you be hardned through the Deceitfulness of Sin And in like manner we are bid to provoke one another to Love and to good Works Whereof this is none of the least and Wherein peradventure upon a due and further Consideration you may find your selves to have been as yet Deficient I Would by no means be understood in all this Discourse as if I intended to lay more than the proper stress upon the Ordinance we are Contending about For most true it is that though the Golden Oyl of the Heavenly Blessing according to the standing Promises of the Gospel is only or for the most part to be Conveyed to us through the Golden Pipes of Gospel Ordinances which should Engage us to the faithful Owning and Practice of them and not to Indulge our selves in any Negligence Deviation or Regardlessness about them yet nevertheless as great would the Errour be on the other hand and it may be greater to take up our Rest here For let the Pipes be never so pure and clean Or let the Ordinances we plead for be never so punctually Observed according to the Divine Institution and the Pattern received in the Holy Mount yet 't is the Fountain must supply the Pipe else it will yield nothing The best Ordinances are dry and barren things in themselves unless by them the Golden Oyl from 〈◊〉 himself be derived unto us It is an undoubted Truth that these he is pleased to make use of and therefore we are bound Conscionably to attend upon the Ministration of them But if our Faith ascend no higher than to fix upon the means no wonder if the best means or the clearest Popes do not yield forth unto us that Spiritual Relief we are seeking after To Conclude I hope therefore it will be our Joynt Prayer and Endeavour to be more than Outward Court-Worshippers Even that we may be such as are got into that that is within the Vail having the Father's Name Written in our Fore-Heads Redeemed from the Earth and being without Fault before the Throne of God The Purity of Divine Institutions we must not forget or be Regardless concerning Otherwise we cannot please our Great Lord and Master But let us be sure to press through all External Mediums whatsoever that we may not fail of being admitted into the Innermost Recesses of the Divine Glory even in that Secret of God's Presence wbich is the proper Receptacle and Habitation of the Blessed Thus prayeth Thy most Unworthy but Affectionate Servant for Christ's Sake Philip Cary. THE CONTENTS OF THE FIRST PART MR. Allen's First Argument against Antipaedobaptists from the silence of the Scripture concerning the Baptism of Persons at Age whose Parents were Christians Answered Page 1 His Second Argument from Mat. 19. 14. Suffer little Children and forbid them not to come unto Me c. Answered p. 2 3 4 5 His Third Argument from Rom. 11. 16 17. If the Root be Holy so are the Branches c. Answered p. 6 His Fourth Argument from 1 Cor. 7. 14. Else were your Children unclean but now are they Holy Answered p. 8 9 His Fifth Argument from Acts 2. 38 39. The Promise is to you and your Children c. Answered p. 9 10 His Sixth Argument from Col. 2. 11. Buried with him in Baptism c. Answered p. 10 11 12 13 His Seventh Argument from the Church Member-ship of Infants under the former Administration Answered From p. 11 to 13 14 15 16 The latter part of Mr. Allen's Discourse wherein he Labours to prove the Lawfulness of Imposing other Ceremonies in the management of God's Worship beside what God Himself hath Appointed Answered from p. 17 to p. 3 The Second Part. Containing a distinct and more particular Consideration of the Arguments drawn from Rom. 11. 16. 17. Together with all other the most material Arguments whech are usually urged for the support of Infants Baptism As for the Arguments drawn from Rom. 11. 16 17. From thence it is urged First That the Gentiles have the same Graffing into the true Olive which the Jews formerly had Our Graffing in being Answerable to their present Casting out Now when they were taken in they and their Children were taken in when they were broken off they and their Children were broken off And therefore if our Graffing in be answerable to theirs we and our Children are Graffed in together Answered p. 23 24 Secondly Since our Graffing into the Olive Tree the Church is answerable to that of the Jews Their Infants being Graffed in by Circumcision so must ours by Baptism Answered p. 24 25 Thirdly If the Fruit be Holy the Lump is also Holy And if the Root be Holy so are the Branches Answered p. 26 Fourthly The Church of the Jews and that of the Gentiles is still the same that is it is still the same Visible Church now that it was then And so much the Apostles Simile or Metaphor of Ingraffing will bear or it signifies nothing And if the visible Church be the same why should not the Subjects be the same viz. Children and the Priviledge be the same viz. an External Badge given to the Children of the Church now as well as under the Law Answered p. 27 Fifthly As the same Church continued under the Gospel which did exist or was in being before So the very same Church Members kept their places and standing in it which were of it before except such as were broken off by Unbelief which must not be understood in reference to the little Children of the Believing Jews unless it can be made out that their little Children were guilty also of the same Sin of Unbelief upon the Account of which others were thus broken off Answered p. 32 Sixthly Since the Jewish Infants were under the former Administrataion at the Call Election and Appointment of God admitted with their Parents as visible Members of the Jewish Church And since the Gifts and Callings of God are without Repentance Rom. 11. 29 We have Reason therefore to Conclude that the Infants of Christian Parents have the same right to a visible Church Membership now as theirs had then Answered p. 23. Seventhly If such Infants are as much of the Church and as much Abrahams spirituall seed as ever Infants in the Old Testament Church were then they can be no more uncapable than they were of a Sollemn Admission into the Church by the Ordinance of Initiation for the time being as Baptism is now as Circumcision was then Answered p. 34. Eightly The Believing Gentiles are now graffed in not upon the Legall Branch but upon the Root Olive which affordeth all the Nourishment that either the Jews had or the Gentiles have which Root Olive is the Covenant of Promise that was 430. yeares before the Law Now unto that state of things wherein not the Law but the Gospel preached to Abraham did Obtain God was God not onely to 〈◊〉 Father but to the Children ye◠to all his Family And the Father of the Family did not
Spiritual We say not For it is plain there was no such Inquisition concerning the good or bad qualities the Fruitfulness or Unfruitfulness of the Members of the former Church in 〈◊〉 to Admission thereinto It was enough barely to be of Abraham's Seed or Family to be so esteemed But now saith John the Axe is laid unto the Root of the Trees And they must all be hewn down under the Gospel that have nothing else to pretend unto but that of a Godly Parentage which plainly excludes Infants as well as all other unfruitful Branches from the Gospel Church And to this same purpose is it that he doth further assure them ver 12. That Jesus Christ was now resolved with the Gospel Fan to Purge thoroghly the Floor of the Gospel Church and to gather the Wheat into His Garner Under the Law and before also even in Abrahmam's time the Chaff and the Wheat remained together unsevered but now the Fan must go to Work We read of no such Fanning Work in the former Church state And to what purpose is it else that Christ told the Woman of Samaria as he doth Jo. 4. 23. The Hour cometh and now is when the true Worshippers shall Worship the Father in Spirit and in Truth For the Father seeketh such to Worship Him Which plainly sheweth that God expecteth now greater Purity Exactness and Spirituality in such as were to approach His Presence in the Celebration of Gospel Worship And indeed of this the whole fifth of Mat. is a sufficient and convincing Proof giving clear evidence concerning the refinedness and spirituality of the Gospel Administration above and beyond that of the Law For then saith our Saviour it was thus and thus but I am come to tell you a New Doctrine and do call you up to greater Purity and Strictness § 4. Secondly We Answer That that Holiness which was ascribed unto the whole Body of the Jewish Nation was a Typical Ceremonial Holiness and was no other than was ascribed to the whole Land City Temple Altar and divers other things and is therefore now Abolished For if all things under the Law were but a Figure and Shadow of good things to come then such was the Holiness of the Jewish Nation and People also Now this the Apostle in the 9th and 10th Chapters to the Hebrews proves at large shewing that all things under the Law all the Priviledges of the Old Covenà nt with all the Perquisites Dependancies and Appurtenances thereunto belonging are called by such Names as make them evidently appear to be Typical As First they are called a Figure Heb. 9. 9. Which was a Figure for the time then present So verse 24. For Christ is not Entered into the Holy Place made with Hands which are the Figures of the true Secondly They are called a Pattern Heb. 9. 23. It was necessary that the Pattern of things in the Heavens c. Thirdly They are called a Shadow Heb. 10. 1. For the Law having a Shadow of good things to come and not the very Image of the thing◠c. Now the Holiness of the Jewish Nation being an Appurtenance belonging to the Law or the Old Covenant It was but a Figure Pattern or Shadow of all good things to come and was therefore Typical and is now Abolished And if we will know what the Holiness of the Jewish Nation did serve to Typifie or Represent unto us It is evident that as it Typified the Holiness of Christ himself So of all Abraham's Spiritual Seed who are made Holy by Believing in Christ § 5. The Time of Reformation therefore spoken of in the forementioned Scripture Heb. 9. 8 9 10. being come wherein those Imperfect Gifts and Sacrifices with all those Carnal Ordinances which were for a Season Imposed on the Jewish Nation were to be done away and the Gospel-Church taking place in the Room thereof It cannot rationally be supposed but the one doth far exceed the other at least in Purity and Inward Glory For by how much Christ hath now obtained a more excellent Ministry than that of Moses and by how much also he is the Mediatour of a better Covenant Which is Established upon better Promises as the Apostle affirmes Heb. 8. 6. By so much of necessity must the gospell Church exceed in lustre beauty Refinedness and Spirituality the former Administration SECT VIII THE Second Argument in Mr. Allen's Book remaining to be Answered is this That all Persons and so little Children that were of the Legal Church must needs in one Respect or other have been Persons of a Religious or Spiritual Consideration And this considered saith he I know not upon what better to place the Visible Church-Membership of Infants or to Attribute it to than God's Electing and Calling them to his People and their Parents Dedicating and Devoting them to God and his Service And the Scripture useth to reckon little Children as having begun to do this or that when they are but placed in Circumstances that will bring them to it Actually in the Issue And thus the Children of the Kohathites of a Month Old were numbred with their Fathers as with them keeping the charge of the Sanctuary when they were but in a way of being trained up to it And for the same Reason little Children were said to enter into Covenant with God when their Parents did so Deut. 29. 11 12 § 2. To this we Answer First By granting that it was in a Religious Consideration that Children were then Admitted Members of the Legal Church But yet it doth not therefore follow that they are to be admitted Members of the Gospel-Church for the Reasons before rendered The Terms of Admission into that being far more strict and Spiritual than were those under the Law Secondly Whereas he tells us That the Reason of their Admission into the Legal Church was God's Electing and Calling them to that Priviledge This we also grant But then we also say that though the Call and Election of God in Reference to the Inward Substance of the Covenant of Grace or to an Invisible Membership in the Invisible Church is Invariable It doth not follow that the Gifts and Callings of God in Reference to External Membership are therefore also Invariable or Irrevokable as is afterward by Mr. Allen Asserted and unto which we have already in the Second Part of this Discourse given a sufficient Answer For we find by undeniable Evidence that those External Gifts and Priviledges that the Natural Posterity of Abraham were once Invested with are now Rescinded Repealed and Repented of and it cannot be affirmed that in any Religious Capacity whatsoever they are now at all owned by God as his Church and People as once they were neither Parents nor Children But for the most part remain broken off and Unchurched to this Day And if you say That they and their Children being broken off We and our Children are Ingraffed in their Room This is that which remains to be proved and indeed the
of the Supper whatever Circumstances were by the command of God to be Observed in the Celebration of the Type And after the same sort must we Reason if we will Reason aright concerning Circumcision and Baptism also And yet again Thirdly Even in the very Instance of this Argument Supposing a Corespondency of Analogy between Circumcision and Baptism yet there is no Correspondency of Identity For although it were granted that both of them did Consign the Covenant of Faith yet there is nothing in the Circumstance of Childrens being Circumcised that so concerns that Mystery but that it might very well be given to Children and yet Baptism only to men of Reason Because Circumcision left a character in the flesh which being Imprinted upon Infants did its work to them when they came of Age. And such a Character was necessary because there was no word added to the sign But Baptism Imprints nothing that remains on the Body and if it leaves a character at all it is upon the Soul to which also the word is added which is as much a part of the Ordinance as the Sign it self For which cause therefore it is highly requisite that the Parties Baptized should be capable of Reason that they may be capable both of the word of the Ordinance and the Impress to be made thereby upon the Soul Since therefore the Reason of the Parity doth wholly fail there is left nothing to Infer a Necessity of Complying in this Circumstance of Age more then in the other Annexes of the Type Then also the Infant must be precisely baptized upon the Eighth day And Females must not be baptized because such were not to be Circumcised But it were more proper if we would understand it aright to prosecute the Analogy from the type to the Antitype by way of letter and Spirit and Signification That as Circumcision figures Baptism so also the Adjuncts of the Circumcision shall signifie some thing Spiritual in the Adherences of Baptism And therefore as Infants were Circumcised So Spiritual Infants shall be Baptized which is Spiritual Circumcision For therefore Babes had the Ministry of the type to Signifie that we must when we give our Names to Christ become Children in Malice and then the type is made Compleat The Seventh Argument for Infants Baptism and whereon the greatest stress is laid by Mr. Allen Mr Baxter and others is drawn from the Church-member-ship of Infants under the former Administration That because Infants were comprehended with their Parents in the Jews Church state they are so still under the Gospel and therefore to be baptized Reply We know very well that Mr. Baxter and others do Assert the Church-membership of Infants before Abrahams time and that therefore it is a Moral Institution and so not Capable of being Repealed as other Jewish Rites were But that is a groundless Fiction and cannot be at all proved from the Scripture The Discussion whereof shall be reserved for the latter part of this Discourse In the mean season That they were admitted Members of the Jewish Church is Evident And it is also as Evident that God hath now quite pulled down that House of his broke up House-keeping and turned the Servants Infants and all out of Doors Rom. 11. 17. 24. The Natural Branches are broken of and God hath now built him a New house into which God hath admitted none as his Houshold Servants but Believers only or such as Profess so to be Moses saith the Apostle Heb. 3. 5. 9. was faithfull as a Servant in all his house But Christ as a son over his own House Whose House are we if we hold fast the Confidence c. Where the Servants of the new house are discribed te be Beleivers not Infants and therefore called Living stones and a Spiritual House 1. Pet. 2. 3. And that the Old House the Jewish Church with all the Appurtenances and Priviledges of it is pulled down and a new One Built into which Infants are not to be admitted is Evident from the Apostles Reasoning Heb. 7. 12. For the Priesthood being changed there is made of necessity a change also of the Law Which must needs Include Circumcision with all the Appurtenances and Priviledges belonging to it And therefore as Infants Church-membership came in with the Law of Circumcision So it went out and was repealed with it They were t is true of the Houshold of Old but it was by a positive Law Shew us the like now or you say nothing Sure it is There is now no Institution that makes Infants fellow Citizens with the Saints and of the Houshold of God neither are they to bo so accounted till they believe and are able to do Service in the House And if you say that among men Infants are counted of the Houshold tho they can do no Service we Answer that as Comparisons do not run upon four feet so it doth not follow that because we count our Infants of our Family therefore they are to be accounted members of Gods Family the Gospel Church unless God by any Institution had made them so The Houshold of God is called the Houshold of faith or a House Consisting of Believers Now unless you can prove Infants to be Believers they are not of this House For all the Servants here must be Believers either Really or at least historically and Professedly which Infants cannot be If it be Objected That as the Jews and their Children are broken off So the Gentiles and their Children are Ingraffed in their Room according to Rom. 11. 20. Because of unbelief they were broken off and thou standest by faith We Answer That the Reason why the Jews and their Children were broken off was not because they had not Believing Parents For Abraham Isaac and Jacob were still the Parents of them all They were Abraham's seed when they were broken off as well as before But the true Reason was because the terms of standing in the Church were now altered For before the Gospel came they stood members of the Old Jewish Church though as much unbelievers for many Generations as they were when they were broken off But now Abraham's Church state is at an end and all the Priviledges and Immunities cease The Jewish Church must give way to the Gospel Church The Messiah being come and about to build him a New House into which none are of Right to enter but such as are profest Believers For the Old House or Jewish Church was not intended to abide for ever but only to the time of Reformation And then the Law must be changed the Priesthood changed the Priviledges and Ordinances changed yea the Covenant changed Which they not believing being willing to abide in the Old House still and to remain Church Members upon the account of a meer Fleshly and Natural Birth still crying out Abraham is our Father and we are his Seed and are Free and were never in Bondage Wherefore they were broken off and that whether they would or
And if the visible Church be the same Why should not the Subjects be the same viz. Children and the Priviledge be the same viz. an External Badge and Cognisance given to the Children of the Church now as well as under the Law We Answer That true it is the Church of the Jews and that of the Gentiles is one and the same in reference to the true Essence or Inward Substance of either In which respect as we have said before the Believing Gentiles according to the Apostles Metaphor are here said to be Graffed in amongst them and with them to be made Partakers of the Root and Fatness of the Olive Tree And in reference hereunto it is rightly added by the Apostle that the Gifts and Callings of God are without Repentance The Inward Substance of the Church and of the Covenant of Grace whereon 't is Founded being Invariable and that which shall remain for ever Immoveable But it doth not therefore follow that there should be no Alteration in respect of the Outward Form or Administration of either For in this Respect as hath been already proved there is a wide Difference between them For barely to be of the Natural Seed of Abraham was sufficient to be admitted a Member of the Jewish Church but not so under the Gospel unless we be of the Seed of Abraham according to the Spirit And till this be Evidenced neither therefore doth the External Badge or Cognisance belong unto us And thus it may appear that this Illustrious Scripture is very much darkened by applying that Holiness and Incision here spoken of to Outward Dispensations only in the visible Church which is meant of Saving Graces in the Invisible by Faith And whilst you make every Believer a like Root to his Posterity as Abraham the Father of the Faithful was to his Since no Believer in the World whether before or since had ever the like Priviledge or Prerogative conferred upon him to be Called the Father of the Faithful as Abraham was But for the further support of Infants Baptism It is Objected First That since Infants stood visible Members of the Church for 2000 Years under the Legal Administration It is unlikely they should be now Excluded To this we Answer First That they stood Excluded altogether as much above 2000 Years before Circumcision as they do now So that an Ordinance for their Church-member-ship was not so from the Beginning but came in by special Institution long since Secondly The other Administration in which they stood was Established with a Seed to be Propagated by Natural Generation according to express Command Gen. 17. 9 10. Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations Verse 10. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep Every Man-Child among you shall be Circumcised But where have we Command for the like in this Administration For though it should be granted that the Believing Gentiles are intended as the proper Subjects of the general Obligation mentioned Verse 9. which yet cannot be for the Reasons given in the latter part of this Discourse upon that Subject Yet the Baptism of Infants cannot thence be justly Inferred For there God only saith Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and tby Seed after thee in their Generations It is true by the Seed there spoken of you understand the Spiritual Seed in the Gospel Day and by keeping the Covenant their keeping it in the proper Sign of it belonging to the Gospel that is Baptism But where lies the Ground for Infants Baptism in all this Is there a Syllable there concerning Infants that they also must be Signed To keep the Sign of GOD's Covenant say you is to wear it themselves and to put it upon all theirs The Believing Gentiles are to keep the Sign of GOD's Covenant Therefore the Believing Gentiles are to wear it themselves and to put it upon all theirs But who told you so Or what Scripture is there that proves that thus stands the Case with the Believing Gentiles That is that they are not only to wear the Sign of the Covenant themselves but to put it upon all theirs All that you can prove is that thus it was with Abraham and His under the former Administration and when you can also prove that thus it must be now you say something otherwise all you say is Impertinent The Covenant of Promise 't is true Gen. 12. 2 3. Gen. 22. 16 17 18. is one and the same to them and to us but the Covenant of Circumcision Gen. 17. 7 8 9 was plainly Typical and Temporary and in a Figure it Ministred unto the ends of the Everlasting Covenant And therefore it sufficed as unto that Administration if the People the Children thereof were of the Natural Seed of Abraham because by that shadowy Covenant Young and Old Good and Bad were all alike Covenanters and all alike in a Capacity to be the Subjects of an Administration which was to serve unto the Example and Shadow of Heavenly things till the Seed should come to whome the Promise was made Gal. 3. 19. But the Gospel Administration that brings Christ and all the Mystery of His Grace in the Truth and Reality and not in the Figure and Example is not Receptive of Children as to the Principle upon which it stands any other way than upon some visible Demonstration of Faith whereby CHRIST comes to be received who are therefore called the Sons of God John 1. 12 13. As many as Received Him to them gave He Power that is the Right or Priviledge to become the Sons of GOD Even to them that Believe in His Name Born not of Blood nor of the Will of the Flesh nor of the Will of Man but of GOD. Thus the Apostle Gal. 4. 28. Calls the Saints of the Churches of Galatia Children of the Promise in Opposition to the Seed according to the Flesh Verse 7. Neither because they are the Seed of Abraham are they all Children but in Isaac shall thy Seed be called that is they which are the Children of the Flesh these are not the Children of GOD but the Children of the Promise are counted for the Seed Whereunto many other Scriptures might be added yea the whole Stream of the New Testament witnesseth to a Seed ' according to Calling and as to the 〈◊〉 of their Admission all Living Stones for the Constitution of the Church of GOD and not one Word in Favour of a Seed according to the Flesh as to Admission into the Church upon that Principle of Birth Priviledge We are told indeed that the Believing Gentiles are now Graffed in not upon the Legal Branch but upon the Root Olive which affordeth all the Nourishment that either the Jews had or the Gentiles have Which Root Olive is the Covenant of Promise that was 430 Years before the Law Now into that State of things say you wherein not the Law but the Gospel Preached unto Abraham did Obtain God was a GOD
Consequence of the former it will also naturally follow that it is only by the Actual Faith of both Parents and Children as an Instrumental means by which either of them shall be blessed with that their desired Restauration And this may serve also for a Confutation of that Groundless and Unscriptural conceit of Mr. Allen when he affirms that the Infants of Believers are Abraham's Spiritual Seed and that upon this Account it was that they were admitted to the Priviledge of Church-Membership under the Law For thus he tells us If such Infants are as much of the Church and as much Abraham's Spiritual Seed as ever Infants in the Old Testament-Church were then they can be no more uncapable than they were of a solemn Admission into the Church by the Ordinance of Initiation for the time being as Baptism is now and as Circumcision was then But this which Mr. Allen takes here for granted and is indeed the Foundation of his Argument we utterly deny as not having been at all proved nor indeed can be proved by him or any other to wit That the Infants of Believers have any where in Scripture the Denomination of Abraham's Spiritual Seed This is a most certain Truth that as Abraham himself had a double Capacity one of a Natural Father the other the Father of the Faithful So he had a two-fold Seed For First he had a Seed that proceeded from him according to the Course of Natural Generation only And Secondly some were his Natural and Spiritual Seed also such as was Isaac and all the Faithful who proceeded from Abrahams Loyns To which we must add a Third sort and that is all true Believers or the Elect of God in all Nations who by Vertue of their Interest in Christ have also in Scripture the Denomination of Abraham's Seed who yet can lay no claim to Abraham as their Father according to the common Course of Nature And to imagine that Abraham hath any Seed in any other Religious or Spiritual Consideration whatsoever under the Gospel is to be wise above what is written For whatever the Jewish Children were to say that the Children of Christians are Relatively Holy that they are Church-Members and as much Christians externally as the Children of the Jews were Jews externally as some have suggested All these are but unproved Figments and Unscriptural Dictates And therefore from hence to infer their Relation to Abraham as his Spiritual Seed and thence that they are the proper Subjects of Baptism is no other than to build a lofty Structure upon a Sandy Foundation If then we shall affirm that the Infants of Believers now are Abraham's Seed they must of Necessity come under one or another of these Heads To say that they are so in either of the two former Respects cannot be at all pretended unto if in the latter neither can this with any shadow of Truth be affirmed For thus it was not with all the Natural Seed of Abraham himself as the Apostle expresly affirms Rom. 9. 7 8. Neither saith he because they are the Seed of Abraham are they all Children but in Isaac shall thy Seed be called that is they that are the Children of the Flesh these are not the Children of God but the Children of the Promise are counted for the Seed So likewise Gal. 3. 29. If ye be Christs then are ye Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to the Promise Therefore to affirm that all the Infants of Believers are the Spiritual Seed of Abraham as there is no Scripture that proves it so it is directly contrary to the Scripture and indeed contrary to our own most common and obvious Experience whilst we consider with all that as for many of Abraham's own Natural Posterity they are so far from being his Spiritual Seed that as hath been already observed together with their Children they are Unchurched broken off and rejected by God because of their Vnbelief to this very day Which yet had not been had they been the Spiritual as well as the Natural Seed of Abraham For sure it is altogether Inconsistent with the terms of the Covenant of Grace the Gifts and Callings whereof are without Repentance that Abraham's Spiritual Seed or that such as are Members of the Invisible as well as the Visible Church should be at all cast off rejected and forsaken as the Jews now are Upon the whole therefore of our Answer to the forementioned Objection That if this Interpretation hold good there would be a great change in the extent of the Covenant narrower under the Gospel than it was under the Law and yet no notice in all the Book of God given of such a Change We say that there is abundant notice given unto us in the Book of God and that both in the Old and New Testament also concerning the change in question viz. the disfranchisement of Infants from their so long enjoyed Priviledge of Church-Membership We grant that under the Law they were admitted thereunto with their Parents But the Scriptures already alledged do abundantly prove their Exclusion under the Gospel Administration Unto which we shall only at present add Heb. 7. 12. For the Priesthood heing changed there is made of Necessity a change also of the Law which Change of the Law there spoken of must needs include Circumcision with all the Priviledges and Appurtenances belonging to it And therefore as Infants Church-Membership came in with the Law of Circumcision so it went out and was Repealed with it Objection 3. If this Interpretation be true the Believing Jews should have loss upon their Repentance and Belief of the Gospel if their Children formerly Church Members should now be Excluded upon the Faith and Repentance of their Parents To this we Answer First It is true that insome Sence a Jew converted to the Gospel should have loss and particularly in that point of Signing his Fleshly Seed by an Ordinance together with the Fall of all the Glory of their Sanctuary and pompous Priest-hood so much and so long the joy and boasting of that Nation Which the Spirit of GOD fore-saw and fore-told Isa 8. 14. And hence it came to pass that Christ became so great an Offence and the Gospel so sore a Stone of Stumbling and Rock of Offence to them all yea even to many of them after they had submitted to the Gospel yea the Gentile Churches were scarce if at all preserved from Stumbling hereat with the Jews But all this Loss well considered would amount to no more than what befals a Man who from the Priviledges of a Servant is Invested into the Priviledges of a Son And this was the very Case Gal. 4. 4. God sent forth His Son c. Verse 5. To redeem them that were under the Law that we might receive the Adoption of Sons Verse 7. Wherefore thou art no more a Servant but a Son And the Reason of this Change the Apostle plainly sheweth us Verse 23. He that was after the Bond-Woman was Born after the
two great Acts viz. To Preach Teach and Baptize And we may say in the same place That whoever are outwardly Taught or do but hear the Gospel though they walk never so contrary must be Baptized For the Commission is Teach and Baptize Nothing of the Parties Entertainment of it is mentioned in this 28 Mat. nor of the qualification of the Subject with any distinguishing Character If they say This doth not hold forth all the Institutions in every particular as they must grant then we may compare other Scriptures with this to make out the full Institution as these 〈◊〉 Infants are mentioned so much Gracious Consideration◠as hath been formerly express'd § To this we Reply That notwithstanding all the Confidence which Mr. Sidenham here expresseth both the Qualification of the Subjects of Baptism as also the manner or form of Baptizing are sufficiently set forth unto us in the present Institution For First If we enquire after the Subject It is plain by this Commission that none are to be Baptized but such as are Taught so as to be Discipled into the true Faith and Profession of Christianity Go Teach all Nations Baptizing them c. Infants being uncapable of being thus Taught or Disciped they are therefore Excluded But all others that so hear the Gospel as to understand it Believe it and be Discipled by it are according to this Commission to be Baptized But whereas Mr. Sidenham tells us That whosoever are outwardly Taught or do but hear the Gospel though they walk never so contrary must be Baptized inasmuch as in the Commission Mat. 28. nothing of the Parties entertainment of it is there mentioned With what shadow of Truth could Mr. Sidenham utter such a Sentence When he could not but know that as according to that very Institution Mat. 28. Such as are Discipled by the Preaching of the Gospel are there appointed to be Baptized Go Teach all Nations c. That is as your selves have acknowledged Disciple all Nations Baptizing them So in that parallel place Mark 16. 16. which is but a rehearsal of the same Commission by another of the Holy Pen Men our Saviour there tells us He that Believeth and is Baptized shall be Saved Plainly shewing that those that are to be Baptized must be such as so hear the Gospel as to give a Believing entertainment to it He had said before Go Preach the Gospel to every Greature And then it immediately follows He that Believeth and is Baptized shall be Saved And if here be not a plain notice given of the qualification of such as are to be admitted to Baptism Let such Judge whose Eyes are open Secondly if we enquire after the manner or form of Baptizing the very Word it self is plainly significant of Christ's Mind and Meaning therein Go Teach all Nations Baptizing them that is let them be dipt or plunged under Water which is the native Sense and signification of the Greek Word which we Translate Baptize as hath been already proved So that whatever Mr. Sidenham tells us the Commission which Christ gave to his Apostles concerning Baptism doth afford sufficient Direction both in respect of the qualification of the Subject as also in reference to the manner of the Administration thereof § 3. As for the rest of the Arguments made use of by Mr. Sidenham for the support of Infants Baptism from the Nature of the Covenant made with Abraham from Acts 2. 39. From Col. 2. 11 12. From the Analogy between Circumcision and Infants Baptism From the Baptizing of the several Housholds mentioned in the New Testament As also concerning the Signification and Vse of the Word Baptism Enough hath been already said in the first and second Parts of this Discourse for the Refutation of them which needs not here to be repeated Only there are two Arguments in Mr. Allen's Treatise before mentioned which were then omitted but must now be Answered SECT VII § 1. THE first hath Referrence to those several Titles of a Holy and peculiar People which are frequently in the Scripture given to the whole Body of the Jewish Nation Church and People from whence he infers that there is no such difference as we affirm there is between the Old and the New Testament Churches For saith he If those terms are frequently given in the Epistles to Church Members now the same Epethites are frequently given to the Members of the Jewish Church And therefore there is no such Difference as is Imagined in the Constitution of either of them they being both alike Spiritual § 2. To this we Answer First If there be no difference between the Old and New Testament Churches in respect of the Constitution of either of them but that there was the same Purity Holiness and Spirituality in the one as in the other Then what needed or wherein consisted that Reformation which the Apostle tells us was to take place in the Gospel day Heb. 9. 8 9 10. The Holy Ghost this signifying that the way into the Holiest of all was not yet made manifest while as the first Tabernacle was yet standing which was a Figure for the time then present In which were offered both Gifts and Sacrifices that could not make him that did the Service perfect as pertaining to the Conscience which stood only in Meats and Drinks and divers Washings and Carnal Ordinances Imposed on them until the time of Reformation Plainly Intimating that there were many things faulty among them and many things defective also which were to be Reformed Rectified and Supplied when the Day-light of the Gospel was to break upon them And upon this account not only doth the Spirit of God find fault with the Covenant it self which they were then under which therefore was now to be done away and a new One to take place Heb. 8. 7 8 13. But for this Reason also was the Seed to be changed The Carnal Seed being rejected and only the Spiritual Seed of Abraham admitted as Members of the Gopsel Church A plain notice of which Change is given by John the Baptist the Harbinger of the Gospel Dispensation Mat. 3. 7 8 9 10. Think not saith he to say within your selves we have Abraham to our Father For I say unto you that GOD is able even of these Stones to raise up Children unto Abraham And now also the Axe is laid unto the Root of the Trees therefore every Tree that bringeth not forth good Fruit is hewn down Plainly requiring a personal and actual Fruitfulness in all the Members of this new Church state which is exclusive not only of all those that are such as the Pharisees and Sadduces were whom he was now speaking to who were a Generation of Vipers and were actually debauch'd in their Conversations but of all such also as were either neglective or are uncapable as is the Case of Infants of actual Fruitfulness in the Paths of Righteousness § 3. So that when you tell us that the Legal and Gospel Church are alike
shall be a peculiar Treasure unto me above all People for all the Earth is mine ve 6. And ye shall be unto me a Kingdom of Priests and an Holy Nation And if this was a Covenant of Works as the Apostle doth plainly Affirm it is Rom. 10. 5. from Lev. 18. 5. Why not that made with Abraham also since the terms are the same as well as the Promises are the same The like account the Scripture gives us of the Covenant mentioned Deut. 29. You have seen saith Moses there ver 2 3. all that the Lord did before your Eyes in the Land of Egypt unto Pharaoh and all his Servants the great Temptations which thine Eyes have seen and those great Miracles ver 4. Yet the Lord hath not given you an Heart to perceive and Eyes to see and Ears to hear unto this day ver 5. 6. And I have led you forty years in the Wilderness your clothes are not waxen old upon you That ye might know that I am the Lord your God ver 9. Keep therefore the words of this Covenant and do them that ye may prosper in all that ye do The same Language with that Exod 19. 5. and Lev. 18. 5. compared with Rom. 10. 5. So that we cannot but plainly see that all those fore-mentioned Covenants are of one and the same Nature what the one is the others are the same And therefore if the Covenant made with our First Parent before the Fall and that made with Israel at Mount Sinai were neither of them a Covenant of Grace nor a Gospel Covenant whereof Christ is the alone and only Mediator For the same Reason neither was that mentioned Deut. 29. nor that Gen. 17. 7 8 9. as being all of the same tenor and the Promises in them all of a like Nature § 6. The whole entire Nature saith Dr. Owen of the Covenant of Works consisted in this That upon our Personal Obedience according unto the Law and Rule of it we should be Accepted with God and Rewarded with him Herein the Essence of it did consist And what ever Covenant proceedeth on these terms or hath the Nature of them in it however it may be varied with Additions or Alterations is the same Covenant stiil and not another As in the Renovation of the Promise wherein the Essence of the Covenant of Grace was contained God did oft times make other Additions unto it as unto Abraham and David yet was it still the same Covenant for the Substance of it and not another So whatever Variations may be made in or Additions unto the Dispensation of the First Covenant so long as this Rule is retained Do this and Live it is still the same Covenant for the Substance and Essence of it Dr. Owen in his late Discourse Entituled The Doctrine of Justification by Imputed Righteousness p. 397. SECT II. BUt forasmuch as Mr. Roberts Mr. Sedgwick and many other Divines who have Written upon the Covenants do affirm that the Covenant at Mount Sinai was a Covenant of Faith or which is all one a Covenant of Grace At least that it was Subserviently the Covenant of Grace Or a Covenant of Grace for the Substance of it though propounded in a more dark way and in a manner fitting for the State of that People and that present time and Condition of the Church And for as much as it will unavoidably follow that if that was a Covenant of Grace So also was that made with Abraham Gen. 17. 7 8 9. We shall therefore the more Intently apply our selves toward the Discovery of their great Mistakes in this Respect it being of so vast an Importance to the Church of God to be set at rights herein on which as all will grant So much of the Superstructure of the Christian Faith and Practice depends For this purpose therefore Additional unto what hath been already said we shall only premise two Arguments proving that the Covenant at Mount Sinai mentioned Exod. 19. and Exod 20. was no other than a Covenant of Works And then proceed to Answer those Scripture Objections which are usually urged by way of Opposition hereunto § 2. In the first place then that the Covenant at Mount Sinai before mentioned was no other then a Covenant of Works We thus prove First that Covenant that is not of Faith cannot be a Covenant of Faith but of Works But the Apostle doth Expresly affirm that the Law is not of Faith Gal. 3. 11 12. Which is most plainly to be understood of Mount Sinai Covenant therefore that Covenant cannot be a Covenant of Faith but of Works Secondly that Covenant which is now Repealed could not be a Covenant of Grace but of Works But the Apostle doth plainly Affirm that the Covenant which God made with his People at Mount Sinai when he took them by the Hand to lead them out of the Land of Egypt for the faultiness thereof is now Repealed Heb. 7. 18. Chap. 8. 7. 13. 2. Cor. 3. 7. 11. Col. 2. 14. Therefore it could not be a Covenant of Grace but of Works The Covenant of Grace being every way Immutable and perfect and therefore unrepealable and Eternal 2. Sam. 23. 5. Isa 55. 3. Heb. 7. 21 22 24 25. Heb. 13. 20. And the Gifts and Callings thereof without Repentance Rom. 11. 27. 29. And if Mount Sinai Covenant was no other than a Covenant of Works and accordingly now Repealed It cannt be denied but that the Covenant Gen. 17. 7 8 9. Was of the same Nature and therefore also now Repealed Act. 15. 10. 24. Col. 2. 14. § 3. If any shall Object that it is unlikely that the Covenant of Works should be Renewed after Mans fall and after the Covenant of Grace had actually taken place as it did in the first promise Concerning the Womans Seed that was to bruise the Serpents Head We answer that how absur'd so ever it may seem to us it is plain matter of fact that so it was and we ought not to Impeach Infinite Wisdome that so appointed it And if we will know the reason why the Covenant of Works should be thus Renewed after the Fall the Scripture Expresly tells us That the Law was added because of Transgressions till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made Gal. 3. 19. The Apostle had before told us ver 17. That the Covenant that was Confirmed before of God in Christ the Law which was 430. Years after could not Disannul that it should make the Promise of none Effect wherefore then saith he ver 19. Serveth the Law To which himself gives this Resolution That it was added because of Transgressions till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made And elsevvhere the same Apostle Informs us That the Law entered that the Offence might abound Rom. 5. 20. Or as he Expresseth it Chap. 7. 13. That Sin by the Commandment might become exceeding Sinful It being Evident that the Lavv vvas appointed as a School-master to Christ Gal. 3.
that the present Work is needless unless any thing further be produced than hath been by others already Urged and argued in this present Controversie By way of Answer unto which I have two things to offer First That though very much hath been already said by others that have Laboured in the same Province and that with that clearness of Evidence and Scripture Demonstration by way of Opposition unto Infant Sprinkling as cannot be refuted unless another Canon or Scripture Oracle can be produced for the Justification thereof than we have yet met with yet those several Works of their having their several Excellencies and some of them being Voluminous I judged it no needless or unprofitable Labour to Collect the Sum or Substance of what hath been already said in this Respect and to present it to thy View in one Intire Piece and that with as much Succinctness and Brevity as the Matter would well require The Second is this That peradventure thou may'st find upon a due Perusal of the ensuing Discourse an Improvement of several Considerable Scriptures and Arguments to this purpose in the present Essay that hath not yet been made publick that I know of by any other hand and in particular among diverse others as to what concerns the true Nature and Difference betwixt the two Covenants that of Works and that of Grace Wherein I think I have plainly proved that the Covenant which God made with Israel at Mount Sinai Exod. 20. That made with the same People in the Land of Moab Deut. 29. As also the Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham Gen. 17. 7. 8. 9. Whereon so much stress is laid for the support of Infants Baptism were all of them no other than three several Repetitions of the Covenant of Works and that as contra-distinct or essentially different from the Covenant of Grace and consequently now Repealed Which I have the rather taken the pains distinctly to prove because upon this Hypothesis or Supposition that these were Gospel Covenants differing from the New Covenant only in the manner of Administration the greatest part of the most plausible Arguments for the support of Infants Baptism are founded But if I have substantially proved that neither of these forementioned Covenants were Gospel Covenants reaching Gentile Believers and their Seed but Essentially different therefrom and consequently now repealed no wonder if I have made an answerable Improvement thereof by way of Opposition to the forementioned Practice The Design therefore and Scope of the following Treatise Beside what concerns the Nature and Difference betwixt the two Covenants the true Knowledge and Understanding whereof is indeed of highest Importance to us is with all Humility to endeavour the Rectification of that which I cannot but apprehend to have been amiss and the promoting of that which I cannot but Judge to have been greatly defective among many that are right dear and precious in the sight of GOD And that is among other things in respect of the Purity of that Divine Worship which as the Servants of Christ we are obliged to offer up to Him in a due Susception and Administration of that Sacred and Solemn Ordinance of Baptism we are now contending about My Reasons why I so think I have now given you in this present Discourse And certainly the Purity of Divine Appointments is worthy pleading for it hath been the subject matter of many Prayers and should be of our joynt Endeavours We Read in the Prophecy of Zechary of a Candlestick all of Gold Zec. 4. 2. 3. And he said unto me What seest thou And I said I have looked and behold a Candlestick all of Gold with a Bowl upon the top of it and the Seven Lamps thereon and Seven Pipes to the Seven Lamps which were upon the top thereof and two Olive Trees by it one upon the right side of the Bowl and the other upon the left side thereof And Verse 12. I answered again and said unto him What be these two Olive Branches which through the two Golden Pipes empty the Golden Oyl out of themselves By the concurring consent of all Interpreters I suppose by this Candlestick all of Godl here spoken of we are to understand that pure Church State which God hath promised to erect unto Himself in Gospel Times And certainly that must be a blessed Day and a glorious Priviledge when we shall come to have a Candlestick all of Gold A Candlestick that hath a Golden Bowl Golden Lamps and Golden Pipes for the reception and conveyance of the Golden Oyl Will it not be a singular Favour to be the Children of that Church All whose Members are Golden Members whose Ministers and Ordinances also are All of Gold for the conveyance of the Golden Oyl of the Heavenly Blessing to the Comfort Enlightning and Satisfastion of the whole But alas So it is that for the most part of those that call themselves or that pretend to be the true Churches of Christ at this day in the World they are far from being a Candlestick all of Gold whether in respect of their Constitution and Ministry or in respect of that Purity of Ordinances which God requires For whilst men do content themselves rather as it were with Leaden Pipes that is with Ordinances of an Humane Invention the Golden Pipes or Ordinances of God's Appointment are thereby neglected and made void And then no wonder if such a Church have also many Leaden Members or such as are unsuitable unto the Gospel Characters All of Gold being rather ignorant prophane and scandalous who coming in or being admitted at the wrong Door are there suffered also to continue to the hardning and Soul ruine of themselves which is the case of Millions who without Christ's Appointment having been Sprinkled or as they call it Christned in their Infancy as having by vertue of their Natural Birth an Interest in the Covenant of Grace are Induced thereby to reckon themselves good Christians and in a State of Salvation without looking after the New Birth or being acquainted with the Mystery of the Spirit of Regeneration It is no way to be doubted but that where there is a pure Church there are pure Ordinances The Pipes are all of Gold as well as the Church or Candlestick it self that is it hath only such Ordinances as have the stamp of Heaven upon them even the things which Christ hath commanded and those observed as he hath commanded and not otherwise And it is equally as clear that where those Golden Pipes are wanting or where the purity of Gospel Ordinances is neglected and Pipes of a baser Alloy are substituted in the Room of those of Christ's Appointment and those also mis-applied about wrong Subjects there can be no true Church much less can it pretend to that Purity that Christ expects There can be no true Church but what hath a Golden Constitution Golden Lamps and Golden Pipes for the Conveyance of the Golden Oyl And if you say that you have not been
onely give himself but all his Children and even his Servants all his to God to take his Sign upon them and so it must be now Answered p. 28 29. But for the further support of Infants Baptism it is Objected First That since Infants stood visible Members of the Church for 2000 years under the Legal Administration It is unlikely they should be now Excluded Answered from p. 27 to 30. Obj 2. If Infants are now Excluded there would be a very great change in the Extent of the Covenant Narrower under the Gospel than it was under the Law And yet no notice in all the Book of God given of such a change Answered from p. 30 to 36. Obj. 3. The Believing Jews should have loss upon their Repentance and belief of the Gospel if their Children formerly Church-Members should now be Excluded upon the Faith and Repentance of their Parents Answered p. 37. Obj. 4. What hope can we have of our Infants if they must not be admitted to Christian Baptism nor reputed as Members of the common Body and Church of the faithful Answered p. 38. Obj. 5. If Children may not now be Baptized this makes the Priviledge of Believers under the Gospel to be less than was theirs under the Law for their Children were all admitted as Members of the Visible Church by the Ordinance of Circumcision and we cannot but Conclude that Priviledges for our selves and for our Children are at least as Honourable Large and Comfortable as theirs Answered p. 38 39. Obj. 6. Circumcision was a Seal of the New Covenant to Believers and their Seed under the Law and therefore so is Baptism to the Seed of Christian Parents under the Gospel The denial therefore of Baptism to Infants in the denial of a great Priviledge which of Right belongs unto them Answered p. 39 40. Obj. 7. Circumcision was Administred to Believers as Believers and to their Seed after them as such to which Baptism was to correspond Answered p. 40 41. Obj. 8. Since by the Express Command of God the Jewish Infants were Circumcised Are not now Infants as Capable of Answering the Ends of Christian Baptism as theirs of Circumcision Answered p. 41 42. Obj. 9. If the Infants of Believing Gentiles are not to be Baptized How doth the Blessing of Abraham come on the Gentiles Gal. 3. 14. Which Blessing of Abraham was I will be a God unto thee and to thy Seed Gen. 17. 7. Answered p. 42. 43. Obj. 10. Then also how can Believers be Heirs according to the Promise Gal. 24. If their Children should be excluded from the Promise For the Childrens right to the Promise is part of the Fathers Inheritance For the Promise unto Abraham was I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed after thee Answered p. 44 45. Obj. 11. Those to whom the Gospel Covenant belonged to them the Seal thereof appertained But to Believers and their Seed the Gospel Covenant belonged Gen. 17. 7. I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed therefore to them the Seal thereof did appertain For the Faederati were to be Signati that is those that were in Covenant were to have the Seal thereof Gen. 17. 10. By way of consequence therefore it naturally follows that if Circumcision the Seal of the Gospel Covenant belonged to the Seed of Believers under the Law then doth the Gospel Seal Baptism much more appertain to the Seed of Believers now Answered from p. 45. to 61. Obj. 12. Though 't is true when God made a Promise to Abraham to be a God to him and to his Seed Gen. 17 7. The Seed there mentioned is by the Apostle applied to Christ Gal. 3. 16. He saith not unto Seeds as many but as of one and to thy Seed which is Christ yet this is not to be understood of Christ Personal but of Christ Mystical as in 1 Cor. 12. 12. And so 't is to be understood of the Visible Church of which Infants Born of Believing Parents are a part Answered p. 61 62. Obj. 13. In the Commission Mat. 28. The Apostles are commanded to teach or disciple all Nations Baptizing them But Infants are Disciples and therefore to be Baptized Answered from p. 62 to 65. Obj. 14. The Infants of Believers even while they are Infants are capable of being made Partakers of the Inward Grace of Baptism as well as grown Men. And therefore they ought to receive the outward Sign of Baptism Answered p. 65. Obj. 15. Our Saviour tells us that unto such belongeth the Kingdom of Heaven If Children therefore are capable of the greater then they are capable of the lesser If capable of a Membership in the Kingdom then of the Sign and Cognisance thereof But the first is true Ergo the latter Answered p. 65 66. Obj. 16. The Gospel took place just as the Old Administration did by bringing in whole Families together When Abraham was taken in his whole Family was taken in So in this New Administration usually if the Master of the House turned Christian the whole Family came in and were Baptiz'd with him The whole Houshold of Cornelius the first Converted Gentile Act. 11. 14. The Houshold of Stephanus The Houshold of Lydia The Houshold of the Jaylor Answered from p. 66. to 69. Obj. 17. As there is no Express Command or Example in the Scripture concerning the Baptism of Infants So neither is there any concerning the Baptism of Persons at Age whose Parents were Christians when they were Born and who have been educated from their Childhood in the Christian Religion The Scripture giving no Account of the Baptism of any in the Apostle's days but such as were Converted from Judaism or Paganism to Christianity And therefore the Baptizing of Infants is as Lawful as the Baptism of such there being no Express Warrant or Example in the Scripture for the one more than for the other And if a just Consequence may be admitted for the proof of the one why not for the other also You are wont to reject all Scripture Consequences in Respect of Infants Baptism and yet here you must of Necessity admit of the same So that this Argument therefore returns upon your selves Answered from p 69 to 71 Obj 18. Infants were by God's Express Command to be Circumcised under the former Administration and all God's Commands about his Institutions then according to the Rule of Analogy or Proportion are equally binding unto us as well as to the Jews then As in the Case of the Christian Sabbath unto us which the Fourth Commandment binds us as it did the Jews to the former And thus it is in Reference to Infants Baptism In Respect of which though there is no Express Command to that Purpose recorded in the New Testament yet we cannot but conclude that God's Command unto the Jews to Circumcise their Infants under the Law carries with it the force at least of a virtual Command unto us to Baptize ours Answered p. 71 72 73. Obj. 19. If the
not only to the Father but to the Children yea to all his Family And the Father of the Family did not only give Himself but all his Children and even his Servants all His to GOD to take his Sign upon them and so it must be now To which We Reply that it is indeed the unspeakable Blessedness of the Believing Gentiles to be Graffed in upon such a Stock not upon the Legal Branch but upon the Root Olive which affordeth all the Nourishment that either the Jews had or the Gentiles have that Root Olive being no other than Christ Himself who was given for a Covenant of the People and a Light to Lighten the Gentiles The Gospel of whose Grace was indeed Preached to Abraham 430 Years at least before the Law was given But what then Doth it therefore follow that the Believing Gentiles are put into that very State of things as under Circumcision Where is that Scripture that affirms it Evident it is that though Circumcision was in use before as well as under the Law and though Jesus Christ Himself is by the Apostle Stiled the Minister of the Circumcision for the Truth of God to confirm the Promises made unto the Fathers yet as it cannot be denied but that it was adopted into the Legal Family And that it was also adopted unto the Nature and Quality of the Legal Dispensation So it is as evident that it is now Abolished And we can meet with no one Text in all the New Testament that tells us that Baptism is appointed to have the same Place and Vse in the Church of God that Circumcision had but rather much to the contrary as hath been already proved And it being manifest that the External Administration of the Covenant is changed to what it was in Abraham's Time it plainly follows that there is an Alteration of the Rule that must direct us in our Practice in that Respect Obj. 2. If this Interpretation hold good there would be a very great Change in the Extent of the Covenant narrower under the Gospel than it was under the Law and yet no notice in all the Book of God given of such a Change We Reply First That the Covenant of Grace hath one and the same Extent before under and since the Law in Respect of the Substance of it or considered singly in its self as hath been already declared In Respect of the Administration of it indeed it is Changedble and hath been often Changed Secondly we say that the Administration under the Gospel is not narrower than that under the Law because it admits not Infants Baptism The Administration under the Law was Circumscribed to a little Land and a small People the Bounds of the other are stretched from Sea to Sea and from the River to the ends of the Earth That was restrained to the Seed and Family of Abraham the other extends to the Seed and Family of Christ That had its Existence but 2000 Years upon an Occasional Temporary Principle the other is suited to Answer a Principle existing from Everlasting to Everlasting That Administration was the Shadow Figure and Example the other the Substance That was the Handmaid the other the Mistress And if the Case be thus between these two Administrations can we Reasonably Charge the Gospel Administration with more narrowness than the Law because of the Discontinuance of the Birth-Priviledge Thirdly Although the Grace of the Gospel be extended far beyond the Grace under the Law yet as to Persons the Children of the Gospel are formed to so strict and refined a Qualification that in that Respect we grant that the Law had a Latitude beyond the Gospel But yet with this Mark that the Indulgence of the Law was one of the great Imperfections which the Gospel came to Reform Mat. 3. 10 11 12. And of this Change the Book of God doth give abundant Notice Gen. 21. 10. Cast out the Bond-woman and her Son c. Shortly after the Institution of the Ordinance of Circumcision for the Priviledge of the Seed according to the Flesh The Lord brings forth a Prophetical Instance in the very Family of Abraham wherein this great Change of Church Priviledge was revealed viz. That it was to be taken from the Carnal Seed and that it should be given to the Seed according to Grace under the Gospel Administration And to put that matter out of Question we have the unvailing of this Prophetical Instance to the very same purpose in Gal. 4. 30. So also Isa 14. 1. Sing O Barren thou that bearest not What she was the Apostle tells us Gal. 4. 26 27. ver 5. Thy Maker is thy Husband the Lord of Hosts is his Name and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel At ver 13. We have the Refined Qualification of her Children and People And all thy Children shall be Taught of the Lord Where we have a Prophetical Description of the Gospel Church State which the People of a Fleshly Extraction only from the most sanctified Saints cannot possible compare unto It must therefore necessarily be understood of another Seed even of a Seed begotten of God by the Word of Truth Jam. 1. 18. the Gospel People And this was a fair Notice given of the Change in Question to wit narrower as to the Qualifications of the Persons but more extended in Grace Another fair warning for the Fleshly Seed is Isa 65. 15. For the Lord God shall slay thee and call his People by another Name In all which we find plain notice given of the Change of the Old Administration which gloried in the Seed of Abraham after the Flesh and as plainly foretelling the Cessation of that Propagation to give place to the New Administration and the true Seed of Abraham the Seed according to the Spirit And indeed the Change of the Administration necessarily removes the fleshly Seed because it hath a standing by no other Right than what it had under that Covenant As for the New Testament it every where abounds with Evidence to the Proof hereof as appears from the several Scriptures that have in part been already opened and discussed in the former part of this Discourse Wherein it hath been proved that though Infants were comprehended with their Parents in the Jewish Church yet none but such as are capable of making an Actual Profession of Faith and Repentance with some competent Measure of Fruitfulness answerable thereunto are to be admitted to the Priviledge of Church-Membership under the Gospel To this purpose we are told Mat. 3. 7. That when many of the Pharisees and Sadduces came to be Baptized of John Though their being of the Natural Seed of Abraham was a sufficient ground why they should be Circumcised yet it was no sufficient ground why they should be Baptized And therefore their Birth-Priviledge notwithstanding John rejects them as a Generation of Vipers and bids them bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance 'T is true those that John had now to deal with were Men at
Age and such also as were exceedingly Debauched and Vitious in their Conversations But then it must be withal considered that we Read of none at Age that were rejected upon any such Account from Corcumcision which is a clear Argument of the Change of the Administration and that the terms of Admission into the Gospel-Church were far stricter now than they were before And to take off their former Plea he deals therefore plainly with them upon that Account And tells them ver 9. Think not to say within your selves we have Abraham to our Father for God is able of Stones to raise up Children unto Abraham And now also the Ax is laid unto the Root of the Trees therefore every Tree which bringeth not forth good Fruit is hewn down which hath been already explained to be clearly Exclusive of a meer Carnal Seed or a Seed barely after the Flesh in respect of Gospel Church Ordinances For upon that Account the Ax is here said to be laid unto the Root of the Trees And as plainly doth the Spirit of God by the Apostle give us an Account of the Exclusion of the Fleshly Seed in that respect when he tells us as he doth 2 Cor. 5. 16 17. Wherefore henceforth know we no Man after the Flesh c. For if any Man be in Christ he is a New Creature Old things are past away all things are become New which hath been already distinctly explained to the same purpose Together with Rom. 11. 17. 24. Where he tells us that the Natural Branches are broken off And that the Gentiles have their Standing in the Church only by Faith And no where doth the New-Testament Countenance that conceit that our Posterity have any Right of standing as Members of the Christian Church by Vertue of our Faith But we our selves must stand by our Faith and they if they have any by their own Otherwise they are of course excluded The Natural Branches being now broken off and no others in their Room barely as such according to Gospel Rule to be admitted to Gospel Ordinances But against this it is Objected That as the same Church continued under the Gospel which did exist or was in being before So the very same Church Members kept their places and standing in it which were of it before except such as were broken off by Vnbelief which must not say you be understood in Reference to the Little Children of the Believing Jews unless it can be made out that their Little Children were guilty also of the same Sin of Vnbelief upon the Account of which others were thus broken off To this we Reply First that as it is Evident that the Children of the Vnbelieving Jews are to this day together with their Parents broken off and unchurched which can be upon no other Account than because of the Personal Vnbelief both of the Parents and Children For they have both of them Believing Abraham to their Father as much now as before So it is as Evident that the same Sin of Vnbelief was as justly Chargeable upon the Children of those of them that did believe until wrought upon as their Parents were by the Preaching of the Word And by Reason hereof it was that all sorts of Little Children as well as those at Age that were destitute of actual Faith were now to be broken off from the Gospel Church For though 't is true the Children of the Believing Jews and the Children of the Vnbelieving Jews also were upon the bare Account of their Relation to Abraham only by the Express Command of God under the former Administration admitted to a State of Church Membership their Vnbelief notwithstanding For whether they were Believers or no was not at all any Matter of Enquiry in Respect either of the Parents or the Children as to a State of Church-Membership then yet as hath been already proved the Case is now altered A New Law and a New Church-State in Respect of the External Administration thereof was now to take place in the World So that the terms of their former standing in the Church would not suffice for their standing now For nothing short of Actual Faith and Repentance or an External Profession thereof could be now sufficient which Qualifications not being to be found in Young Infants whether those of Believers or those of Vnbelievers they were therefore both broken off as well the one as the other of them Secondly In this Respect therefore it ought to be duly considered that the Holy Scripture doth conclude us all by Nature to be in a state of Vnbelief and Children of wrath as well as others and such we continue from our Infancy 'till converted and wrought upon by the Grace of the Gospel A vain thing it is therefore to pretend unto a Faith wrought in us from our Natural Birth as the Seed of Believers For Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God Rom. 10. 17. As the ordinary means by which it is wrought in us And this way of Conveyance little Infants as well those of Believers as those of Vnbelievers being uncapable of they are therefore all of them till then to be reckoned as the Scripture concludes them in a state of Vnbelief Rom. 11. 32. And this being the true state of the Case No wonder if the Children of Believers as well as others were broken off from the Olive Tree the Church the terms of standing therein being now altered as hath been declared Mr. Allen indeed also tells us that since the Jewish Infants were under the former Administration at the Call Election and Appointment of God admitted with their Parents as Visible Members of the Jewish Church And since the Gifts and Callings of God are without Repentance Rom. 11. 29. We have Reason therefore to conclude that the Infants of Christian Parents have the same Right to a Visible Church-Membership now as theirs had then But then Mr. Allen should have considered that though the Gifts and Callings of God are indeed without Repentance in respect of the Inward Substance of the Covenant of Grace Or of an Invisible Membership in the Invisible Church yet it doth not therefore follow that they are without Repentance in Respect of an External Membership in the Visible Church but are and were Repealable as by sad Experience it is found to be too true by the main Body of the Jewish Nation Children and all who by Reason of their Vnbelief are actually and undeniably both Parents and Children also un-Church'd broken off and rejected to this very day True it is as the Apostle also tells us if they abide not still in Vnbelief they shall be graffed in again And he there also tells us God is both able and willing so to do But then we must also remember that as they and their Children were both broken off because of Vnbelief upon which very Account they do both still continue broken off to this very day So therefore as a Just and a Necessary
Blessings and the Eternal Inheritance were first made to Christ Personal and in Him they are made over to his Mystical Body the Church who are united to Him by Faith And in this respect therefore it still lies upon you to prove that God hath made the Natural Birth Priviledge a way under the Gospel Administration to be Ingraffed into Christ Mystical So that upon the whole as to this you may see to how little purpose the Promise in Gen. 17. 7. is alleadged to Prove the thing in Question to wit the Baptism of Infants now under the Gospel That Text speaks of a Covenant made with Abraham and his Seed It doth not say with all Believers and their Seed or all Church Members and their Seed Neither doth it follow by any necessary Consequence that because GOD made a Covenant with Abraham and his Seed therefore He hath made a Covenant with Believers and their Seed Certain it is the Apostle was of another Mind who when he Expounds the Covenant of Grace understands it to be made to Abraham not as a Natural Father but as the Father of the Faithful both Jews and Gentiles Rom. 4. 11. 12. He received the Sign of Circumcision that he might be the Father of all them that Believe and walk in his Steps So Gal. 3. 7. Know ye therefore that they which are of Faith the same are the Children of Abraham And those only are the Seed to whom the Gospel Covenant was made and not to the Natural Seed either of Abraham or any other Believers Which hath been already made appear and that beyond any just Contradiction Object 13. But then it is yet again Objected That in the Commission Mat. 28. The Apostles are there commanded to Teach or Disciple all Nations Baptizing them But Infants are Disciples and therefore to be Baptized To this we Answer That by that very Commission Mat. 28. The Lord hath plainly given a Caution for the leaving out of Infants in this Administration according to ordinary Rule For in that he directs them to Baptize Disciples upon Preaching he doth exclude Infants who are not such Disciples nor according to ordinary Providence can be Infants after an ordinary rate are uncapable of understanding the Gospel when Preached and therefore are uncapable of being made Disciples thereby And there is no other way according to an ordinary Rule of being at all made Disciples but by that means And this the Apostles could easily understand as knowing that under the term Disciple in common Speech and in the whole New Testament those only are meant who being taught Professed the Doctrine Preached by such a one As John's Disciples Christ's Disciples the Disciples of the Pharisees and the Disciples of the Perverters Acts 20. 30. And accordingly they Administred Baptism And in that Christ appoints these to be Baptized he Excludes others For the appointment of Christ is most certainly the Rule according to which we are to Administer Holy things and they that do otherwise follow their own Inventions and are guilty of Will Worship If you say that Infants are Disciples Seminally in and by their Parents as if Believers could beget Believers or Disciples of Christ by natural Generation this hath been already at large disproved The Christian Church being not made up of Persons by meer humane Birth but Spiritual Regeneration And to say that Infants are Born Disciples by a Relation to the Covenant and so may have the Seal set on rhem without any precedent Teaching is but an unproved Dictate as if a Title to Baptism were by a Relation to the Covenant and Baptism were in its Nature a Seal of the Covenant which the Scripture no where Affirms nor is there any Rule for the Baptizing of Persons because of Relation to the Covenant But it is further Urged to this purpose that Infants are called Disciples by the Apostle Acts 15. 10. Now therefore why tempt ye God to put a Yoke upon the Neck of the Disciples Which being spoken of Circumcision must needs say you refer to Infants as the Disciples there spoken of as well as others To this we Answer That there is no necessity nor colour of giving to Infants the Name of Disciples from that Text For though it is true that they are called Disciples upon whose Necks the false Brethren would have put the Yoke of Circumcision yet this proves not Infants to be certainly meant by Disciples since adult Believers of the Gentiles also were required by the Jews to be Circumcised as Timothy Acts 13. 20. And again though it is true that they would have had Infants as well as the converted Gentiles to be Circumcised yet the putting the Yoke of Circumcision is not Actual Circumcision in their Flesh For that the Jews were able to bear for many Ages and that both before and since also to this day But the Yoke of Circumcision is the Necessity of it on Men's Consciences and therewith the whole Law of Moses ver 5. and that as Necessary to Salvation ver 1. And therefore Peter having said ver 10. Why tempt ye God to put a Yoke upon the Necks of the Disciples Adds ver 11. But we believe that through the Grace of the Lord Jesus we shall be saved even as they Plainly implying that the Yoke he meant was the necessity of Circumcision and keeping Moses his Law to Salvation Now this Yoke was not put upon Infants but upon Brethren taught the necessity of it So that upon the whole to insist upon a Command by virtual Consequence from hence for the Baptizing the Infants of Believers according to ordinary Rule is so far from being right and genuine that on the contrary this Text Mat. 28. 19. clearly proves Infants are not by ordinary Rule to be Baptized because Disciples of all Nations and no other are Appointed thereunto Whence it follows that the Baptism of Infants is beside the Institution and Rule of Christ and therefore no other than Will Worship and a Humane Invention Obj. 14. But the Infants of Believers even while they are Infants are capable of being made Partakers of the Inward Grace of Baptism as well as grown Men And therefore they ought to receive the outward Sign of Baptism Reply The Question between us is Whether the Infants of Believers universally or indifferently are to be admitted to the Ordinance of Baptism according to ordinary Rule Now it cannot be supposed that the Infants of Believers indifferently or vniversally have actually the thing signified by Baptism that is the Holy Ghost Vnion with Christ Adoption Forgiveness of Sins Regeneration and Eternal Life For then they are all Sanctified and all Believers And if this could be proved there would be no Question about Padobaptism Those Texts Acts 8. 37. Acts 10. 47. Acts 11. 17. would undeniably prove it And there is no Antipaedobaptist but will grant that all those concerning whom there is any tollerable Evidence given that they are Regenerated Persons Vnited to Christ whose Sins are
of Duty Choice and Sanctity is joined with it in order to the Production of the end so mentioned p. 243. Thirdly They that Baptize Children make Baptism to be wholly an Outward Duty a Work of the Law a Carnal Ordinance It makes us adhere to the Letter without regard to the Spirit and to Relinquish the Mysteriousness the Substance the Spirituality of the Gospel Which Argument is of so much the more Consideration because under the Spiritual Covenant of the Gospel of Grace if the Mystery goes not before the Symbole which it doth when the Symboles are Cognations of Grace as the Sacraments are yet it always accompanies it but never follows in Order of Time and is clear in the perpetual Analogy of Holy Scripture Fourthly That the words mentioned in St. Peter's Sermon Act. 2. which are the only Records of the Promises are interpreted upon a weak mistake The Promise belongs to you and your Children Therefore Infants are actually Receptive of it in that Capacity That is the Argument But the Reason of it is not yet discovered nor ever will For to you and your Children is to you and your Posterity to you and your Children when they are of the same Capacity in which you are receptive of the Promise But he that whenever the Word Children is Exprest understands Infants must needs believe that in all Israel there were no Men but all were Infants And if that had been true it had been the greater wonder that they should overcome the Anakims and beat the King of Moab and March so far and Discourse so well for they were all called the Children of Israel p. 233. Fifthly Whereas 't is Argued from the Commission Mark 16. 6. He that Believeth and is Baptized shall be Saved Infants are Believers and therefore according to the Commission they are to be Baptized Whether Infants saith he have Faith or no is a Question to be disputed by Persons that Care not how much they say and how little they prove First Personal and Actual Faith they have none For they have no Acts of Understanding And besides how can any Man know that they have since he never saw any sign of it neither was he told so by any that could tell Secondly Some say they have Imputative but then so let the Sacrament be to that is if they have the Parents Faith or the Churches then so let Baptism be imputed also by Derivation from them And as in their Mothers Womb and while they hung on their Mothers Breasts they live upon their Mothers Nourishment So they may upon the Baptism of their Parents or their Mother the Church For since Faith is necessary to Baptism and they themselves confess it by striving to find out new Kinds of Faith to dawb the matter up such as the Faith such must be the Sacrament for there is no Proportion between an Actual Sacrament and an Imputative Faith this being an immediate and necessary Order to that And whatsoever can be said to take off from the necessity of Actual Faith all that and much more may be said to excuse from the Actual Susception of Baptism The first of these Devices was that of Luther and his Scholars the second of Calvin and his And yet there is a Third Device which the Church of Rome Teaches and that is that Infants have Habitual Faith but who told them so How can they prove it What Revelation or Reason teacheth any such thing Are they by this Habit so much as disposed to an Actual Belief without a Miracle Can an Infant sent into a Mahometan Province be more confident for Christianity when he comes to be a Man than if he had not been Baptized Are there any Acts precedent concomitant or consequent to this pretended Habit This strange Invention is absolutely without Art without Scripture Reason or Authority but the Men are to be excused unless there were a better p. 240. To which saith he This Consideration may be added that if Baptism be necessary to the Salvation of Infants as the Fathers of Old and the Church of Rome and England since upon whom is the Imposition laid To whom is the Command given To the Parents or the Children Not to the Parents for then God hath put the Salvation of Innocent Babes into the Power of others and Infants may be damned for their Fathers Carelessness or Malice It follows that it is not necessary at all to be done to them to whom it cannot be prescribed as a Law and in whose behalf it cannot be reasonably entrusted to others with the Apendant Necessity And if it be not necessary it is certain it is not Reasonable and most certain it is no where in terms prescribed and therefore it is presumed that Baptism ought to be understood and administred according as other Precepts are with Reference to the Capacity of the Subject and the Reasonableness of the thing And again p. 242. If any Man runs for Succour to that exploded Cresphugeton that Infants have Faith or any other inspired Habit of I know not what or how we desire no more Advantage in the World than that they are constrained to answer without Revelation against Reason common Sense and all the Experience in the World Sixthly But Tradition saith he by all means must supply the place of Scripture and there is pretended a Tradition Apostolical that Infants were Baptized But at this saith he we are not much moved for we who rely upon the written Word of God as suffcient to establish all true Religion do not value the Allegation of Tradition And however the World goes none of the Resormed Churches can pretend this Argument for this Opinion Because they who reject Tradition when it is against them must not pretend it in the least for them But if we will allow the Topick to be good yet how will it be verified For so far as can yet appear it relies wholly upon the Testimony of Origen for from him Austin had it Now a Tradition Apostolical if it be not consigned with a fuller Testimony than of one Person whom all other Ages have condemned of other Errors and whose Works saith â—rasmus are so spurious that he that reads them is uncertain whether he read Origen or Ruffinus therefore will obtain so little Reputation amongst those who know that things have upon greater Authority been pretended to be received from the Apostles but falsly that it will be a great Argument that he is Ridiculous and Weak that shall be determined by so weak Probation in matters of so great Concernment But besides that the Tradition cannot be proved to be Apostolical we have very good Evidence from Antiquity that it was the Opinion of the Primitive Church that Infants ought not to be Baptized which saith he is clear in the Canon of Neocaesarea which he mentions at large in the Original Greek determining that none ought to be Baptized without giving an Account of their Faith and desiring the same And
the sprinkling of a little Water upon the Face Thirdly It appears to be so from the Practice and Usage we find hereof in Scripture and the Opinion of the Learned upon it First in the Story of Christ's Baptism we read Mat. 3. 5. That Jesus came from Galilee to Jordan unto John to be Baptized of him And ver 16. When he was Baptized he went up straitway out of the Water The Learned Cajetan upon the place saith Christ ascended out of the Water therefore Christ was Baptized by John not by sprinkling or by pouring Water upon him but by Immersion that is by dipping or plunging in the Water A Second Scripture considerable is that of John 3. 23. And John was Baptizing in Aenon near Salim And the Reason why he pitch'd upon this place is given because there was much Water there Piscator upon the place tells us This saith he is mentioned to signifie the Ceremony of Baptism which John used in Dipping or Plunging the whole Body of a Man standing in the River Whence he saith Christ being Baptized by John in Jordan is said to ascend out of the Water A Third Scripture worthy our notice is Acts 8. 36. 38. As they went on their way they came unto a certain Water and the Enuch said See here is Water and they went down both into the Water both Philip and the Enuch and he Baptized him And when they were come up out of the Water c. Upon which place Calvin saith We see what Fashion the Ancients had to Administer Baptism for they Plunged the whole Body into the Water The use is now saith he that the Minister casts a little Water only upon the Body or upon the Head A Fourth Scripture we shall mention is Rom. 6. 4. Buried with Him in Baptism Where the Apostle elegantly alludes to the Ceremony of Baptizing into Death and Resurrection with Christ Cajean upon the place saith Thus we are Buried with Him by Baptism into Death by our Burying he declares our Death from the Ceremony of Baptism because he who is Baptized is put under the Water and by this carries a Similitude of him that is buried who is put under the Earth Now because none are buried but dead Men from this very thing that we are buried in Baptism we are Assimulated to Christ buried or when he was buried Keckerman Syst Theol. l. 3. c. 8. Says that Immersion not Aspersion was the first Institution of Baptism as it doth plainly appear from Rom. 6. 3. The Assemblies Annotations upon the place do say That in this Phrase the Apostle seemeth to allude to the Ancient manner of Baptizing which was to dip the Party Baptized and as it were to bury them under Water for a while and then to raise them up again out of it to represent the Burial of the Old Man and our Resurrection to newness of Life The like saith Piscator and Diodate upon the place Dr. Cave also a great Searcher into Antiquity in his late Book called Primitive Christianity saith p. 320. That the Party Baptized was wholly Immerged or put under Water which was the almost constant and universal Custom of those times whereby they did most notably and significantly express the great end and effect of Baptism c. And most remarkable is the Testimony that Mr. Baxter himself gives to this Truth As to the manner saith he It is commonly confessed by us to the Anabaptists as our Commentators declare That in the Apostles times the Baptized were dipped over Head in Water though we have thought it lawful to dis-use the manner of dipping and to use less Water In his Third Argument against Mr. Blake All which Arguments from the Genuine Sense of the Word Nature of the Ordinance usage of the Ancients were excellently Inculcated by the Learned Dr. Tillotson in a Sermon Preached at the Lecture in Michael's Cornhill London April 15 1673. From Rom. 6. 4. Therefore we are Buried with Him by Baptism into Death c. Proving from thence that Dipping or Plunging was the proper Ceremony and Rite in the Ordinance And how naturally Arguments did arise from that Sign in Baptism to inforce Holiness and Mortification the Thing Signified thereby Therefore to alter this Rite from Dipping to Sprinkling spoils quite the Symbole and makes it another thing And you may as well take a Wafer Cake or a whole Loaf to represent Christ's broken Body as sprinkling a little Water to represent or figure out his and our Death Burial and Resurrection by And how cometh it to pass that many are so exactly curious about that other Ordinance of the Supper so as to make the gesture of Kneeling a ground of Separation and yet to be so Negligent and Inconsiderate in this And if it be Evil in Papists not to break Bread nor to Eat but to lift up shew and Swallow down whole the Host when Christ did break Bread and bade eat it then it necessarily follows that it is as Evil when He bids Baptize not to do it but to Rantize and instead of Baptizing into the Name of Christ Dead and Risen to Water him that hath no Understanding thereof So that when the Minister saith I Baptize thee to an Infant and doth no more he speaketh that which is not true and deceives those that take it at his Word for Christian Baptism So that thus then we have distinctly and plainly proved you to be defective both in respect of the Internal and External Constituent parts of this great Ordinance that is both in Matter and Form both which are Essentially requisite to the true Constitution or Being of it by which it is manifest that Infants Baptism is a meer Nullity and that which Christ will not own And if it be said that the right Words of Baptism were used it being done in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit We Answer that so there was also in Baptizing of Bells and Churches which yet in your own Judgment is so far from making it a right Ordinance the true Subject being wanting that it is no less than a great Prophanation thereof and a miserable taking the Name of God in vain And therefore certainly Jesus Christ one Day will discover that he takes it not kindly at the Hands of his Professed Friends that of their own Heads and without his Warrant upon a Presumptuous Supposition of unwritten Indulgence having taken it upon them to alter the Subject as well as the manner of the Administration of an Ordinance so Sacred and Venerable as Baptism is As for the Cavils of unseemliness and hazarding of Health to the weak in the way of our present Practice as they are the Fruits of Carnal Wisdom and Vnbelief so it is no other than to reproach the Wisdom of Christ that so Ordained it telling us however the World may call it undecent yet that thus it becometh us as it did himself to fulfill all Righteousness And as they that have or shall see the
be no just Inferrence drawn that because Infants were Fellow Covenanters with their Parents under the Legal Administration that thus it is now under the Gospel For since it is Evident that the Law or Covenant it self is changed as the Apostle Expresly affirms it is Heb. 7. 12. It doth as plainly follow that the Seed is changed The Gospel Covenant that Believers are now under requiring other manner of Subjects than the Legal did as hath been already proved in the foregoing parts of this Discourse § 19. 'T is true in the time of the New Heavens and the New Earth before spoken of God hath promised not only to Circumcise the Heart of his People but of their Seed also to love the Lord their God with all their Heart and with all their Soul That they shall teach no more every Man his Neighbour and every Man his Brother saying know the Lord For they shall all know him from the least of them to the greatest of them That they shall be all Righteous they and their Offspring also the Branch of God's Planting that he may be Glorified But that will be such a time and state of Perfection as we cannot now pretend unto And therefore as the State and Condition of God's People now is vastly different from what it was with them under the Law so it is no less vastly different from that State of Blessedness which both they and their Offspring also shall be Advanced unto at the time before mentioned So that what ever Priviledge the Off-spring of God's People shall then be Invested with It hath been already proved that God hath now appointed that such only as are Capable of making a Profession of Faith and Repentance are to be accounted as Visible Members of the Gospel Church according to the present Frame and Constitution thereof § 20. To conclude the present Point Since it hath been now so plainly proved That the Covenant which the Infants who were then Church-members did pass into was not a Covenant of Grace properly so called whereof Christ is Mediator nor a Gospel but a Legal Covenant or a Covenant of Works and that which is now Repealed From hence it unavoidably follows and that according to Mr. Baxter's own Grant that the Church-membership of Infants which was built upon it or as he saith Inseparably Conjunct is also Repealed with it And since the main Pillar for the support of this new Doctrine of the Church-membership of Infants under the Gospel fails as it doth it of necessity follows that all the other Arguments which Mr. Baxter hath mustered up to the same purpose to the number of no less than 26. and those again Multiplied and Sub-divided into a great many more are all of them wholly Insignificant also Since no other consideration whatsoever can sufficiently demonstrate the continuance of it under the Gospel unless it could have been proved that in its 〈◊〉 Institution it had a Gospel Covenant for the Foundation theâ— But the Contrary having been so plainly proved it follows with an equal necessity and that according to Mr. Baxter's own Concession that there is no shadow of pretence left to assert the Church-membership of Infants under the Gospel Administration that now is And if the Arguments for their Church-membership do all of them fail as we cannot but see they do From hence it also plainly follows that the Practice of Infants Baptism which is Built thereon must of necessity fall to the Ground as having no Scripture Foundation left it for the Support thereof And consequently it is as Evident that Mr. Baxter's Book called Plain Scripture Proof of Infants Church-membership and Baptism carries with it nothing else but an empty Title Vox praeterea nihil SECT X. FRom what hath been already said it appears that Mr. Baxter and others have much to Answer for that 〈◊〉 are guilty of such gross Mis-applications of the word of Truth for the uphold ing of Infants Baptism besides the unrighteous charges of Murder and Adultery which he and they have so strongly Laboured to fasten upon those of a contrary Practice from themselves in respect of Baptism as is Evident in reference to the foregoing Argument and as hath been already also manifested in respect of his and their Corrupt Glosses upon Acts 15. 10. concerning the Discâ—pleshâ—p of Infants Now therefore why tempt ye God to put a Yoke upon the Neck of the Disciples which neither we nor our Fathers were able to bear As if Infants were intended by the Disciples there mentioned when not only in that Chapter but in the whole New Testament besides those only are meant by Disciples who being taught professed the Doctrine Preached by such a one As John's Disciples Christ's Disciples the Disciples of the Pharises and the Disciples of the Perverters And accordingly Baptism was Administred unto such as were made the Disciples of Christ by Instruction and unto none other pursuant of the Commission Mat. 28. 19 20. as hath been sufficiently opened and Explained in the foregoing parts of this Discourse And no less Blameworthy is he and they in respect of their Corrupt Interpretations of those Scriptures Luke 9. 47 48. Mat. 18. 5. â—nd Mark 9. 41. which speak of the Receiving little Children â—â— Christ's Name c. As if all those Scriptures were intended of Young Sucking Infants whereas they are plainly spoken of such little Children only as were capable of Believing in Christ which tender Sucking Infants after an ordinary rate are utterly uncapable of And therefore when Mat. 18. 2. we are told that Jesus called a little Child and set him in the midst of them and tells them ver 5. Who so shall Receive one such little Child in my Name Receiveth me It is Expressly Added ver 6. Who so shall offend one of these little ones that believeth in me c. Whereby we may easily perceive what kind of little Children Christ would have us Receive in his Name or under the Notion of his Disciples not Infants that are uncapable of Faith or of Discâ—pleshâ—p by Instruction without which it is impossible after an ordinary rate to be a Disciple according to the true and proper acceptation of the Word But such little Children as did actually Believe in Christ And who can deny but that such are Christ's Disciples Church-members and the proper Subjects of Baptism And the very same Expression with that in Mat. 18. 6. we meet with Mark 9. 42. Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that Believe in me c. Upon the very same occasion ver 37. the like Abuse hath been put upon those Words 1. Cor. 7. 14. Else were your Children unclean but now are they Holy As hath been already also Manifested in the foregoing parts of this Discourse which needs not here to be repeated § 2. As for Mr. Baxter's Argument for the Church-membership of Infants under the Gospel from Rev. 11. 15. where we are told that upon the Sounding of the Seventh
24. For so it vvas to the Jevvs that is to shevv them the Nature of Sin and the Holiness and Righteousness of God to convince them of their Sin and Misery vvithout Christ and their necessity therefore of a Saviour Rom. 7. 7 12. 13. And for this purpose it still serves to all Men in an unregenerate State Rom. 3. 19. But though the Lavv doth indeed shevv us our Necessity of Christ and our Misery vvithout him yet it doth not bring us to Christ as our Translation hath it for that is the Work of the Covenant of Faith only Rom. 10. 6 7 8 9. And that as it stands opposed unto the Legal Covenant ver 5 6 c. § 4. There is a double Enquiry made by the Apostle saith Dr. Owen on Gal. 3. vvith respect unto the Law or the Covenant of Sinai 1. Vnto what end in General it served 2 Whether it were not contrary to the Promise of God Unto both these the Apostle ansvvereth from the Nature Office and Work of that Covenant For there vvere tvvo things in it First a Revival and Representation of the first Covenant of Works vvith its Sanction and Curse Secondly A Direction of the Church unto the Accomplishment of the Promise From these tvvo doth the Apostle frame his Ansvver unto the double Enquiry laid dovvn And unto the first Enquiry Vnto what â—nd it served He Ansvvers It was added because of Transgressions The Promise being given there seems to have been no need of it Why then vvas it added to it at that Season It was added because of Transgressions The fulness of time vvas not yet come vvherein the Promise vvas to be Fulfilled Accomplished and Established as the only Covenant wherein the Church was to Walk with God or the Seed was not yet come as the Apostle here speaks to whom the Promise vvas made In the mean time some Order must be taken about Sin and Transgression that all the Order of things appointed of God vvere not Overflovved by them And this vvas done tvvo vvays by the Lavv. 1. By Reviving the Commands of the Covenant of Works vvith the Sanction of Death it put an Avve on the minds of Men and set Bounds unto their Lusts that they should not dare to run forth into that Excess vvhich they vvere Naturally inclined unto It vvas therefore added because of Transgressions that in the Declaration of God's Severity against them some Bounds might be fixed unto them For the knowledge of Sin is by the Law 2. To shut up Vnbelievers and such as vvould not seek for Righteousness Life and Salvation by the Promise under the Povver of the Covenant of Works and Curse attending it It concluded or shut up all under Sin saith the Apostle ver 20. This vvas the end of the Lavv for this end vvas it Added as it gave a Reviveal unto the Covenant of Works Dr. Owen's Exposition on the Hebrews 3 d. Vol. p. 231. § 5. It is true that Scripture Gal. 3. 24. vvhere the Apostle tells us that the Law was our School-Master to Christ that we might be Justified by Faith is strongly urged by some to prove that the Law must needs be therefore a Covenant of Faith But it is Evident that the School mastership of the Lavv and the Covenant of Faith are tvvo quite different things as appears by the Words before and after ver 23. Before Faith came saith he we were kept under the Law shut up unto the Faith which should afterward be Revealed ver 24. Wherefore the Law was our School-master to Christ that we might be justified by Faith ver 25. But after that Faith is come we are no longer under a School-master So that the Schol mastership of the Lavv is one thing and the Covenant of Faith another For vvhen the one cometh the other ceaseth When the one takes place the other vanisheth The Lavv therefore could not be a Covenant of Faith it being here so plainly Opposed or Contra distinguished thereunto Accordingly the Apostle elsevvhere assures us that the Law Written and Engraven in Stones was a Ministration of Death and Condemnation 2. Cor. 3. 6. 7. 9. And consequently gave no hopes of Relief to the Miserable Sinner as the Covenant of Faith doth It convinc'd him indeed of the dreadful Nature of Sin and of the Infinite Purity and Holiness of Gods Nature and Being against whom it had Sinned but it left no Room for Repentance For Cursed is every one saith the Law that Continueth not in all things which are Written in the Book of the Law to do them Therefore it is calld the Hand-writing of Ordinances that was against us which was contrary to us which Christ took out of the way nailing it to his Cross Col. 2. 14. So that the Law could not possibly be a Covenant of Faith It being constantly represented to us in the Scripture as being of a vastly different Nature therefrom and that in the very Essence or Substance thereof The one being a Ministration of Death and Condemnation the other a Ministration of Life and Peace SECT III. WE are told indeed by Mr. Obadiah Segdwick in his Discourse upon the Covenant of Grace p. 175. That the Covenant made with the People of Israel at Mount Sinai was at least subserviently the Covenant of Grace a Covenant of Grace for the Substance of it though propounded in a more dark way and in a manner fitting for the State of that People and that present time and condition of the Church § 2. But this is but an Evasion and serves for no other purpose than to darken the Truth For the thing is plain that the Law was as much a Covenant of Works as that made with our First Parent The Jewish Legal Covenant saith Dr. Annesly in his Sermon upon the Covenant of Grace Morning Exercise p. 122 Neither admitted of Faith in the Redeemer nor Repentance of Sin For Pardon of sin and Curse for Sin are Inconsistent Gal. 3. 10. As many as are of the Works of the Law are under the Curse For it is Written Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are Written in the Book of the Law to do them As many as depend upon the Works of the Law for Justification are under the Curse And the Law saith he discovered no other way of Justification but by Works Mr. Cooper also in the same Morning Exercise p. 117. tells us That Moses his Law is opposed to the Covenant of Grace as another Covenant upon this very distinguishing account of Obedience and Faith Works and Grace as you may see saith he at large among other Places Heb. 8. 6 7 8 9 10 c. § 3. The Law therefore was not so much as Subserviently a Covenant of Faith much less for the Substance of it so for it is quite another thing and is constantly so represented unto us in the Scriptures The Apostle saith indeed The Law was our School-master to Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He doth