Take notice Reader what a pittiful mistake it is in the Author to call Dipping the Form of Baptism for if that were it then any man may Baptize himself and every Boy that baths and dives under Water may be said to be Baptized But one would think he were conscious to himself of a wilful mistake by the Objection he frames for us Object But 't is said there was the right words of Baptism it was done in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy-Spirit Answer So there was saith he in Baptizing Bells Churches But doth he take this for a sufficient Answer Are Bells Subjectum capax a Subject capable of a Sacrament Quia in ipso initio Regenerationis cujus sigilium est Baptismus homo se habet merè passive undè etiam homines vel Circumcindendi vel Baptizandi nulla actio Externa requiritur sed tantum receptio passâ—â—aâ— Infantes igitur sunt capaces hujus Sacramenti respectu praecipui ejus usus atque Adulti Children were heretofore and so they are still as Dr. Ames in his Medulla Theologiae Lib. 1. c. 11. p. 186. Baptism saith he comes in the room of Circumcision Col. 2.11 12. and belongs as much to Children of Believers as Circumcision did formerly for at our first Regeneration saith he of which Baptism is a Seal Man is meerly passive As it was in Circumcision so is it in Baptism he is not Active but Passive and therefore Infants in respect of its chief use of being a Seal are as capable of the Sacrament of Baptism as the Adult Now though this may suffice yet having promised to be liberal We will suppose Dipping to be of use in the Apostles days yet it will not follow that it is essential to the Sacrament of Baptism so that in the want of it Baptism is a Nullity For the clearing of which we must know 1. That in every Ordinance there are some things essential which failing the very being of the Ordinance is destroyed 2. Some things requisite because enjoyned but yet not essential but only needful to the compleat and well-being of an Ordinance 3. Some things meerly indifferent as being the determination of some Circumstances left undetermined in the Institution of it As in the Lords Supper the hour when the kinds of Bread and Wine the posture and number of the Partakers either sitting or standing or the like So in Baptism whether the Person be Baptized by day or by night in Rivers or Pools or Vessels so he be able to bear it whether the Water pass on all his Body or some parts the rest unwashed And so for this of Dipping it comes under the nature of an indifferent Circumstance although some place Superstitiously such necessity in it I say it may be accounted an indifferent Circumstance so that Baptism in other things right is true Sacramental Baptism whether done by way of Sprinkling or Dipping which is thus proved 1. That which equally represents the grace signified is of indifferent use but the Baptism either by Dipping or Sprinkling doth equally represent the grace signified The first Proposition is clear for in a Sacrament are but two things necessary viz. 1 The matter or Element 2 The use for representation of the Grace The Minor or Assumption is evident by considering the Grace of Baptism which is principally two-fold viz. First our putting on of Christ our Vnion to and Communion with him in which respect we are said to put him on therein and to be Baptized into him Gal. 3.27 into his death Rom. 6.3 that is by Baptism we are Sacramentally enrighted into him and his death and the fruits of it in which respects we are in the same place v. 4. said to be buried with him by Baptism into death Now this putting on of Christ is as fully signified by putting on of water on us as by putting us into water Application of Water to the Person either in one way or other is a Sign of our Union to him and so of our putting him on our burying and rising with him and Communion with him in all the effects of his death which flow from the Union But it is Objected that Sprinkling doth not represent our burying with him as Dipping doth Ans It is a fancy to imagine that every Metaphorical ☞ expression used in Scripture signifying our Communion with Christ should be punctually expressed in the Sacrament for the expressions are various putting him on burying with him Sprinkling with his Blood one sign cannot represent our Communion with him in all these Metaphors A partaking a Communion with Christ and his death is the Sacramental Grace intended by those various expressions that being represented as well by Sprinkling as Dipping it follows that water in either way of application is Sacramental 2dly Our washing or cleansing from Sin by the Blood of Christ this is the principal effect of Christ's death represented and Sealed in the Sacrament which is equally set out by Sprinkling as by dipping First in asmuch as washing may be done by both and indeed it is the application of Water under the formality of Washing not either of Dipping or Sprinkling which is the ☜ Sacramental use of it so that were Washing with Water though neither by Dipping nor Sprinkling yet it were a Sacrament as well as either for the Sacramental consideration in the use is the Washing 2. Numb 19.18 Heb. 9.13 Under the Law the Sacramental cleansing was done by Sprinkling in some cases and by Dipping in other and the purifying by Christ's Blood equally represented by both 3. The Blood of Christ in respect of this purifying and washing virtue and use of it is called the Blood of Sprinkling Heb. 12.24 and the Sprinkling of his Blood 1. Pet. 1.2 All which are abundant proof that the Grace of the Sacrament is as well and as fully represented in the use of Water by Sprinkling as by Dipping 2dly Those Vses of Water which are equally included in the Scripture-acceptation of the Word under the word Baptizing are of equal and indifferent use but both these Dipping and Sprinkling are so ergo The Major proposition is undoubted the Assumption is confirmed from Texts of Scripture where the Word is used to signify Washing by Sprinking as Mar. 10.38 where is a washing by Blood which could not be by Dipping but by Aspersion 1 Cor. 10.2 Is a Baptism by Sprinkling but not by dipping So Mark 7.48 Heb. 9.10 where all the Ceremonial Washings under the Law are called Baptisms now we know some of them were done by Sprinkling and some by Dipping 3. That which in all the examples and instances of Baptism we find not restrained or defined that is in this Sacrament of indifferent and arbitrary Vse But this manner of Baptizing in Scripture-examples and practice we do not find restrained or defined either to Dipping or Sprinkling We read of many Baptized but no-where specified by which of these ways whereby we may gather that
against Baptizing Infants it will be of the same force against Circumcising them since S. Paul Rom. 2.28 doth as much invalidate the external part of Circumcision as St. Peter here doth that of Baptisme 2. 'T is therefore a meer Parologisme so to argue for the Apostle Peter speaks of the Adult that could give a reason of their faith and not of Infants for the Apostle had then to deal with such who upon their being Baptized were to make profestion of a good Conscience And this as we shall hereafter shew out of the Magdeburgenses was the practice of the Primitive Church in this Case for having to deal with Infidels they first Catechised and Taught them the first Elements and Principles of the Christian Religion whereupon they were called Catechumeni i.e. persons that were to be Catechised that being done and they brought to some competency of knowledge they then openly declared and testified their Repentance and Faith before the Congregation where they were to be baptized And this they did by answering to some questions proposed by the Minister To this the Apostle seems to allude when he calls Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. The answer of a good Conscience towards God so our Translation renders it though as Beza notes upon the place not so fully expressing the force of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly signifies an Interrogation or questioning so the vulgar Latin renders it Interrogatio bonae conscientiae The Interrogation of a good Conscience Beza translates it Stipulatio bonae conscientiae The Stipulation of a good Conscience Now Stipulation is properly an Answer to a Question when one being demanded concerning a thing he returns Answer and by his answer engageth himself to do somewhat that is required Now this practice of giving an account of ones faith by way of answering to questions as Beza notes upon this place of Peter was drawn from the Primitive use in after ages out of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beza Annotat. in 2. Pet. 3.21 a perverse imitation and applyed to the Baptisme of Infants not so fitly as he conceives they being not able to answer for themselves 3. Nevertheless though children cannot personally and actually answer for themselves I see no reason to the contrary why they may not be said to Stipulate passively in and by their parents who accept the Covenant not only for themselves but for their little ones The people of Israel did by Gods appointment enter their children into Covenant with God as appears from Deut. 20.10 11 12. and doubtless the interest of Believing Parents in their Children Dr. Taylorr consideration of the Church in Baptizing Infants is as great now as then and God as gracious to accept such covenanting under the Gospel as he was under the Law 4. In Civil Contracts it is usual with Parents to Covenant and engage for and in behalf of their Children and they are obliged to the performance of the Agreement when they come to years of discretion though they did not give their actual consent whilst in their Minority when the Agreement was made The very law of Nature teacheth Parents to Covenant for their Children when 't is for their good Mr. Eaxter 5. Let Dr. Taylor in his latter discourse wherein he justifies the practise of Baptizing Infants of Believing Parents confute what himself says in his Liberty of Prophecy He speaks his judgement concerning the point page 53 54. thus It were well saith he speaking of the engagement or promise made for Infants in Baptism if men would rather humbly and modestly observe that constitution of the Church then like scorners deride it in which they shew their own folly as well as immodesty for what undecency or incongruity is it that our Parents should stipulate for us when 't is agreeable to the practise of all the Laws and Transactions of the World an effect of the Communion of Saints and of Christian Oeconomy For why may not Infants Stipulate as well as we All were included in the Stipulation made with Adam he made a losing bargain for himself and we smarted for his folly And if the faults of Parents and Kings and Relatives do bring evil upon their Children and Subjects and Correlatives it is but equal that our children may have benefit also by our Charity and Piety But concerning making of an agreement for them we find that God was confident concerning Abraham that he would teach his Children Further Joshua did expresly undertake for his houshold I and my house will serve the Lord. And for children we may the better do it because till they be of perfect choice no Government in the world is so great as that of Parents over their children in that which concerns the parts of this Question And it is a rare art of the Spirit to engage Parents to bring them up in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord They are persons obliged by a superinduced bond they are to give them instructions and holy Principles as they give them meat c. The 5 End of Baptisme is to be a Sign of the Covenant of Gods part of washing away a Believers sin by the Blood of Christ and to give spiritual Life and Salvation Act. 2.38 39. Act. 22.16 1 Pet. 3.21 This also is as true of that Baptism which belongs to the Children of Believers as that which is given to Believers themselves Repent and be Baptized every one of you for the Remission of sins for the promise is to you and to your seed c. And Baptism even to Infants is a seal of Gods pardoning grace in doing away the guilt of Original sin in regard of those that belong to Gods Election if not also actual which afterward shall be committed if they live to age The 6. End mentioned by the Author is That it might be a signal Representation of a Believers Vnion with Christ called therefore a being Baptized into Christ and a putting on of Christ for which we have Dr. Taylor quoted Which cannot be says he of those who remain in their incapacities c. Which he saith is the case of Children But we shall see by and by the said Dr. confuting himself in his latter discourse of Baptism 1. To this I reply in the words of Wendeline Wendelin Christ Theo. lib. 1. c. 12. p. 166. upon the Text viz. Apostolus loquitur tantùm de Baptizatis fidelibus tùm enim Adulti ex Judaismo Gentilismo recèns conversi baptizabantur i.e. The Apostle speaks this of Believers that were Baptized for then Adult persons newly converted from Judaism and Paganisme were Baptized 2. Though children cannot put on Christ by an external Act yet they may be an infused seed of grace and we have good ground to believe all elect Infants dying have in their infant-State done so And farther if Adams sin be imputed to them for sin why may not Christs Righteousness be also imputed to them for Righteousness
to both Now Reader see some of the dismal consequences of their Doctrine who deny the children of Believers to be taken into Covenant with them 1. It puts a sacrilegious restraint upon the Covenant and makes an essential variation in it without warrant 2. It excludes them from the ordinary way of Salvation for if they have no visible interest in the Covenant no not so much as externally in regard of Gods visible dispensation then they have no visible interest in Christ the Mediator of the New Covenant 3. It exempts and shuts them out from a participation of the Spirit and sanctification of their natures whereby they may be made meet for the inheritance of the Saints for all the influences of the Spirit is by virtue of the Covenant 2 Pet. 1. Now Mr. Tombes himself acknowledgeth that Infants may be sanctified 4. They have no ground of comfort in the death of their children no more than they have concerning a Turk or unconverted Indians child for that which affords a visible ground of hope of the salvation of another is his visible interest in the Covenant of Grace to be an Aliene to the Covenant of promise is to be without hope in the Apostles Account Eph. 2.12 So that we may say with Mr. Ford concerning all the children of Heathens dying in Infancy They are taken into the hands of God who indeed may for any thing we know save them by Prerogative and an undiscovered depth of mercy but he hath afforded us no ground so much as to hope that any of them are saved because the Statute-Law of the Kingdom doth not extend Salvation beyond the Covenant Now an Anabaptists Faith concerning the Infants of believing Parents even his own puts them into the same irrelative condition as to God and the Covenant with the children of Infidels and by consequendce under the same hopelessness of Salvation Now let tender Parents consider who undoubtedly would think it a sad thing to bring forth children to the destroyer what sad principles theirs are by and according to which they must kiss their beloved Babes when they are a dying with that sad Farewel which the dying Heathen gave his departing soul Animula vagula blandula c. And truly one of their Opinion in this town and supposed godly said in my hearing they had no ground of it 5. And consequently they have no ground of hope ever to see them again with comfort at Christs appearance for there is no foundation of hope of a glorious resurrection unto life but by virtue of the Covenant Luke 20.36 37 38. Heb. 11.16 Act. 26.7 8. The other Scripture that he encounters with is that Act. 2.38 A parallel place to that in Gen. 17. The Argument which we bring for Infant Baptism from hence is this Those to whom the promise doth belong to them belongs Baptism but to those that repent and their children the promise belongs therefore to them and their children belongs Baptism Against this he hath a double Exception 1. By the promise there is not meant the Covenant of grace but the giving of the Spirit called the promise of the Father prophecied of by Joel 2.28 To which we answer That though in the fourth and seventeenth verse Whereis mention of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit which refers to Joels Prophecy yet the promise in the eight and thirtieth verse is of another nature and not meant of those extraordinary Gifts for 1. Because it is such a promise as is still a fulfilling and shall be throughout all the times of the New Testament paralled to that Isa 44.3 I will pour out my Spirit on thy Seed and my blessing on thy Off-spring It is such a promise as appertains to Parents and to their children and all that shall be called to the end of the world whereas the promise of extraordinary Gifts was but pro tempore for a certain time and relating to that season 2. It cannot be understood of extraordinary Gifts because Peters hearers had no such Gifts nor had the Jews or Gentiles who were afar off and afterward called such miraculous Gifts and as Mr. Stephens notes if the promise to you and to your children be meant of extraordinary Gifts how will the parts of the Text agree with each other The Apostle exhorts them be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and then gives this reason For the promise is to you and to your children If therefore the promise be meant of extraordinary Gifts then the command be baptized every one of you will stand in immediate relation to such a promise And so the matter will come to this Issue that all that are baptized and particularly they that renounce their old to take up a new Baptism they will have a promise made to them and to their children to speak with diverse kinds of languages Which promise I never understood-was made good amongst them for few of them have any more than their Mother Tongue On the other side if the promise be taken for the promise of Christ and for remission of sin by his blood in this case it will be easie to shew the connexion of the words for what can be more aptly spoken than this Be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus for the remission of your particular sin for the promise of the pardon of sin by the blood of Christ doth belong to you and to your children 3. The promise here mentioned was to give hope to those poor creatures and to prevent the despair which they were ready to fall into upon conviction that they had crucified the Lord of Life and what comfort could this bring to their wounded consciences to tell them they should have the miraculous gifts of tongues 2. 'T is farther objected by children are no other meant than the posterity of the Jews To which we reply with Mr. Sydenham 1. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies off-sping though never so young Joh. 16.21 Luk. 1.31 Mat. 1.26 Luk. 1.57 2. 'T is an indefinite word therefore must not be restrained to grown children except God had exprest it in a peculiar phrase 3. It must be understood of their Infants because he useth the phrase of speech to these Jews which they had been trained up in from their fathers I 'll be the God of thee and thy Seed and the Jews must needs understand him speaking in this Dialect of their children included in the promise 4. Why should the Apostle name children if he had not meant Infant Seed otherwise it had been sufficient to have said the promise is to you and as many as the Lord shall call but therefore names children because it had relation to the Covenant It is true what the Author saith concerning Dr. Hamond that he conceives children to be there really the posterity of the Jews and not particularly their Infant children but that is but one Doctors
Believers and their Seed But what is this to the children of Believers what benefit redounds to them that do not actually believe nor profess the Faith of Abraham having not the use of reason the same Learned Doctor gives this answer although Infants have not actually the use of reason nor can actually believe yet to that end as Circumcision heretofore Baptism is ministred to Infants that when in time to cime they shall believe to righteousness their Faith may receive confirmation by Baptism in infancy received as Davids Faith did against Goliah he reflecting upon his Circumcision the sign and Seal of Gods Covenant with him when he went out against Goliah that uncircumcised Philistine To this purpose saith Augustin In Abraham praecessit fidei justitia accessit Circumcisio signaculum justitiae fidei c. In some justification goes before the Seal as in Abraham and Cornelius in others the Seal is before righteousness Sicut in Isaac qui octavo suoe nativitatis die circumcisus est praecessit Signaculum justitiae fidei c. As in Isaac who was circumcised the eighth day the Seal preceded Faith Ita in Baptizatis infantibus c. So in infants that are baptized August de Bapt. contra Donat. l. 4. c. 24. Excep 6. Because Baptism came not in the room place and use of Circumcision and the reasons he brings to prove it are diverse we shall now examine them First he saith It must not be look'd upon to come in the room and stead of it by any means and why 1. Because then Males Mr. Tombes Examen p. 4. not Females would be baptized Reader we must now give thee notice that we are to renew our combat with Mr. Tombes for this first reason is his Examen pag. 4. And the old Answers will do well euough 1. The reason why Females were excluded from an actual participation of Circumcision was their incapacity 2. They were virtually circumcised Mr. Marshal Defence of Infant Baptism and reputed among the circumcised ones in that they were admitted to the Passeover when the express command of the Law was that no uncircumcised parson must eat of it Exod. 12.48 And farther it appears they were reputatively circumcised by that passage where 't is said the whole house of Israel was circumcised and by that of Sampsons Parents who were displeased that he took a wife of the uncircumcised Philistins Judg. 14.3 for if the Israelitish women had not been accounted circumcised in the Males Circumcision could have made no difference between Wife and Wife 2. His next reason is Because all Believers out of Abrahams Family were not circumcised Mr. Tombes Exer p. 4 Mr Tombes Exercit. p. 4. He gives instances of those out of Abrahams Family that were not circumcised Repl. I have answered this before that some of them lived before the ordinance of Circumcision was instituted and others for other reasons were not circumcised as I have shewn but I love not to repeat 3. His third reason is because then the circumcised needed not to have been baptized if they had beem already sealed with the new Covenant Seal but Christ himself and all his Apostles c. were circumcised yet nevertheless were baptized Repl. If this deserves an Answer take this The Covenant of Grace both under the Law and Gospel is one and the same for substance though as to the external administration thereof there is a difference and accordingly the Seals are different The Landlord if he please may break the old Seal and set on a new one to the grant he makes to his Tenant 2. He saith it comes not in its room and stead as to the ends and uses Repl. Though as to some circumstances there be a difference between Circumcision and Baptism in regard of their ends and uses yet there is no material difference as to substance But let us see his reasons why Baptism succeeds not Circumcision as to the ends and uses which are these 1. Because Circumcision was a sign of Christ to come in the flesh but Baptism that he was already come Tombes exerc pag. 4. Answ There is a very good harmony notwithstanding that quoad substantiam as to the substance they both look at Christ and agree in the main The one signifies and seals the remission of sins by and through the blood of Christ to be shed the other through that blood already shed There is an agreement in the signification though not in the manner of signification 2. He saith Circumcision was to be a partition-wall between Jew and Gentile but Baptism testifyed the contrary Mr. Tombes again quoting Cameron for it Exerc. pag. 4. and then p 6 Circumcision separated the Israelited from all nations but Baptism signifieth that all are one in Christ Repl. Though Baptism be no partition-wall between nation and nation yet the end and use of Baptism is to distinguish Christians from Pagans Turks and Infidels One of the ends of Baptism is to be a badge of distinction betwixt those who are within and those who are without as the Apostle speaks 1 Cor. 5.12.13 3. The Author farther tells us Circumcision initiated the carnal Seed into the carnal Church and gave them right to carnal Ordinances but Baptism was to give the spiritual Seed an orderly entrance into the spiritual Church and a right to partake of the spiritual Ordinances Repl. Although I have ground to hope my Antagonist is a spiritual or godly man yet he talks here at a carnal rate for what thinks he of Isaac and Jacob and Christ himself they were the spiritual Seed as well as the carnal or fleshly Seed of Abraham for as concerning the flesh Christ came of him As for his expression of carnal Ordinances it is Scripture language Heb. 9 10. And the Apostle means those Levitical outward Ceremonies which were placed in terrene and earthly matters that reached only the flesh or did sanctify only to the purifying of the flesh But sure the circumcised had right to all the other Ordinances of a spiritual nature as well as those and the Author is to rash in calling the Church of God under the Old Testament a carnal Church I scruple not to say it is a carnal speech of him But 't is observable all is carnal with some men that doth not suit with their Genius when in the mean time the carnality lieth unseen by them in their own proud censorious self-conceited contentious spirits And did indeed Circumcision initiate into the carnal Church that is the Church of God under the old Testament was Jesus Christ the head of a carnal Church he was the head of the Church under the Law as much as of the Church now in the days of the Gospel and will any sober man say he was the head of a carnal Church This were heterogenous indeed that a spiritual head should be joined to a carnal Church But I pray what singular virtue do these men see and find in Baptism that they so
much advance it above Circumcision what is there in it of it self since they keep such ado about it more than in Circumcision It is altogether in it self as carnal as Circumcision and the people that submit to it as carnal as others and as carnal and perverse an use do some of them make of it as the Jews did of Circumcision Some I know are more wise and sober than the rest but too too many make an idol of their Baptism they make it a fire-brand of contention and the beginning and end of all Religion When as to speak plainly the Baptism of water of it self due reverence being still had to all Gods Ordinances in their places is as low and carnal a thing as poor a Ceremony as empty a sign and shadow as Circumeision Baptism and Circumcision as to the letter are just alike as to any intrinsecal worth the one relates to the letting out of a little blood the other to the washing of the filth of the flesh The cleansing of ones hands and feet from dirt is the same with it Mr. Sydenham 's sober Exercit. and as efficacious and acceptable as this of it self In a word there is a Circumcision in the flesh and a Circumcision in the heart the former carnal the later spiritual and so there is a Baptism of the flesh and a Baptism of the spirit The Apostle derides Circumcision in the flesh where that of the heart was wanting by giving it the contemptible name of Concision Blakes Covenant sealed And as Circumcision was Uncircumcision so Dipping is Non-Baptism where that of the spirit is wanting 4. Lastly he saith Circumcision was to be a Bond to keep the whole Law Repl. The place is Rom. 2.25 Circumcision verily profiteth if thou keep the whole Law The Apostle intends both ceremonial and moral Law as else where he speaks He that is circumcised is a Debtor to the whole Law the meaning is he that is circumcised with an opinion that he shall be justified thereby that same man is fallen from Grace that is from the way of justification by a Covenant of Grace Mr. Blakes Covenant sealed and puts himself under a Covenant of works and so is bound to keep the Law in every punctilio nevertheless Circumcision in it self was properly a Bond binding the faithful to Evangelical Obedience walk before me and be upright or sincere Gen. 17.1 Circumcision which was the Seal of the righteousness of Faith did oblige Abraham to walk perfectly or sincerely before God and hereunto also Baptism obligeth us 5. He adds Circumcision was administred to all Abrahams natural Seed without any profession of Faith whereas Baptisim is to be administred to the spiritual Seed of Abraham only upon profession Repl. Here 's a double mistake for first we have shewed before that the children of excommunicated persons that were impenitent were denyed Circumcision Godwin's Moses and Aaron lib. 5. cap. 2. pag. 181. So Buxtorf Secondly we find some baptized in the fourth of Matthew and Lydias house when none that we hear of professed Faith but her self 6. Lastly He draws low is come to the Dregs Note here Mr. Tombs and he differs for Tombs grants they are both the same Sacraments for the spiritual part viz. Sanctification by the Spirit and juslification by the Blood of Christ Examen p. 83. tells us Circumcision was a sign of Temporal Blessings and Benefits to be enjoyed in the land of Canaan whereas Baptism was to be a sign of spiritual Benefits Repl. But I pray what Temporal Blessings and Benefits in the land of Canaan did they enjoy who never entred into it But this is but an evasion learn'd from the Jesuites as before For Canaan or temporal Blessings were not the only things which Circumcision sealed neither yet the main thing for Gen. 17.7 God promised Abraham to be his God and the God of his Seed this was the grand promise the main of the Covenant which Circumcision sealed up temporal Blessings were but an Additament The Text saith Circumcision was a Seal of the righteousness of Faith and so of all spiritual mercies as much as Baptism Nor is Baptism only a seal of spiritual blessings this will not be owned for a true position in Divinity for Baptism sealeth our deliverance out of afflictions as well as out of corruption yea it sealeth to us the raising our bodies from death out of the grave Cottons Grounds and Ends of Infant-Baptism as well as our souls out of the death in sin Baptism sealeth a much temporal as spiritual blessings for he that gives Christ how shall he not with him give us all things else and indeed Mr. Tombes like a Divine acknowledgeth that both Circumcision and Baptism signifie the righteousness of Faith and sanctification of the heart Exerc. p. 6. and Exam. p. 83. After all this unsound stuff the Author is pleased to grant there is some Analogy little without doubt betwixt the one and the other and since he toucheth it only with a light finger I shall give you the Analogy between them more fully The Analogy betwixt Circumcision and Baptism 1. Circumcision was a Seal of the Covenant made with Believers and their Seed 2. By Circumcision Believers and their Seed had entrance into the Church of the Jews 3. Circumcision shadowed forth the corruption of our nature by cutting off the foreskin of the flesh 4. Circumcision shadowed out also mortification to sin or regeneration by cutting of the fore-skin and casting it away 5. In Circumcision there was blood-shed which pointed at our Redemption by Christ 6. Circumcision was a Bond to Evangelical Obedience Gen. 17.1 Walk before me and be upright So is Baptism 1 Pet. 3.21 So are Believers and their Seed by Baptism into particular Gospel Churches Baptismal washing points at the same 1. Pet. 3.21 The same is signified by Baptism Rom. 6.3 4. called by Peter the laver of Regeneration The water in Baptism represents the same viz. the doing away the guilt of sin by his blood So also is Baptism 1. Pet. 3.21 Notwithstanding all this if we will follow the Authors advice we must not by any means conclude that Baptism comes in the room of Circumcision and for this reason which lies at the bottom because then he must renounce his opinion for it will thence follow that Infant-Baptism is an Ordinance of Jesus Christ But he hath learn'd from Mr. Tombes to give a ponderous reason why though there be some Analogy we must not own it to come in the room and stead of Circumcision Tombes again Exercitation p. 7. viz. Because there is an Analogy between other things and Baptism and we may on the same account say it comes in the room and stead of them As the Ark Manna Rock and from such like Arguments drawn from Analogies what Jewish Rites may by our wits be introduced to the countenancing the Papists in their High-Priest-Hood Tythes But will he never have done
Book I add That I deny the Proposition to be Universally true that Teaching Faith Repentance ought alwayes to precede Baptism For Persons to be Baptized are either 1. Original which have no precedent title To such Teaching Repentance Faith must precede their Baptism for such having not precedent Evidences of being in Covenant must put forth some acts of Faith Repentance of their own that so they may have evidence of right 2. Secondary and derived viz. Infants of former Believers and 't is not requisite that Teaching Faith Repentance should precede their Baptism This distinction of Primary Original or Secondary and Derived Persons in the Title to the Sacrament of Baptism would answer most of the Author's Arguments for him if he would please to consider it We call the Believing Parents Original and their Infants Secondary and Derived Persons for distinction sake Not as if the Father were the Original of his Son 's right to the Covenant or Seal No God's meer Grace in Christ who at the first Institution of the Covenant was pleased to take in both the Believer and his Seed is the Original of both their Rights The Seed Deriving it immediatly from the Tenour of the Covenant as well as the Father But because the Relation of that Infant to that Believer as his Seed is a determining Mean bringing him within the Covenant from which his Right proceedeth If you say How prove you this distinction of First and Original Persons and Secondary and Derived out of the Word I prove it 1 From the Tenour of the Covenant it self I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed after thee where there is this distinction of persons in the Covenant 1 To thee Abraham actually believing 2. To thy Seed after thee brought within the Covenant by being thy Seed and by thy actual Believing though they for the present are not actual Believers and so the Seal was to be put on them in that Right even before their actual Believing 2. So is there ground for it in applying and holding out the Covenant in the same Tenour under the Gospel as is before shewn from Act. 2.39 There are the same two states of persons 1. You and others as many as shall be actually called 2. The Seed of them and others so actually called 3. In the constant Practice according to this warrant in the taking in of the Proselytes He who came in and took hold of the Covenant was Circumcised on his actual taking hold of it but then the Original-Persons actually professing they stayed not for such actual profession in the Seed of such a one but gave them the Seal as persons in Covenant even before actual Profession I have been the larger because this is the Key which must open the way to be satisfied in the lawfulness of Infant-Baptism and to repel all Arguments against it 2. Those places in the Commission Go teach all Nations Baptizing c. to which he should have added the other Mark 16.16 He that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved must be taken in the Latitude of Original Persons not of Derived for of such alone doth Christ speak there giving Commission of the planting and first-gathering of Churches for that the Whosoever in Mark must not be taken in a full Latitude of necessity is plain from the other clause to which it is convertibly prefixed viz. Shall be saved for if the Vniversality of the speech reach Infants to exclude them absolutely from Baptism it must also reach them in the same manner to exclude as full from being Saved as is before noted in the first Chapter of this Book 2. By changing the Subjects of Christ's appointment viz. Men and Women of knowledg and understanding capable to Evidence Faith and Repentance for ignorant unconverted Babes that know neither good nor evil This was answered just now in what was said to the altering Christ's Order in the Commission and there is more in the first Chapter of my Book Part 1. 3. By frustrating the Holy and Spiritual Ends of the Ordinance See what a full answer we have given to this and how short he comes of making good this charge Chap. 4. Part 1. 4. By inverting the order and manner from Dipping to Sprinkling Which is answered Chapt. 2. Part 2. 5. By introducing much Error and false Doctrine as 1. That it was to take away Original Sin Answer Although some of the Fathers have spoken too highly of Baptism and our Authors own Theophilact whom he quotes Chap. 7. pag 82. for one of his eminent witnesses for Believers Baptism speaks very Hyperbolically of it as that all our Sins are drowned in Baptism as Pharaoh and the Egyptians were in the Red Sea that Infidels dye in their Sins because unbaptized for which extravagancies and others as that Christ by Baptism had open'd Heavens door which was shut against us by Adam's Sin he is censured by the Magdeburgenses Cent. 10. p. 190. And likewise Bellarmine and the Popish School-men speak magnificently of it as Baptismo reipsa tolli peccata ita ut non solum non imputetur sed nec sit quod imputari posset ad culpam which he intends not only of Original Sin in Infants but Original and Actual in grown Persons but notwithstanding this error Infant-Baptism as to its warrantableness receives no prejudice no more than the Baptism of grown persons 2. It is also acknowledged that very many Episcopal Divines and others who are Protestants hold that Original Sin is done away by Baptism but in a way quite different from the Papists for they assert Original Sin to be removed by Baptism ex opere operato from the Work done and that it is so done away as that there is an utter abolishment of it so as not to render the Baptized person obnoxious to God's Wrath and Condemnation for not only the reatus peccati Originalis the guilt of Original Sin but in Baptismate tollitur id quod veram propriam rationem peccati habet the very essence or being of Sin is taken away it is with them annihilated Concil Trident Sess 5. for so speaks the Council of Trent with a si quis neget Anathema sit if any one denies it let him be Anathematized On the contrary Protestants ascribe the doing away only of the guilt of Sin by the Blood of Christ applyed by the Spirit in that Ordinance but they assert the inherence of Original Sin in Infants after Baptism which shews it self early in the fruits thereof when they are capable of acting Electively And all that I apprehend they say upon the point is that there is a possibility and probability as some say others go higher to a certainty that in elect Infants those that dye in Infancy the Season of God's doing that which all acknowledg to be done at one time or other before death viz. the doing away the guilt of Original Sin is at the time of Baptism and that Text Act 22.17