and Seal of the Covenant? and shall their Children then be left out, when God shall again ingraft their Parents in? Weigh the Promises made to these Gospel-times, when God shall bring them in. Their Children shall be as afore-time, and their Congregation shall be established before me, Jer. 30.20. with Deut. 29.10, 11. to v. 16. They are the Seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with them, Isa. 65.23. The Children of thy Servants shall continue, and their Seed shall be established before thee, Psal. 102. last. See more, Ezek. 37.25, 26. The Promise is to you and to your Children, Acts 2.39.
The Grounds and Ends also, that are of God's appointing, are for the substance the same; (as hath been proved) though in some Circumstances, they may differ; God having enlarged his Grace towards poor wretches, now in these Gospel-days. And that Analogy and proportion which you your self do grant, in the main substantial things signified by Circumcision and Baptism, together with [Page 171]what I have evidenced out of Coloss. 2. do give us sufficient ground to conclude, that Baptism is come into the room, stead, & Use of Circumcision, notwithstanding all that you have brought to the contrary; which I hope doth appear, by what hath been replyed to you before.
And whereas, you say, by the same Argument, we may as well conclude, that it cometh in the Room and stead of the Ark, Manna, Rock, &c. It is a grand mistake; for Circumcision was one of the two Ordinary Sacraments and Seals of God's Covenant, given to Abraham, and the Church in his Family, about four hundred years before the Ark, Manna, or that Rock you speak of, Gal. 3.17. There were many extraordinary Sacraments, that God appointed to that Nonage-people, or Heirs under Age (to use the Apostles phrase, Gal. 4.1, 2, 3.) which God in mercy gave, to help their Faith upon special occasions, and emergencies, besides some that you mention; to wit, the Brazen-Serpent for one, which was but occasional, Jo. 3.14, 15. But Circumcision was one of the standing Sacraments and Seals annexed to the Covenant under a Church-dispensation, all along; into the place of which, Baptism by the Lord's-appointment is come; which holds proportion with it, in all the main [Page 172]things it signified and Sealed. And hence;
5. You will easily have an Answer, to those Popish absurdities and abominations, you would fasten upon our Tenent. We do not affirm, meerly from the Analogy, that Baptism is come in the room of Circumcision; for, if we had not something out of Scripture to warrant it, we durst not pin it upon a meer Analogy. If therefore Papists, or other superstitious wits, by arguments drawn from Analogies, bring-in Jewish Rites as High-Priesthood, National Churches, Orders of Priesthood, and other innumerable Rites and Ceremonies, without any Institution of Christ, or New-Testament Authority; we have as good ground left us in Scripture to convince them, as you have, and I hope, should be as ready to do it, as occasion shall be offerred. And thus I have done with your sixth Question, propounded long before, and your Answers to it; & now come to the seventh.
Quest. 7. Whether the not-Baptizing Infants, makes the Priviledges under the Gospel, less than the Circumcising them under the Law? p. 205. which you somewhat alter p. 228. saying, less than under the Law, who had then Circumcision? Your Answer is, not at all.] and give your reasons; why Not-Baptizing of Infants, makes not Gospel-priviledges, less than legal. First, they [Page 173]were not say you, Circumcised, because Children of Believers, or sealed with a New-Covenant-Seal, as being in the New-Covenant, —but upon the account of a Birth-Priviledge, as of the natural lineage and Seed of Abraham; as a Typical Shadowy thing, &c. —I Reply,
1. Were not their Parents professing-Believers, at least, under such a profession, as suited that Dispensation? Did they not attend upon the Sacrifices, which pointed their Faith at Christ to come? And were not they, as they grew up to come before the Lord, and say, A Syrian ready to perish was my Father, &c. See Deut. 26.5. to v. 12. and there they were to worship before the Lord: And afterwards, v. 27. to avouch the Lord to be their God, as he also avouched them to be his People, v. 26. Was there no profession of Faith in all this?
2. Were they not Sealed with the Seal of the Covenant of Grace under an external and Ecclesiastical Dispensation? I suppose you will not say, it was the Covenant of Works, though when it became National it was given in somewhat a legal manner.
3. What was that Birth-priviledge? Did it not depend upon the Covenant Ecclesiastically dispensed, and submitted to? I will be thy God, and the God of thy Seed; Gen. 17.7. [Page 174]And did it not run in the natural Lineage and Seed of Abraham, as they were his Church-Seed? (as hath been shewn). I pray consider, what were the Proselytes and their Children, who were also Circumcised? they were not at all the Natural Seed of Abraham, but they were his Visible-Church Seed.
4. You say, Circumcision was to distinguish them from the Nations, and to keep that line clear, from whence Christ according to the flesh should come. Suppose this last to be true of Abraham's natural Seed, what was this to the Proselytes, and their Seed, from whom Christ was not to come? yet they were to be Circumcised.
5. You say, there is no such thing in the Gospel, the Body and Substance being come, the shadow was to vanish and pass away:—no Birth-priviledge but the new Birth, &c. I Answer;
1. There is no such thing as Bodily Circumcision in the Gospel, that is indeed abolished. But,
2. That there is no Birth-priviledge of the Children of Inchurched-Parents under the Gospel, but the new-Birth, that I must deny, and have already proved, that there is. And that that Birth-priviledge is a means and help, tending to the New-Birth, if it be rightly improved. Christ is the common Father [Page 175]of Inchurched-Parents and their Seed, now in these Gospel-days; and they are Externally and Ecclesiastically Christ's and Abraham's Seed, and in the same sence, Heirs of Promise, as hath been already proved. And this Priviledge is not a Bondage, and a returning to the Type, and Shadow, (as you term it) but a blessed Fruit of the Covenant made with Abraham, who hath a Church-Seed now, as well as heretofore. What else is the Hypocrite, that you admit, if he be not one of Abraham's Church-Seed? He is not one of Abraham's Seed Spiritually and Savingly, nor hath the New-Birth indeed; yet you judge him to have it Ecclesiastically, and hence you Baptize him. So much to your first.
Secondly, neither ought such a thing (say you) to be any more esteemed, the loss of a priviledge, than our not enjoying literally, a Holy-Land, City, Temple, Succession of a High-Priest, &c. I Answer;
1. The loss of Baptizing the Infants of Inchurched-Parents under the Gospel, would be the loss of a great priviledge both to Parents and Children, which under the Law, they did enjoy. For it would be a loss of that, which signified and Sealed God to be their God, and the God of their Seed; and to Circumcise their hearts to love the Lord, and to signifie their initiating into the Church; by [Page 176]your own concession; and this would be the loss of no small Priviledge; and therefore, we cannot easily bear this loss.
2. It is the loss of a Priviledge also, in reference to Temporal Blessings, and External Ordinances and means of Conversion. As Canaan was an External Blessing signified and Sealed to them by Circumcision; so Temporal Blessings are to us, and our Infants by Baptism. Psal. 111. For it is a Sign and Seal of God's Covenant wherein Temporal Blessings are also implied, and in the Explanation of it by other Scriptures, expresly promised. So also for External means of Grace.
3. It is the loss of a Priviledge also, in reference to Heaven and Eternal Happiness there, of which Canaan was a Type unto them; that if they did truly Believe in the Messiah then to come, and walk in the ways of God, Eternal Salvation was Sealed unto them thereby. All those we must lose, and yet esteem the loss of them, the loss of no Priviledge.
4. There is not the like Reason of the loss of Baptism, and our not-enjoying a Holy Land, City, Temple and succession of a High-Priest, &c. For, Circumcision was a Sign and Seal of the Covenant, and so were not those things; the high-Priest was a Type of Christ, [Page 177]and that Type was fulfilled in him; and we need no succession therein; as there was before in the Priesthood; which was appointed successively until the Time of Reformation, Heb. 9.10. But as for the succession of Infant-Members of the Church, (I say, Infant and Mediate Members) that was long before the High-Priesthood, in Abraham's Family, and the Church there; and is not of the same nature with the Priest-hood. And whereas you make this succession Typical, as that of the Priest-hood was; I must crave leave to tell you, that it is a Type of your own making, and not of the Lord's; and a Shadow of your own substance; and therefore I must leave it to follow you. I never yet could understand by any thing that I have read and heard, nor have you as yet proved, that the Infant-Membership, and Circumcision of Children heretofore, was a Type of the Membership and Baptizing only of Adult-Believers under the Gospel: and that, that priviledge which Infants of Inchurched-Parents had then by Generation from their natural-Inchurched-Parents, was a Type of all Church-Members under the Gospel, only by Regeneration. When you have solidly, and out of the Holy Scripture proved this, I shall then consider of your Therefore] towards the latter end of that Paragraph, p. 229. But till then [Page 178]I shall conclude, that we should, to use your words, be great losers by the bargain. But perhaps, your third, with the Reasons thereunto, will prove it. I shall therefore fairly examine them.
Thirdly, say you, if it should be granted, that Circumcision was a Seal of the New-Covenant, belonging to all the Children of Israel, yet would not the Baptizing of the Children of Believers answer it; nor amount to so great a Priviledge, nor be equivalent to it, for these Reasons.
1. Say you, Because all the Families and Tribes of Israel (and all Proselyted-strangers) with their Children, without distinction of good or bad, were to be Circumcised, but now (in the time of the Gospel) one of a City and two of a Tribe; Believers are but thin sown, &c.
I Answer, first more generally; That the Baptizing of the Children of Inchurched-Believers would fitly Answer it, and would amount to so great a priviledge, and be equivalent to it, notwithstanding your Reasons. More particularly to your first Reason; were not all those Families and Tribes of Israel, and all those proselyted-strangers, with their Children, of the Church of Israel? Can you deny that? If they were, (as indeed they were) there was good Reason why they should be Circumcised. [Page 179]And so we say, Gen. 17. of Inchurched-Believers-Children, now under the Gospel, in reference to Baptism; as long as their Parent continues in a right estate in the Church And this doth most fitly, and rationally Answer to the other, and is in the main substantials equivalent to it. What you say, of the Children of wicked Men, if they be manifestly wicked, they should not be admitted into the Church; and if they afterwards appear to be wicked, (as Simon Magus did) to continue impenitent, they are to be cast out of the Church, and so to be looked on as Heathens and Publicans, Matth. 18.17.
‘2. Say you, You would be very short in another respect,’ at an utter uncertainty, when you had a right Subject; for the Parent might ‘ be a Hypocrite, or no Elect-person, which is out of your reach to understand; you cannot know whether the Child be fit for Baptism; for, the Seed of a wicked Man you must not meddle with by any means, whereas there was not the least doubt or scruple in Israel as to the subject; for the Father being Circumcised, it was an infallible work, they were right.’
For Answer;
1. I greatly suspect, that for all you have written so much against Paedo-Baptists, you are yet to seek of the right hinge of the [Page 180]Controversy. I would rather suspect it is so, than that you do it maliciously; hoping, that when you see the true state of it, you will not be unwilling to let in the Truth; and to see how strongly your grounds of arguing here against us, will make against the way you plead for, and practice. I here assert, that though the Inchurched-Parent should be a Hypocrite not discovered, and no Elect-person to Eternal Salvation, yet our Principle is; His Child ought to be Baptized, and we know his Child to be fit for Baptism. We are not at an uncertainty, much less, at an utter uncertainty, when we have a right subject; but we are as certain as they could be in the Church of the Jews. They knew the reputed Father of such a Child, was a Member of the Church of the Jews; and was Circumcised; and we do as infallibly know, that such a Parent now is a Member of a Gospel-Church and that he was Baptized. They had those, that knew the one, and we have those that know the other, as infallibly as they could know.
Obj. If it be replied, that they could better prove, their Parents were Jews, than we that ours are Believers. I Answer;
1. They could not prove it while they were Infants, any more than our's can, that their Parents are Believers; and yet the Infants [Page 181]were Circumcised at eight days old.
2. There's no necessity, that a Child should prove himself to be the Child of a Jew, before he was Circumcised. It was the Churches Duty, and the Ministers of it, to look to that; and not the Child's. The like I say now of Children to be Baptized.
3. Infants now when grown up, can as well prove to the satisfaction of their Consciences (if there be any scruple about it) that their Parents were Inchurched-professing Believers, as the others, that their Parents were Jews. They had the Testimony of the Church, and Children now have as much. Christ commends the Church of Philadelphia for their care, in distinguishing between the true Members of the Church, and those of the Synagogue of Satan, Rev. 3.9.
4. But suppose the Mother did secretly play the Harlot with a Gentile, could the Child when grown prove his Father to be a Jew? He could no better prove it, than we, that ours were Believers: Unless you will say, that wives now-a-days, that have Believers to their Husbands, are more to be suspected of secret uncleanness and unfaithfulness, than the Wives of the Jews were. The Mother can best assure the Child in this Case, if the Churches testimony will not suffice him.
[Page 182] 2. My Second Answer to your second Reason, will return the force of your Reason against your self. I shall peremptorily assert, that this absurdity which you would fasten upon us, and our Tenent, doth strongly reflect upon your self and yours. We know our Subject; we hold the Baptism of no Infants, but of Inchurched-Parents one at least, who are of the Visible-Church: But you are at an utter uncertainty when to meet with a right Subject; for you do not hold an Hypocrite to be in the Covenant of Grace at all. Spiritually and Savingly he is not in the Covenant of Grace; for he is an Hypocrite: Externally and Ecclesiastically he is not (as you hold) for you will not own an External, and Ecclesiastical Dispensation of the Covenant of Grace, now in the days of the Gospel. Yet, Baptize him you do, upon this conjecture, that he is a true-Believer; but afterwards he appears to be otherwise. Now I beseech you, deal ingenuously, and see, who is at an utter uncertainty, when to have a right Subject of Baptism, if you be not? But as for our Subject we know where to find him. We can know whether he be Externally and Ecclesiastically within the Covenant or no; but cannot say infallibly he is a a true Believer, or Elect unto Salvation, which is out of our reach to understand; and [Page 183]shall leave it to those that are resolved to go upon such uncertain Grounds. So much to your second Reason.
3. You say, neither can the Child, (when grown up) have any certain knowledg that such a Ceremony ( viz. as Baptism) hath past upon him in Infancy; he having no Infallible mark thereof, as the Circumcised-Infant had.]—This hath been punctually answered to before. I shall therefore conclude, against all your Demonstrations, (as you call them) that Inchurched-Parents would lose a great and inestimable Priviledge under the Gospel, if their Infants were not Externally and Ecclesiastically interessed in the Covenant, and in Baptism the Seal of it; and so would the Infants too: and in this respect, their Priviledges under the Gospel, would be less, than theirs under the Law.
I shall add further, to what hath been objected.
1. That our Ministry is not successive, as theirs of old was, to the first-born, and afterwards in the Family of Levi, and more particularly, of Aaron. We own no such thing in owning the Birth-Priviledge of Infants.
2. A Gospel-Church-Estate, in reference to Adult and Immediate Members, is not successive. For,
[Page 184] 1. It's requisit, that such persons should make a personal credible profession of Faith and Repentance, and lay hold of the Covenant themselves, Isa. 56.4, 5, 6. as the Eunuch which might be the Child of a Jew must do now in these Gospel-times.
2. It's apparent, that many Children of Inchurched-Parents, who in their Infancy were Mediate-Members, do never, when grown, make such a profession, and lay hold of the Covenant themselves, and so, do never become regularly Immediate Members; but some do draw back, and of such, God hath said, His Soul shall have no pleasure in them, Heb. 10.38. And thus, in respect of Adult-Children of Inchurched-Parents, the Church now is not successive:—But,
3. A Gospel-Church-Estate, in reference to the Infants of Inchurched-Parents is successive, as it was in the Church in Abrahams Family, and afterwards among the Jews, as to the substance of it. The Infants of Inchurched-Parents were then Mediate Members. I will be thy God, and the God of thy Seed, Gen. 17.7. And so they are now in these Gospel-days. The Promise is to you and your Children, Acts 2.39.
4. Hence it will clearly follow, that the Church under the Gospel, would be less priviledged and blssed, than that in the Family [Page 185]of Abraham, and afterwards among the Jews, if it were not thus successive in reference to the Children of Inchurched-Parents. For both Parents in reference to their Children, and Children in respect of themselves, would be deprived of a Church-priviledge and Blessing, which both Parents, and Children of old, did enjoy. Which is most unsuitable and contrary to the Grace of the Gospel, which is enlarged and not straitned; and contrary to the whole current of Gospel-Prophecies, to Inchurched-Parents and their Children. For, Inchurched-Believers could not in the due latitude and extent of it, be Heirs according to the Promise (as Gal. 3.29. If their Children should be Externally excluded from the Promise. For, the Childrens-right to the Promise in it's External and Ecclesiastical Dispensation, is a part of the Fathers Inheritance; I will be (first) thy God; and (then) the God of thy Seed.
And it is worth our notice; that those very Gospel-Promises concerning the Seed and Children, do run first to the Parents; and are made Immediately to them, in reference to their Children. Their Children shall be as afore-time; and their Congregation shall be established before me. Jer. 30.20. They are the Seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their off-spring with them, Isa. 65.23. All thy [Page 186]Children shall be taught of God, Isa. 54.13. eminently to be fulfilled when Gods time shall come, that all Israel shall be saved, Rom. 11.26. more Psal. 102. last. Ezek. 37.25, 26. And hence it must needs stick with us, and be a Cordolium and heart-breaking to us, to lose so great a part of our inheritance from our selves and our Children. If Inchurched-Parents should not be a means to convey unto their Infants an External Interest in the Covenant of Grace; and a Right to Baptism (now the Initiatory Seal of it) then surely, there must be a breach and a Rupture in the Covenant of Grace to God's people, and their Seed; which we can by no means admit of: For we and our Gospel-Church-Estate, and our Children, would exceedingly suffer by it; we having lost a priviledge, which they of old enjoyed, and nothing in the stead of it.
CHAP. V. The Ceremony of Baptism, whether it be by dipping or Sprinkling.
THe Ceremony of Baptism, say you, is by Dipping, p. 232. not by sprinkling.
You would prove it first by the proper and genuine signification of the Word, &c. For [Page 187]which End you produce divers Learned Authors, that Baptizo properly signifies, to Dip, Plunge, Overwhelm, put Under, Cover-over, to die Colour, which is done by plunging. Yet p. 248. you grant it signifies washing] Acts 22.16. Tit. 3. and Heb. 10.— But, say you, it is such washing as is by Diping. To which I Answer,
That the Use of the Word in Scripture, (which is the authentick expositour of it self) gives us ground to interpret it washing, by way of Sprinkling or pouring on of Water, and not by Dipping. What the Apostle terms divers Washings or Baptisms (so the Greek) Heb. 9.10. he afterwards calls sprinkling; sprinkling the unclean, v. 13. and v. 19. He sprinkled both the Book and the People, and v. 21. He sprinkled both the Tabernacle, and the Vessels of the Ministry. And this is more than all humane Authorities. Add to this, 1 Cor. 10.1, 2. Our Fathers were all Baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea. I wonder you should bring this place to prove Dipping. How were they Baptized in the Cloud, but by the bedewings of it? They were aspersed with the Atoms of the moisture, that was in it. And how were they Baptized in the Sea? Were they plunged in it, as Pharach and his Egyptians were? I cannot think you will say so. But they were sprinkled by the Waters [Page 188]as they passed by. Where (by the way) observe, that some of those, which the Apostle calls Fathers, were then Infants, and young Children, who were Baptized then, as well as grown persons.
But to make your Interpretation hold, you tell us p. 237. That they were encompassed with the Cloud over their head, and the divided Sea on both sides; and this you make to be a dipping. This is a fallacy a male conjunctis ad bene divisa. You joyn both these together, that were then at that very time sundred, as to the Body of the Camp of the Israelites; for, it is expresly said, Exod. 14.19. The Pillar of the Cloud went from before their Face, and stood behind them. Mark the words behind them, not over them, as you affirm. And v. 20. It came between the Camp of the Egyptians and the Camp of Israel. How can you evade this? I cannot but admire the Wisdom of God, in expressing this Circumstance.
Again; That Baptizing] signifies washing; and that, not by dipping seems plain, Mar. 7.4. The Pharisees returning from the Market, [...]. Eat not except they wash; except they were Baptized or did Baptize themselves: so the Greek. Did they every time dip and plunge themselves overhead [Page 189]head and ears? So Luk. 11.38. The Pharisee marvelled at Christ that he had not first washed (in Greek, been Baptized). Did the Pharisee wonder, that Christ did not first dip himself all over? It's plain, he meant no more than washing his hands. And this washing used by the Pharisees, is described (saith Dr. Worth) in the Jewish antiquities, to have been, by holding up their hands, and pouring water on them (as often as we do). The like they did on their beds, whereon they lay at their Meat, which is called a Baptizing them. And if I might give my thoughts without offence, I conceive the reason why [...] or [...] is not used in those, and such other places, was because the Pharisees, did not account it a meer civil thing, but a Religious thing; and that Baptizo] is there used, not to shew, that it was a washing by Dipping, but that it was accounted by them a piece of Holiness, as other purifications among the Jews were, that were appointed by God and set forth by that word, Such was their Superstition.
And as for the Hebrew word [...], which you say is used for Dipping or Baptizing in the Old-Testament; and [...] for washing persons or things, by swilling, rinsing or rubbing; you shall find it used, for the washing of the hands as clean as may be; which your self say, was by dipping of them under [Page 190]water. See both the words used, Job. 9.30, 31. And as for [...] which you say doth always signifie to dip (wholly under) or else it will make nothing for you) I shall recommend some of the Scriptures to your second thoughts, which you have quoted; and some others, where the same word is used, which it seems, you could not find. In Gen. 37.31. They killed a kid, & dipped the Coat in the Blood. Is it probable, that the Coat was so little, or the blood of a small kid so much, as that they could dip the whole Coat under the Blood? let reasonable Men judge. Again, Levit. 14.6. He shall take the Living-Bird, and the Cedar-wood, and the skarlet and the Hysop, and dip them in the Blood of the Bird, that was killed. Is it credible that the Bird, that was killed, did yield so much Blood, that all those things could be dipped under it, and covered with it? certainly, you must at least run to a Synecdoche here; or else you will make nothing of it. And if you do so, and say, a part of each of them only was dipped, why will you not, at least, allow the same in Baptism? see the like, in v. 51. Also Ruth. 2.14. Dip thy Morsel in the Vinegar. So she might do, though she did not plunge it over, and over; mannerly people use not to do so; nor is there so much usually brought in a dish at once; for one so to do.
Hence also I collect, that according to the signification of that word in the Holy Scripture, a thing may be said to be dipped, that is wetted or strained with some other liquid thing; or, that hath only some part dipped though the whole be not plunged under it.
Besides the use of the words in Scripture both Hebrew and Greek, I mind a Greek verse of the Athenian Oracle, cited by Mr. Sydenham, It's also in Pasor p. 133. of his Book, which I wonder you did not confute (for I perceive you have read him) wherein he gives you the signification of [...] in opposition to [...]; That is, Baptize or wash him, as a bottle in water; but do not drown him, or utterly plunge him. It would have brought this debate into a less compass, if you had answered what he, and other able men have elaborately penned against dipping in Baptism; which I cannot perceive you have done; nor to other things in this controversie already extant: your Arguments most of them being already answered, over and over.
2. You would prove dipping to be the only mode of Baptizing, from the practice we find in Scripture; and then you Instance in many Examples; which I find abundantly [Page 192]replied unto already; by sundry Learned and Holy Men; and had you confuted their Arguments and Reasons, you had done something.
Christ say you, being Baptized, he went straight way out of the water, Matth. 3.16. Therefore he was dipped. I Answer,
1. The Word is [...] not [...], that is, from the water; and it's said, he went up, because there was an ascent up to the Bank; as usually we see in Rivers. He went up from the water; therefore he was dipped; is such a Consequence, as you will not allow us to make concerning Infants-Baptism; yea though we bring those that are far more clear and rational.
2. Christ was Baptized naked, or in his Clothes: not naked doubtless; He that was a pattern of Holiness, would not have endured that before all the people, Luk. 3.21. Not in his Clothes; for immediately the spirit drove him into the Wilderness, Mark 1.10, 11, 12. not in that wet condition doubtless: Therefore he was not dipped.
Again, John Baptized in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there: Therefore he used dipping.
I Answer.
1. The word is many waters; [...], which might not so much signifie the [Page 193]depth of the water; as—1. Vde ntur significariplures rivs, non autem unu m flumen magnum. Piscat. That there were many streams of water there— 2. That the water was very broad there. Aenon signifies a little Fountain, from the Hebrew [...]. (so Pasor.) And Geographers, saith Dr. Worth, in their description of Canaan describe it thus. Nigh unto Salim (since that, called Scythopolis) Jordan brancheth forth into another small River; which at first, spreading it self, on that plain in breadth is very shallow.—And where it is thus spread, and thereby broad, is (the Town) Aenon scituated, where John Baptized; and there (saith he) the River is so shallow, that it is not possible to dip, or douse over head and ears, a little Child therein. See his Book called Scripture-evidence for Baptizing-Infants, pag. 37.
And then, pag. 39. He gives you his Reason, why John Baptized at Aenon because of those many waters there; which may probably be this, (saith he). John having Baptized at Bethabara, John 1.28. (which was the most frequent passage over Jordan, Judg. 7.24.) in regard of the great concourse usually there, that his Doctrine and Baptism might be promulgated; and having Initiated many Disciples; and other multitudes still daily [Page 194]flocking to him, he chose rather to perform this duty at Aenon, than any longer at Bethabara; because at Aenon (the water spreading in a larger Plain) the Multitude of his Disciples, might better hear his Sermons, and see his administration of Baptism, than if performed under the shading-banks of Jordan. This Reason seems clear, but the other, from the depth of the water, doth not; for, it seems the water was deeper at Bethabara where he Baptized before. It's therefore a very uncertain ground, to bottom dipping upon, from a supposition of the depth of the waters there.
A third Scripture you mention, is Acts 8.36, 38, 39. Philip and the Eunuch went both down into the water; and Philip Baptized him: and again, they both came up (or ascended) out of the water; therefore dipping was used. — I Answer;
1 Their going down unto, or into the water, and going up out of, or from the water, seems to respect the way from the Bank to the River; (as before), and not, that the Eunuch was dipped, and came up out of the water which covered him before.
2. If their going down into the water, were an Argument for dipping; then Philip must be dipped as well as the Eunuch; for both of them went down, and both of them came up out of the water.
[Page 195] 3. What great matter was it for them in those hot Countries, and who were sandals (and usually washt their feet, when they came into a House from their journies) to go into the water; though it were up to their Ancles or Knees? This cannot prove dipping in Baptism. Their feet indeed (like the Feet of the Priests, that bare the Ark) might be dipped in the Brim of the water, Josh. 3.15. but that's nothing to dipping the whole Body.
4. To dip this Eunuch naked, had been unsuitable to Christian-modesty; and to dip him in his Clothes, had been unsuitable to his Travelling-condition; who, it seems, made no stop, nor stay, but went on his way rejoycing. It's most probable therefore, that Philip Baptized him, by pouring-water on him. What-ever hath been the judgment of Godly-Men, about dipping; our Rule is the Scripture; our of which we are with all Humility, to seek the mind of God, and to settle our Consciences and Practice.
A fourth Scripture you mention, is Rom. 6.4. Buried with him in Baptism; where (say you) the Apostle elegantly alludes to the Ceremony of Baptizing, in our Death and Resurrection with Christ. To which I Answer,
[Page 196] 1. In Mr. Cobbets words; we use not to bury Men, by throwing them down with their Faces downward (as when persons are dived with their Faces under water) but by laying them in, with their Faces upwards; nor do we plunge them into the dust and Earth, but pour and sprinkle dust and broken Earth upon them. If therefore, the similitude of burying be signified in the manner of Baptizing then pouring on water, or sprinkling, will better express it than dipping.
2. If dipping under the water, doth signifie our being-buried with Christ; and rising out of the water, doth Sacramentally and Ceremonially signifie our rising with Christ; then there must be proportionably, something also in the outward Ceremony, that must signifie our dying to sin with Christ; for a Man should be dead, before he is buried. And the Apostle is express in it, v. 3. Know ye not, that as many as are Baptized into Christ, are Baptized into his Death? And yet you shew no outward part of the Ceremony, that signifies that.
3. I shall endeavour to clear the Text, by giving my thoughts upon it; yet still ready to receive further light from any. The Apostle v. 1. Labours to prevent the abuse of that precious Doctrine of abounding Grace, treated of Immediately before, and with an Holy [Page 197]abhorrency rejects that abuse. As if he should say; I have told you, O Believing Romans! That such is the Riches of God's Grace in Christ, and the reigning Glory of it, that where sin abounded, there pardoning Grace more abounded. Let none of us hence resolve to commit the more sin, that Grace may more abound; for we that have Believed in Christ for the pardon of our sins, and for Justification by his imputed-Righteousness, are dead to sin; and therefore should live no longer in it. Do ye not know, that as many of us, as were Baptized into Jesus Christ, were Baptized into his Death. Therefore, We are Buried with him by Baptism into Death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead, by the Glory of the Father, even so, we also (to wit, that are in Christ visibly at least, and have been Baptized into him) should walk in newness of Life, v. 4. This latter he amplifies by a Simile to the former; For, if we have been planted together in the likeness of his Death; we shall be also, in the likeness of his Resurrection, v. 5. from whence it seems clear; That their Baptism was a Sign and Seal more generally of their Implantation into Christ, Externally at least, and thereupon more particularly, and consequently of their Communion with Christ in his death, for the mortification of sin in the [Page 198]beginnings of it; and in his Burial, for the further mortification of sin, in the progress of it; also, in his Resurrection, for quickning-power, and spiritual Life, not only at first, but all along, that they might lead a new and a Holy Life, and abound therein more and more. See John 14.19. Gal. 2.20. Phil. 3.9, 10. We see then, the scope of the Apostle in urging them with their being Buried with Christ by Baptism] was not at all, to make the Ceremony of Baptism to resemble that of Burial, or of Resurrection; but to signifie and Seal their implantation into Christ and so their Union with Christ; and also consequently their Communion with him, in his Death and Resurrection, the vertue of both which, they were to labour for, by Believing, all their days.
Whereas you say p. 249. That it is a very unusal thing so to deal with unclean hands, to wit, to sprinkle or pour water upon them; I think it is very usual. What mean those little Cisterns in many Houses, with Cocks in them, to let the water run upon the hands to wash them? I Believe, I could wash my hands as clean that way, as you could wash yours by dipping them into the water; and I should not count her a Slut, that would so wash her hands when they were foul. Our experience therefore, you see, tells us, that there is as effectual [Page 199]a way to wash our dirty-hands, by pouring water upon them, as by dipping them.
Besides, unless you rinse or rub, as well as dip, you will not easily make clean work of it; and if this your similitude hold you must not only dip the person you Baptize, but you must rinse or rub him too, to signifie his cleansing.
You take away the cavils of unseemliness from dipping, by saying, It is the fruit of [...]rnal Wisdom, Unbelief, and shunning the the Cross, and so, no other than to reproach the Wisdom of Christ, &c. I Answer.
Were it apparent from Scripture, that Christ had ordained Dipping, and himself so practised it, as you affirm, I hope, through the Grace of Christ, many of his people, would not count it undecent, as now they do. And there must be clearer light to convince them that are considerate of it, than any you have yet held forth. And I much wonder, that you, who will not admit of Consequences concerning Infants-Baptism (which are far more rational and certain) should content your self with such uncertain ones, as you have brought for dipping. I would only recite, out of Mr. Cobbet, p. 212. what he saith ‘out of Nicephorus. lib. 13. cap. 19. of the flying of the Women naked, being [Page 200]beset with armed-Men, as they were to be Baptized; and that sad story of a Priest, defiling of a Woman,’ when to be Baptized.
Then, as to the hazard of health; you say known experience doth amply refute that vain Imagination. You will not be offended, I hope, if the experience of some others, be set against yours. It is more than probable that some have presently upon it, fallen into a Fever, which cost them their lives. And I could tell you of some Eyewitnesses credible-persons, who saw both the Baptizer and the Baptized in danger of drowning; and had very probably been both drowned, if one had not leapt in from the bank in his Clothes and relieved them both. I would not have mentioned these things, had not your words required an answer; for it is Truth, and Peace, that I aim at, and not Contention and bitterness.
To your Chapter V. pag. 253. I Answer.
Having (as I trust) given satisfactory Answers to what you have said, and in some measure evidenced, and confirmed the contrary-truth; those several mischiefs, absurdities, and contradictions cannot justly be charged upon our practice. I shall mention them [Page 201]very briefly, having spoken to most of them amply before. Only, I must tell you, that the Errours you charge our Doctrine and Practice with, do not naturally (and perse) follow from them, but they are accidental to them, as far as they are Errours. They are the Errours of Persons only, not of our Doctrine, nor of our Practice, according to our Doctrine. And therefore you injuriously charge them upon our Doctrine & Practice. It is fallacia accidentis. As for what is Truth in any of them, we own, and have proved it before; but the most of them, you falsly charge upon us. Let those that own what is Erroneous in their Expressions, make them good if they can; or rather repent of them. Our Assertion of Infant-Interest and Baptism, will stand without them.
1. Baptizing of the Infants of Inchurched-Parents, is not an altering of the Order of Christs Commission, as hath been proved; but it is acting according to his Commission. Disciples we have proved them to be, and so by Christ's Commission to be Baptized. Repentance and Faith visibly-professed, at least, should precede in grown-persons; not so in Infants; but their Baptism and being Externally in the Covenant of Grace, is to engage and stir them up to seek to God for Repentance and Faith. And this Answer will undermine all the rest of your [Page 222]absurdities, mischiefs, and contradictions. It's no changing of the subjects that Christ hath appointed. Nor a frustrating of the holy and Spiritual Ends of Baptism, but a means to attain them, if it be rightly-improved. Nor doth it invert the Order, by sprinkling or pouring water upon the face. Nor doth it naturally, and of it self, introduce any Errour or false Doctrine. We do not hold, that it is to take away Original Sin. Nor that it doth of it self, work Grace and Regeneration; yet, we dare not limit the Lord, that he should not work it then, or at any other time, when he pleaseth. And that it was an Apostolical Tradition, we own it no otherwise than from their writings and practice recorded in the Scripture. If any make it an unwritten Tradition; let them please themselves with their own fancy. Nor doth it maintain, that Children have Faith; though it is beyond your reach to say, this, or that Child hath no Faith, secret things belong to God. But that they are Disciples of Christ, and in Christ's School, we have proved, though they have not yet learnt one Letter. That all the Infants of Inchurched-Believers are Externally in the Covenant of Grace, and federally-Holy; I have proved, and you cannot prove it to be an Errour, or false Doctrine. Nor doth it defile and pollute the Church; either by bringing [Page 203]false matter therein, who are no Saints by calling; neither capable to perform Duties, nor enjoy priviledges. Those words, Saints by calling (if you mean, such as have Actually answered the call of Christ in his word, at least in the judgment of Charity) respect only-Adult-persons, who are immediate-Members and not Children, who are Mediate Members, by means of their Inchurched-Parents, as middle persons appointed of God, to convey them into that Estate, and Relation. This distinction will free the Church from pollution; of which more hath been said before. We do not hold, that a Church is gathered, or made up, only of Infants; but of grown persons, who alone are able to perform Duties. But Infants are capable of enjoying Priviledges. Is it not a Priviledge for God to be their God Externally in Covenant? To be under a promise of God's Circumcising the heart; and to provide them outward means for that End. Some of your perswasion, have held that they have great priviledges. They are then true matter of the Church as visible, in their kind, and do not pollute and defile it. By your Argument, the Children of the Jews must be false matter; for they were no Saints by calling, nor could they perform duties; yet they were mediate members of the Church, and a part of that holy-people; [Page 204]as hath been shewed.—Nor doth it lay a Foundation of Ignorance and prophaneness; but the Contrary; as I have abundantly proved. Nor is it a confounding World and Church together; nor bringing the World into the Church, and turning the Church into the World. You will see the contrary, if you impartially-weigh what I have said before. This reasoning of yours, is as much against Children of the Jews heretofore, as against ours now. Was the World and the Church confounded in the Church in Abraham's Family and afterwards? Their Infants were of the Church then. You may easily see a way to solve this doubt, if you consider, that their Infant-Membership gives them not a Title to the Membership and Priviledges of Adult-Members; but they must attain to those, by a credible profession of Repentance and Faith, and laying hold of the Covenant themselves.—Nor do we hereby introduce and establish, any, (much less many) humane Traditions and Inventions of Antichrist, nor take God's name in vain; but Sanctifie his name, in giving to our Children, what his Gracious Majesty hath bequeathed to them. Nor is it of it self a bone of contention among them that own it, or oppose it; but by accident only, to wit, through their ignorance or perversness. Nor is it of [Page 205]it self any just occasion of hatred, wrath and persecution, &c. Nor doth it confirm the whole Antichristian Interest, as you say, you have made good in your Preface. Nor doth it maintain, that persons may have Regeneration and Grace (if you mean spiritual and sanctifying Grace) before calling; but only External-Covenant-Grace. Nor, that Adult persons may be visible-Church-Members regularly, before Conversion credibly professed. Nor that persons may Repent, Believe and be Saved by the Faith of another; yet, that the Children of Inchurched Believers may be Baptized, we do hold. Nor that those Types and shadows that are in Christ fulfilled and abolished, are at all profitable now to be practised; though we hold the Doctrine of them, of profitable use still. But we cannot comply with you, that the legal Birth-priviledge (as you call it) was a Type or Shadow of the Regenerate seed, now in Gospel-days; and so must cease; which I have spoken to before. Nor doth it revive Judaism, and out Christianity, but maintains that Gracious Covenant made with Abraham and his Church-Seed, Gen. 17.7. It is that Ancient Covenant of Grace dispensed in a Church-way to Abraham, and his Family, that is solemnly laid hold of to enter Christians & their Seed, into the Visible-Church, & no [Page 206]new humane Invention instead thereof. Is it not by this Covenant laid hold of and professed, that your Churches consist? See Isa 56.3, 4, 5, 6, 7 a prophecy of Gospel-times. If not, they cannot be said, to be the Church-Seed of Abraham. Nor doth this tend at all to Exclude Believers Baptism, that have not been Baptized before; but to establish it. And there is good reason (as hath been shewed) to deny those that were only Mediate Members and Baptized in Infancy, the right of the Church-Membership of Immediate Members, and the Priviledges peculiar to them; until by their own credible profession, and laying hold of the Covenant themselves, they become Immediate Members, see Isa. 56.4.6, 7. Isa. 62.5. Isa. 44.3, 4, 5. As for those, that hold the Children of Inchurched-Parents to be Members of the same species and kind with them, and hold not the distinction of Mediate and Immediate Members; I think your Assertion, will reflect upon their Principle and Practice; for I could never yet see, how they could free themselves rationally, from the plea, of such Children, when grown up, (owned still by them as Members of the same kind with their Parents) and having no gross-Crimes to lay against them; and yet deny them the Priviledges of Adult-Members. I must leave it to them, to make it out; for I [Page 207]shall not undertake it. See Mr. Davenport's second Essay, in Answer to the Synod at Boston. I have often thought that this, and some other like things, have been an occasion of stumbling to some of your perswasion; who have not been able to see how such should be rationally satisfied; and the Church kept free from pollution, and therefore they have opposed the Membership and Baptism of Children.
As to your first contradiction, I must crave pardon, if I tell you, it wants Charity and Candour. You may easily see, that Dr. Owen speaks of Adult-persons only, though perhaps he hath not exprest it. And indeed Sir, I find, you have been often guilty of that fault in your Book. I suppose you would count it a piece of dis-ingenuity, and want of Charity, if one should construe some speeches of yours, in ‘that manner. As for Instance; speaking of Abraham, say you, All whose posterity were to be marked therewith, that is, with Circumcision, p. 228. and p. 230. You say, There were all the Families and Tribes of Israel (and all proselyted strangers) with their Children, without distinction of good or bad, to be Circumcised.] Now, if one should charge this upon you,’ that you meant the Woman and Female-Children should be [Page 208]Circumcised (for, they were part of the Tribes and Families of Israel) or that all the posterity of Abraham by Keturah, in their Generations, were to be marked with Circumcision; which also you have denied] I doubt you would not think your self well dealt withal. Yet, thus you have done, with many others; and I hope you will see it, and Repent of it. Baptism is a Symbol of present Regeneration, in the judgment of Charity to Adult-Persons; but of future Regeneration to Infants. The Lord thy God will Circumcise the heart of thy Seed, Deut. 30.6.
To your Second pag. 257. Baptism truly figures Implantation into Christ; and consequently Communion with him in the vertue of his Death, Burial and Resurrection; but the outward manner and Ceremony doth not particularly represent all those things; as I have before proved.—To your third, is Answered in the first. To your fourth I Answer, that the similitude of Marriage, of which Baptism may be a Declaration, is not to be extended to every thing that belongs to Marriage; Similitudo non currit quatuor. but to be applied only to that particular, that it is brought to illustrate. You know I suppose that similitudes do not run upon all four. Christ is compared to a Thief; if any should [Page 209]extend that similitude beyond what Christ in tended it, he would make Thievish-work of it. The scope of that place Eph. 5.25, 26, 27. is not to shew how the soul was married to Christ, and what consent was required; but to set forth the great love of Christ to his Church in Justifying, Sanctifying and Saving them; from whence he draws an Argument, to press Husbands to love their Wives; as is plain there. And he being the head of the Church as Visible, as well as Invisible; his Love to her is great in affording means to those Spiritual and Saving Ends; And so Infants will come under it; but not Stones and Bells, &c. But, I pray further consider, whether according to your arguing, any Infant can be Spiritually and Savingly Married to Christ? and so be saved? He is not capable of giving consent, not to restipulate; no more than Stones, or Bells, or Church-Walls: I Believe God saves some Infants, but not Bells and Stones.—To the fifth, hath been Answered before.—To your sixth, I Answer; That Godly Men do not judg the Baptism a Nullity, dispensed by the Papists, notwithstanding it were clogged with divers humane Inventions; and therefore they require not a Renouncing their Baptism as Null; but Repentance for what hath been amiss therein. To your seventh, They Baptize the Children [Page 210]of Inchurched-Believers, because they are Externally and Ecclesiastically in the Covenant of Grace; and not because they have true sanctifying Grace in them; from which alone, they hold that a man cannot fall; from the other, he may fall and be rejected; and yet their Doctrine of not falling from Grace, stand firm. This Argument I must again return upon you; for you Baptize a professing Believer, because you count him Savingly in the Covenant of Grace, but afterwards he appears not to be so, and you reject him. It is you therefore that hold a falling from Grace and not we. For we Baptize, because they are Externally in the Covenant, and that we can know; but you Baptize, because they are Spiritually and Savingly in the Covenant else you would not Baptize them; and afterwards you come to see they are not so. Therefore you Baptize upon uncertainties, and your Tenet holds falling from Grace.
Nor doth the Baptizing of Inchurched-Infants, make the Traditions of Men, of equal Authority with the Law of God. In this we are accounted down-right Pharisees. Nor doth it overthrow the Covenant, deriving a Title by Natural-Generation; but on the Contrary, it is according to the Covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17.7, 9. Thee and thy Seed after Thee; in their Generations; that [Page 211]is, Abraham and his Church-Seed, as well as his Spiritual-Seed, now in these Gospel-days; The blessing of Abraham being come upon us Gentiles, Gal. 3.14. And that Blessing of Abraham must of necessity, be a Covenant-Blessing. — Nor doth it make Religion to lie in the deed done. This is for Formalists and Papists, who rest in opere operato; and doth not of it self, follow from Paedo-Baptism. Did Circumcision of Infants of old, of its own Nature, and per se, make Religion to lie in the deed done? It is the personal sin of formal Parents, and Children when grown, to abuse their Baptism, and take occasion thence, to place their Religion in the deed done. Suppose some that are Baptized in your way, take occasion thence, to place their Religion in the deed done (as some have Reason to suspect, too many do) you will not I presume, lay the blame upon the Ordinance it self, but upon them for abusing it. You will say, It is accidental to the Ordinance and would no doubt, blame them, that would destroy the Baptizing of professing-Believers, upon that Ground. And why then, should the Baptizing of Infants, be cried down, upon the same Ground?
I suppose you have seen, that people seriously-Godly, do not (through Grace) rest in the deed done, what-ever Hypocrites may do; [Page 212]but do ply the Throne of Grace with Prayers and Tears, that God would Baptize their Children with the Holy-Ghost; and are careful to train them up, in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord. And do not Children themselves, to whom God begins to bless instructions, seek him for the Grace of the Covenant, and of the Seal of it? I have known it, I bless the Lord. And how then must it needs be a placing Religion in the deed done?
Again, it doth not revive Judaism, and Ceremonial Typical-Holiness, of the natural Seed, (which you have so much spokenof) which did end at Christ's coming. No, but it keeps alive, that Ancient-Covenant-Interest of the Inchurched Seed of Abraham, promised to him, Gen. 17.—and such Judaism, we shall not be ashamed to own. It's said Gal. 3.9. They that are of Faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham. And the great Blessing of Abraham was, that God would be his God, and the God of his Seed; to wit; not only of his Spiritual Seed Savingly, but of his Church-Seed Ecclesiastically. Those then that are of Faith, are thus blessed with faithful Abraham; God is the God of them and of their Seed, in both senses respectively, as he was to Abraham and his Seed then. Again, in v. 16. when he saith, To Abraham and his Seed were [Page 213]the Promises made; ‘by Seed there is meant Christ; as considered, not personally, but Mystically, Christ with his Body the Church; Beza in Loc. The name Christ being the proper name of that whole collected-Body, whose head and Life,’ Christ is; and the Members of it are the faithful, gathered together, ‘partly of the Jews, and partly of the Gentiles.’ And Christ being the bond of the Members of that Body; it's no wonder ‘that he calls it Christ himself,’ by which name he denoteth, not only the Head, but also the Members conjoined with the Head. Now, Christ being the Head, not only of his Church considered as Invisible, but also as Visible, in which there be some only Externally, and that are not true Believers indeed; Hence Hypocrites, and also the Children of Inchurched-Parents, are Abraham's Church-Seed, to whom there are Promises made. So that here is not one word to prove, that the Natural-Seed of Inchurched-Believers (which indeed are the Church-Seed of Abraham) were excluded at Christ's coming or afterwards; or that the Holiness of the Natural-Church-Seed of Abraham, was Typical; or that Paedo-Baptism revives Judaism.
If it be said, that Christ is there taken for the Church of Jews and Gentiles, considered [Page 214]only as Invisible; consider then, where you will rank your Inchurched-Hypocrite, who made a new External performance of the consent? and was Married to Christ in his Visible-Church, for base Ends. I suppose you held his Marriage good, or else you would not have Baptized him. Yet, he failed both in the Manner; for he professed the consent of his Will, to Marry Christ, but did lie: and in the End also; for he had no Sanctifying and saving Grace, neither before, nor in that Ordinance of Baptism.
And as for Acts 10.28. and Eph. 2.14, 15. They indeed shew that the Ceremonial Law was now abolished, and way made for the Gospel, and Salvation thereby to come among the Gentiles; which plainly proves an enlargement of the Grace of God, and not a straitning; and therefore, that the natural Seed of Inchurched-Parents, are not excluded by Christs coming.
Neither doth the Baptism of Infants destroy separation, keep us upon the Old bottom, or make us symbolize with the Church of Rome. Let the experience we have, of reformed Congregational Churches that keep close to their Rule, speak for us; whether Infant-Baptism destroys such a separation, as the Gospel requires. Children are Mediate Members of a distinct kind and species, from [Page 215]their Inchurched-Parents. And this Membership (though it intitle them to Baptism, which is the Seal of their ingrafting into the Visible Body and Church of Christ, yet it) cannot entitle them to those Church-Ordinances and Priviledges, which are peculiar to Adult and Immediat Members. If therefore, they would enjoy them, they must profess their Faith and Repentance to the Church; and come and Marry the Church, by their Solemn entring personally into Covenant with her, Isa. 62.5. Isa. 56.4, 6, 7. and engage themselves by the strongest bonds, to the Lord and his Church. See this plainly, Isa. 44.3, 4, 5. One shall say I am the Lords, &c.
I shall readily confess, that Infant-Baptism of Inchurched-Parents, keeps us upon the old bottom of that Ancient Covenant of Grace, made with Abraham, and his Church-Seed, as well as his spiritual Seed; and that is no dishonour nor damage to us. But it keeps us not upon the old Romish Antichristian bottom; nor doth it make us symbolize with the Church of Rome, as it is now Antichristian; but with the Church of Rome, as it was once Apostolique, planted and watered by the Apostles. It's known, that Baptizing of Infants, was in Use long before the Whore of Rome was in being. And if she yet retain [Page 216]an Ordinance of God, and we symbolize with her in that, as far as it is God's Ordinance, the Lord will not blame us for it, though Men do. 'Hear what Mr. Philpot saith; Book of Martyrs Vol. 3. p. 607. ‘Indeed, saith he, if you look upon the Papistical Synagogue only, which hath corrupted God's word by false interpretations, and perverted the true Use of Christ's Sacraments, you might seem to have good handfast of your opinion, against the Baptism of Infants. But for as much as it is of more Antiquity, and hath its beginning from God's word, and from the use of the primitive Church, it must not, in respect of the abuse in the Popish Church, be neglected, or thought not expedient to be used in Christ's Church.’ If this Argument be valid, why do you use Baptism at all? and Dipping? Which thing the Papists use.
I hope it now appears, that the mischiefs, absurdities and contradictions, that you have loaded Paedo-Baptism and Paedo-Baptists with, are false, mischievous and absurd, and contradictory to the Truth, and therefore not to be defended and charged upon us by you, but to be repented of.
To your Chapter VI. Pag. 261.
Wherein you say, The Nullity and utter Insignificancy of Infants-Baptism, is made appear; in that it wants the Essentials, to wit, Matter and Form. And coming to shew, that it hath not a right matter, in stead thereof, you bring in the Subject and say, The right Subject of Baptism is wanting.
Here I must crave leave to tell you, that you miss it, in your Logick. For, Matter] is one of the two Essential Causes, that gives being to the effect; but the Subject is not so, but in order of Nature at least, it follows the Effect. It is Argumentum modo quodam consentaneum, and not Absolute consentaneum, as Cause and effect are. Here then, is a Transition a genere ad Genus. The matter of Baptism, is Water; and the External form of it, is the due application of it unto the person, in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; which I have shewed, to be a pouring of water upon the face, and not a dipping of the whole person, under water, & raising him up again, to figure our Burial & Resurrection with Christ; as you affirm it doth, in the outward Ceremony of it. I have spoken largely to that before; evidencing it to to be a Sign and Seal of our Implantation [Page 218]into Christ Externally at least; and so, of our Union, and consequently Communion with him in his Death, Burial and Resurrection; but not that the outward form of Baptism, doth expresly and particularly represent those things unto us; which is the thing you would have, to introduce Dipping.
Here then, we see, are the Essentials of Baptism; to wit, Matter and Form; the Subject is no part of the Essence of Baptism: that belongs to the third Commandment; But Baptism it self, to the second. The one is a piece of Instituted-Worship: the other, the Subject to whom it is applied; and the Application as to Infants of Inchurched-Parents, determined long before, and never reversed, but confirmed, now in Gospel-times; which cannot be said of Bells and Churches, and such like things as Papists wickedly-Baptize. An Infant of Inchurched-Parents is not of the Essence of Baptism it self; as neither was heretofore, an Infant of the Essence of Circumcision. Baptism is one thing, and the Infant is another. The Infant is but one sort of the Subject of Baptism, and is not of the Essence of the Ordinance; as neither is a professing-Believer, but he is one sort of the Subject Recipient, to whom the Ordinance is dispensed. The Infant Subject was determined in the Covenant long before, [Page 219]and was never cast out, and therefore should still enjoy that Priviledge; it being the same Gracious Covenant for the substance, that God made with Abraham, and the Church in his Family, that is come upon us Gentiles, Gal. 3.13. and not another; which being continued, and extended to In-Churched-Parents and their Children, in Gospel-days, there needed not an Express Command for their Infants, that they should be Baptized. And this kind of Arguing, is not from one Covenant to another, (as some would have it) but from one and the same Covenant, and the Initiatory Seal of it, to another Initiatory Seal of it, which, by God's appointment, is come into the place of the former long since abolished.
As for what you say, pag. 263. There is no Covenant, where there is no consent; and therefore there can be no Covenant with Infants; for they cannot give consent.] It is very untrue. For,
1. It is contrary to Scripture, Deut. 29.10, 11, 12. How did the Infants of the Jews consent? And yet God made his Covenant with them; for they are expresly mentioned, and were some of that Body of People, that entred into a Covenant with God that day; Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God; Your Captains — with all the Men of [Page 220]Israel, your little ones] that thou (to wit, Collective Israel, of which the little ones were a part) shouldst enter into a Covenant, with the Lord thy God, and into his Oath, which he maketh with thee this day. Here we have God making his Covenant not only with them but with their little ones expresly; who were not capable of giving their consent; but their Parents in whose Power they were, did restipulate for them. How contrary is your assertion unto this?
2. It is also contrary to reason, and common experience. Do not Fathers often Covenant for their Children, in Leases, and Deeds of Land and also bind them to several Cnoditions; and others Covenant to them, and their Children? Do they not often settle an Estate upon a Child, that knows nothing of it, and engage their Child to such and such Tearms, though he be not capable of giving his consent? yea sometimes a Child in the womb? If therefore, God, that gave me my Child, and also a Fatherly-power over him, condescend to enter into a Covenant of Grace with me, and with my Child, Externally at least, promising to be my God and the God of my Child; Have I not power to enter my self, and my Child into Covenant with him though my Child know nothing of it, nor is at present capable of giving [Page 221]his consent? And should not I and my Child also, when he comes to Age, acknowledge the rich Grace of God therein? Surely, there's all reason for it. And if the Lord be also pleased to Seal this Covenant to me and to my Child, though at present he is not capable of giving his consent; Is it therefore a nullity, a meer nothing? Is he not bound to make use of it, when he is grown up, and to seek unto this Covenant-God for Regenerating Grace?
What other Men of larger Principles hold, will not concern those, that consent not with them. It is therefore a little unbrotherlike, to beat us with their Cudgels.
Whom you account a right Minister, I know not; but I have often thought, that every Brother, whom those of your perswasion call forth to dispense that Ordinance, is not a right Minister; and therefore to return the words of Chamier upon you in the sence he meant them; It is not a Sacrament, but a rash mockery, or deceiving, by no means to be endured in the Church, and so that speech will fall with more equity upon you, than upon us about the Baptizing of Infants. Yet some Godly, and judicious, do judge a little more charitably; that when it is done in the way of an Ordinance, it is not a meer Nullity, though it hath been defective in some [Page 222]things Circumstantial: fieri non debuit, factum valet.
Thus, I suppose I have Answered to the main of your Arguments, though I have not traced you in all places in the Order, that they lie in your Book. Also some of your humane Testimonies I have examined, and find them faulty. As to the rest, not having the Authors by me, nor time to examine them, I shall leave that task to another hand, that hath diligently Examined and scanned them, and (as he told me) finds them not a little abused, from whom, I suppose, you you will shortly hear. If those debates be blessed, to discover the truth to your self, or any other, and add any thing to the making up of the breach, that the Lord may be one, and his Name one amongst us, in these points, wherein we yet differ; I shall have what I aimed at, and the God of Truth and Peace shall have all the Glory. Amen.