I shall acknowledge that Circumcision whiles it lasted as Gods Ordinance did testifie that the partition-Wall still stood between Jew and Gentile and Baptism after the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ testified that it was broken down but not so when it was first instituted and Administred by John Baptist nor by Christs Apostles before his Death For the Partition-Wall stood then Math. 10.5 6. They might not go into the way of the Gentiles c. Secondly But how do you prove that Baptism testified that Barbarian Scythian Jew and Gentile were all one in Christ Baptism indeed after the death of Christ was a Seal of the New-Covenant under the New-Testament-Dispensation wherein the God of Grace extended it not only to the Jews but the Gentiles also giving a free offer of it to the unconverted-Gentiles to bring them in and an assurance of the enjoyment of the blessings of the Covenant to those that were brought in as well as to the Jews But this is accidental to Baptism to signifie or testifie that they were all one in Christ it was Christs Commission enlarged to which Baptism was annexed which properly and immediately testified that the difference between Jew and Gentile was removed And by this Dispensation of the Covenant they were all one in Christ though Baptism had never been annexed to it Thirdly But suppose it were as you assert must not Baptism succeed into the place of Circumcision because it hath more Ends and Uses than Circumcision had Or because it hath some Ends and Uses that Circumcision had not Will you deny the Soveraign Lord God the Liberty to enlarge his Grace in these Gospel-days Both Circumcision and Baptism are Seals of God's Covenant and each of them suitable to that manner of Dispensation of it unto which they are appropriated Your reasoning therefore is ex falso supposito to wit That that cannot succeed into the Room and Place of another thing whose Ends and Uses differ in some circumstances though for the main substance they signifie the same When you have proved it solidly you may expect it may be Embraced and not before This general Answer will reach the rest of your Ends and Uses wherein you say they differ Now to the third This is as if one should say the Ammonites did not succeed the Zanzummims and dwell in their stead because they were not Gyants as they were Contrary to Deur 2.20 21. 3. Circumcision say you Initiated the Carnal Seed into the Carnal Church and gave them right to the Carnal Ordinances but Baptism was to give the Spiritual Seed an orderly entrance into the Spiritual-Church and a right to partake of spiritual-Ordinances To which I Answer 1. They were initiated Externally by the Covenant into the Church before they were Circumcised and thereby they had a right to Circumcision as hath been proved before which was the Sign Seal of their Initiation 2. It seems to be a carnal Expression to call the Church in Abraham's Family a carnal Church The Church of the Jews indeed when they became National had a worldly Sanctuary Heb. 9.1 and carnal Ordinances v 10. but that it was a Carnal Church is an Expression that I find not in the Holy Scripture and I dare not call it so By Worldly Sanctuary he means the Tabernacle and all the External glory of the Levitical Service only as it was the Earthly-Representation of Heavenly things by which Earthly shadows they were by Faith to look at Heavenly things which were the substance And Carnal Ordinances Either because the Levitical Ceremonies were severed from the things they signified as the Carnal Jews took them and rested in them Or because carnal things were used in those Ordinances to represent Spiritual But as they were joyned with their significations so See Mr. Dick. son on Heb. 9. there were Promises of Atonement made and annexed to them which True Believers did enjoy If it were a Carnal Church and no Spirituality in it how then could any be saved in it The faithful then no doubt did look at Christ in those Carnal Ordinances to wit the Bulls and Goats and other things that were offered in Sacrifice and Christs Spirit was among them Hag. 2.5 Isa 63.11 3. Baptism was not to give the Spiritual Seed an orderly entrance into the Spiritual Church as hath been proved before but was to signifie and Seal the Entrance they had by God's Covenant before they were Baptized even as Circumcision was by your own Confession p. 223. 4. You do not here plainly tell us who those Spiritual Seed are but by the Current of your discourse it appear's you mean only True Believers in Christ and then what makes an Hypocrite in any of your Congregations Why was he Baptized 5 Nor do you here tell us what you mean by Spiritual Church and Spiritual Ordinances I conceive you mean a visible Gospel-Church and Gospel-Ordinances which if opposed to Carnal-Ordinances must signifie the plain and simple Ordinances of the Gospel representing Christ as in a Looking-Glass 2. Cor. 3. ult and not under the Veil of Ceremonies where the Blood of Bulls and Goats and other Carnal things were used by God's appointment to signifie and set forth Christ unto them Let us now gather up the sum of your Argument If Circumcision Initiated the Carnal Seed into the Carnal Church and gave them right to the Carnal-Ordinances But Baptism the Spiritual Seed into the Spiritual Church and gave them a right to Spiritual Ordinances then the End and Use of both is not the same and so Baptism doth not succeed into the Room of Circumcision At Ergo Besides the flaws in the Antecedent I deny the consequence of the Proposition For 3. By your own arguing the End and Use of Both is to enter them as you say into the Church and the Church in Abraham's Family where Circumcision began was the Church of God a Spiritual and not a Carnal Church as you term it and their Ordinances then were few and fit to represent Spiritual things unto them suitable to that time And as for Circumcision it was not one of those Legal Ceremonies but a Seal annexed to God's Covenant in Abraham's Family long before the Ceremonial Law consisting of Carnal Ordinances was given Yea afterwards when the Ceremonial Law was brought in whose Ordinances in some sence are called Carnal yet it appears they had a Spiritual signification led to Christ Gal. 3.24 therefore in a right sence Spiritual Ornances as to their signification and tendency Hence the End and Use of both as to the main substance is the same and therefore Baptism may well succeed into the Room of Circumcision by your own Argument And so I come to your fourth Use 4. Circumcision say you was to be a Bond and Obligation to keep the whole Law of Moses but Baptism witnessed that Moses Law was made void and that only Christ's Law was to be kept I Answer Your Assertion is doubtful for want
dispensed to Abraham and his Family with respect to a visible-Church-Estate and by that Covenant so dispensed by God and received by them they became the Church of God 4. That the natural seed and Children of Abraham and the rest of the members of that Church in his House were externally and ecclesiastically within that Covenant of Grace I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Gen. 17.7 which is meant not only of his Spiritual Seed but also of his Church-Seed in their Generations v. 9. 5. That Circumcision was then by God's appointment the ordinary Initiatory-Seal of that Covenant under that Ecclesiastical Dispensation 6. That the Male-Infants of those inchurched Parents were then signed and sealed with the Seal of Circumcision as well as their Fathers 7. That it is the same Covenant of Grace that was made with Abraham as to the substance of it that is now come upon us Gentiles 8. That there are Temporal Blessings included in the Covenant now as well as Spiritual 9. That now in these Gospel-days there is an External and Ecclesiastical Dispensation of this Covenant as well as there was heretofore to the Church in Abrahams Family whereby visible Gospel-Churches are constituted 10. That Children of an Inchurched-Parent are now within the External and Ecclesiastical-Dispensation of this Covenant mediate members by means of their Inchurched-Parents as well as heretofore the Church-Seed of Abraham 11. That Baptism is now by God's appointment the ordinary Initiatory Seal of the Covenant under that External and Ecclesiastical-Dispensation instead of Circumcision of old 12. That all the Legitimate-Infants of Inchurched-Parents being Disciples and mediate-Members ought to be baptized as well as Infants of Old were Circumcised God having now enlarged his Grace and given such a Seal as Females might partake of as well as Males and Infants as well as their Parents A friendly Answer to H. D. about Infant-Baptism CHAP. I. IN Page 105. of your Book you say we shall find both Example and Command for Women's receiving the Lords Supper and in Pag. 106. you say Let but as good Proof appear for Infants-Baptism and it shall suffice I shall now essay by the Lord's help to make as good Proof appear if not better that is clearer 1. The Example you bring is out of Act. 1.14 we read say you That Mary and other Women were gathered together and that these Women with the rest of the Disciples were alltogether in one Place and continued stedfastly in the Apostles-Doctrine and fellowship and breaking of Bread and Prayers Acts 2.42 44. It being expresly said that all that Believed were together You take this to be an evident Example that Women received the Lords Supper therefore that there is ground in Scripture to admit them but that there is not the like Example of any Infants that have been Baptized In Answer to which I shall first premise four Things in general and then Answer more particularly 1. I am not against inchurched-Women's-receiving the Lords Supper any more than against inchurched-Men but do believe they have an equal right unto it whil's they continue in a right estate in the Church But 2. This Example that you bring and the Command also as afterwards I shall shew is not express nor so clear as you make it to be 3. That there is as much room for Objections against it as there is for Objections against the Baptizing of Infants as I hope I shall make appear and that there is as much evidence and clearness for the latter as you judge to be for the former 4. All the evidence that your Example and Command will afford you for Womens receiving the Lords Supper you must deduce by way of consequence and that very darkly too from what you bring And if so I hope you will use the same candour integrity and right Reason in allowing what will rationally follow from the Scriptures that shall be produced for the Baptizing of inchurched-Infants Veniam dabimus petimusque Vicissim Now more particularly to your Example 1. It is not here expresly-said that these Women were Believers Act. 1.14 but you must gather it by consequence from this and other Scriptures compared together 2. That this Assembly was not the same that is not mentioned Acts 2.42.44 For this was to constitute a new Apostle in the room of Judas and wâ—â— somewhat before as appears Acts. 2.1 The other is spoken of the multitude of Jews and Gentiles converted afterwards when the day of Pentecost was fully-come and the Spirit given in that miraculous gift of Tongues 3. Here is no express-mention that those Women were in and of that great Assembly Acts 2.42 44. who continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of Bread and Prayers How do you know but that they might be dead or sick or upon some other occasion absent as Thomas was before John 20.24 As here is nothing exprest to the contrary so nor any thing expresly affirmed that they were present 4. Nor is there any express-mention of any other Women in that great Assembly Acts. 2.42 44. though afterwards there is Chap. 5.14 when the number was increased If it be objected that Sapphyra is afterwards mentioned Acts. 5.1 2. I Answer neither doth that expresly and directly prove your Assertion For 1. It is not expresly said that she was a Member of the Church though by consequence we may gather she was 2. If she were It is not said that she received the Lords Supper for she might be dead before she received it 3. You cannot say she was one of those that are spoken of Act 2.42 44. for she might be one of those that were afterwards converted to the Christian Religion Cap. 3. and Cap. 4. when the number was much increased Chap. 4.4 to five thousand Men. 5. The words upon which you lay the stress of Womens receiving the Lords Supper here are in express-terms against you though you take them expresly for you your words to prove that those Women did receive the Lord's Supper Acts 1.14 with Acts 2.42.44 are these It being expresly said say you that all that believed that all that believed were together Let us now fairly-examine the Greek Phrase and we shall find it expresly of Men and not of Women I doubt not but you know the Gender of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth expresly limit it to men and not to Women As if he had said all the Men that believed were together continued in the Apostles Doctrine c. and in breaking of Bread And if you examine the rest of the Chapter Acts 2. You shall find it spoken expresly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of and to men and not women yea some of them the same men that are said to believe and to continue in the Apostles Doctrine and breaking of Bread In v. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every Man heard them speak not woman In v. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
and to Baptism ought to Answer that Rule and Order which you mention in Chap. 1. of your first part But there is another Rule and Order for the Infants of Inchurched-Parents which will also come under Christ's Commission as hath been already proved Such Infants being Disciples and mediate members of the visible Church and so to be Baptized as well as their Parents are Disciples and Immediate Members and so to be Baptized if they were not Baptized before we therefore need no other Commission nor Institution for them than what Christ hath in general already given which I desire may be seriously considered CHAP. III. To Chapter four where you Treat of the Spiritual End and Vses of Baptism which you say Infants are not capable of I Answer 1. IN general that divers of those you mention are peculiar to grown persons which I shall grant but do not at present concern Infants and Children in minority Some others of them I wholly except against as shall appear in the particulars 2. In particular 1. To your first End That the Baptized might have that represented in a signe or figure ☞ According to this no Hypocrite should ever be Baptized any more than an Infant which I have often occasion to mind you of and preacht to his Eye which had been preacht to his Ear and heart by the Word Spirit of God a sign of the whole Mistery of the Gospel which Infants wanting understanding and judgment are no more capable of than a Stock or a Stone This is the sum of what you say To which I reply That it is indeed requisite that grown-persons to be Baptized should first be instructed in the Mysteries of the Gospel as the Eunuch was Acts 8.34 35. But it is not so with Infants but they are afterwards to be instructed in them and to be taught when they grow up Deut. 6.7 and be instructed in the meaning and signification of the Sacraments as of old they were and Children should when grown ask as they were to do Exod. 12.26 What mean you by this service See v. 27. and Exod 13.8 and should improve it as an Argument to stir them up to cry to God for Regenerating-Grace Besides it is of Use to the Parents and to the Church also as shall be shewed who have the use of Reason The want of the use of Reason in an Infant is no essential defect as to the External susception of Baptism The Child is meerly-Passive in admitting it and so is the Soul in Regeneration which is in a special manner signified in that Ordinance And we should adore the wonderful Wisdom and Goodness of God that hath so suited the sign to the thing signified which the Child should afterwards labour for 2. To your second that the party Baptized might thereby witness his Repentance I conceive it a mistake For those Scriptures Mat. 3.11.3.6 and Acts 2.38 do declare that those Adult persons were first to witness their Repentance which is set forth by confessing their sins and then to be Baptized Else John Baptist must have acted blindfold and might have Baptized the Pharisees among the rest which he did not Luke 7.30 Because they did not testifie their Repentance though they came to his Baptism Math. 21.31 32. And as for them Acts 2.38 It 's expresly said Repent and be Baptized Repentance must be manifested by them yea and also enter into the Gospel-Church which they did by gladly receiving the Word viz. of the Covenant held forth afresh unto them v. 39. before they were Baptized v. 41. So that Baptism was not to witness the Repentance of the Adult person to be Baptized but he was to witness it before that he might be Baptized 3. To the 3. I Answer That the End of Baptism is not to evidence present Regeneration If you mean it of Adult-persons that was to be evidenced before to the judgment of the Rational-Charity of the Church And in reference to Infants it is not requisite that Regeneration should precede or be at that present when they are Baptized Yet who can say peremptorily of this or that Infant that it is not regenerated Doubtless God doth Regenerate Elect-Infants that die in Infancy though in a way and time unknown to us But more particularly 1. I suppose you will not hold that all that you Baptize are certainly at present Regenerated Sad experience shew's you the contrary The most you can say is that to the best of your judgment they are And how then can your Position and Practice stand together 2. There ought to be and regularly is in an orderly Gospel-Church visible-present-Regeneration in one of the Parents at least to the Rational judgment of the Church unto which such a parent is a Member and in a right estate And this is enough to entitle the Child to Baptism by virtue of that everlasting-Covenant under an Ecclesiastical dispensation Gen. 17.7 I will be thy God and the God of thy Seed Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore v. 9. that is Circumcise every Male v. 10. 3. God's Covenant to in-churched-Parents in reference to their Seed is to Regenerate them Deut. 30.6 The Lord thy God will Circumcise the heart of thy Seed And for that end to give them means of Grace And this Promise such Parents should improve for their Children and so should the Children themselves when they come to years of discretion 4. Baptism now as Circumcision of old is a seal of God's Covenant as Ecclesiastically dispensed that is in a visible-Church way and accordingly so closed with and accepted It is not Immediately the Seal of Regeneration but indefinitely of God's Covenant of Grace Externally and Ecclesiastically-dispensed and received within which inchurched-Parents-Children are I will be thy God and the God of thy Seed therefore Circumcise all thy Males Gen. 17.7.10 11. from all which it follow 's that Baptism is not immediately to evidence present Regeneration but to be a Seal of God's Covenant in which future Regeneration is conditionally implied as no inconsiderable thing held forth by it Your self have granted that both Circumcision and Baptism do signify heart-Circumcision 5. According to your Assertion no Insant should have been Circumcised for your self do afterwards grant which I heartily congratulate that there is a parity between Baptism and Circumcision both of them serving to the same end If so then Circumcision signified and sealed spiritual things in the Covenant to Infants-circumcised Not that they were at present Regenerated but God was before-hand with them leaving them a conditional-Promise under Seal to Regenerate and Circumcise their hearts which was no small encouragement to them when grown and to their Parents at present to pray for Regenerating-Grace for them Yet according to what you hold this they should have been deprived of because Circumcision as well as Baptism should be a sign and an evidence of present Regeneration and not of future by your Assertion 6. A Parent entring into a Church-Estate engages
himself and his Seed to God to walk according to his Covenant of Grace to which the initiatory Seal of the Covenant is annexed And God hath engaged himself in that Covenant to be his God and the God of his Seed Deut. 17.7 And both the Parent and his Seed also when come to years of discretion should improve this Covenant and the Seal of it not only for forgiveness of sins by Christ's Blood but more immediately that God would be a God unto them to give and continue means of Grace and Conversion and give his Spirit along with those means to convert and bring them to Christ and then by his Blood to wash them from their sins and make them Heirs of Eternal Life And thus when one Baptized in Infancy is afterwards truly Converted he hath then the spiritual good and virtue of his Baptism and may by the help of the Spirit of Grace look back upon his Baptism with comfort and have that Answer or rather demand and Interogation of a good Conscience 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pleading with God for forgiveness of sins and Salvation by the merit of the Sufferings Obedience and Resurrection of Jesus Christ who hath purchased them for him and signified and sealed them by his Baptism whensoever he should truly believe in Christ And this may serve for an Answer to your fourth and fifth End also in part you shall find more when we come to speak of dipping upon which your reasoning is built in your fourth End 4. To the sixth End you mention which is to represent the Vnion betwixt Christ and a Believer c. p. 25. I would first ask you whether all such grown-persons as you Baptize be true Believers in Christ and so have indeed a spiritual and saving-Union with Christ for that 's your scope and to that purpose speaks your testimony out of Dr. Taylor But this is so contrary to Truth and to your own experience that I think you will not dare to maintain it 2. I answer Christ may be considered Personally or mystically again either Spiritually or Ecclesiastically Eph. 1.22 23. 1 Cor. 12.12 So is Christ Now Umon with Christ is suitable to this distinction All true Believers in Christ are Spiritually united to him 1 Cor. 6.17 and shall be certainly saved by him Others that make a profession of true faith in Christ but have not indeed a true faith may be united to Christ as Ecclesiastically-considered that is they may be visible Members of Christ's visible Church See John 15.1.2 3 4 c. Christ is the Vine and Believers both Real and feigned are the Branches in a different respect True Believers are Living-Branches and bring forth fruit in Christ unto Eternal Salvation false and feigned Believers are dead Branches that are for the fire even for everlasting fire If then these dead Branches be in Christ Ecclesiastically to wit Members of him as head of the Church visible why then should the Infants of Inchurched-Parents be excluded from such an External Union with Christ because they do not at present truely Believe but are dead branches at present Though it is more than you or any man can peremptorily say that this or that Infant hath no work of Grace begun in him nor is spiritually-united to Christ 3. Suppose an Infant hath a secret work of Grace begun in him which undoubtedly God doth work in Elect-dying Infants then according to your Doctrine such an Infant should be Baptized because he hath Union with Christ and yet he can make no profession of Faith and so you cannot know it 5. To your seventh End I answer that the End of Baptism I conceive is not that the Baptized Person may orderly thereby have an entrance into the visible Church Nor was Circumcision of old the visible door of Entrance into the Old-Testament-Church For Baptism presupposeth the person to be a Member of the visible Church and so did Circumcision And though some of those that are for Infant-Baptism use such expressions yet I suppose by their discourse in other places they mean that it was only a solemn establishment and sealing of that Covenant in which they were before In Gen. 17. God comes to Inchurch Abraham and his Family whom Abraham had prepared by his instructing them before Gen. 18.19 And so some expound Gen. 14.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 His Catechised servants And this he doth by making his Covenant with him in a Church-way Intimated more generally v. 2. repeated and something expressed peculiarly belonging to Abraham v. 4. Then more clearly and fully in v. 7. I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy Seed after thee in their Generations for an everlasting Covenant to be a God unto thee and to thy Seed after thee Then he presseth it again v. 9. and verse 10. brings in Circumcision the Seal of it Rom. 4.11 the token of the Covenant between me and you saith the Lord v. 11. which he also calls the Covenant because it was not only an Adjunct to the Covenant as every Seal is but also being instituted of God to be annexed to the Covenant and required of them it was a part of the Covenant it self which they might not neglect And hence the careless omission and neglect thereof was a breaking of God's Covenant v. 14. By what hath been said appear's that the End of Circumcision was not to give entrance into the old Testament-Church for they were entred by the Covenant and that the End of Baptism which answers to Circumcision is not to give entrance into the new-testament-New-Testament-Church for they were entred before by their interest in the Covenant of which Baptism is a token and a Seal To put an end to this Chapter we hold with you that none ought to be admitted to the Lord's Supper that have not been before baptized from the Analogy between these and the two Sacraments of old No uncircumcised person shall eat thereof Exod. 12.48 And hence I cannot see how some that are against Infant-Baptism and hold it a Nullity can admit them to the Lord's Supper who in their judgments have never been Baptized And here I cannot but take notice of your partiality you make use of Analogy in this case but will not allow of it in the case of Baptizing of Infants from Infants being Circumcised of old CHAP. IV. I shall here take the occasion to shew distinctly the Ends and Vse of the Baptism of Infants 1. TO the Infants themselves when grown up God's Covenant and Baptism the seal of it will be of use to the Child afterwards to encourage him to seek the Lord for converting Grace I will be thy God and the God of thy Seed hath no small argument in it David knew it when he said Thou Solomon my Son know thou the God of thy Father 1 Chron. 28.9 My God and my Fathers God Exod. 15. Thus were the Jews to make use of their Circumcision Deut. 30.4 with Jer. 4.4 The Lord
natural Seed of Inchurched-Parents be now ceased in these Gospel-days what then mean's that Scripture Rom. 11.28 spoken of the Israelites to be called in these latter days That they are beloved for the Fathers sakes It would be sad and lamentable if believing-Parents now under the Gospel should have no such Priviledge left them in reference to the eternal Estates of their poor Children Heretofore Church-Members had a promise that God would be the God of their Seed and Circumcise the hearts of their Seed to love the Lord with all the Heart and all the Soul Gen. 17.7 Deut. 30.6 but now by the coming of Christ it is ceased This is sad indeed What visible grounds of hope of any saving Grace or Mercy have Inchurched-Christians now in reference to their Children more than Turks and Pagans have Durus Sermo yet some have been so bold as in plain terms to say so But are they ceased indeed when and where hath God repealed them Not by John the Baptist as we have made appear Nor could I yet ever see that he hath done it by any other hand Hence therefore they must be in force still Hath God given his people promises of food and raiment and other temporal things for their encouragement and comfort 1 Tim. 4.8 and left them no promise at all now in Gospel times to help their faith concerning their poor Childrens eternal Estate whose souls they prize more than their own lives The Apostle saw something in it when he said we that are Jews by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles Gal. 2.15 And why not also in a safe sence Christians by nature and not sinners of the Turks or Pagans who are yet strangers from the Covenants of promise Eph. 2.12 as the Gentiles generally then were You will say we are all by nature Children of wrath Eph. 2.3 And was not Paul and those Jews so too and yet the Apostle makes that distinction between them And whence was it but from God's Covenants in which they externally were even before their Coversion And why there should not be the like Priviledge of Children of Inchurched-Parents I never yet could see And hence such a child may go to God and plead Lord thou art my Fathers God Exod. 15.2 and hast promised to be my God And a Parent may go and plead Lord thou hast promised to be my God and the God of my Seed and to circumcise their hearts to Love thee Deut. 30.6 with Gen. 17.7 O! let it be so according to thy promise Thou hast said I will pour my Spirit upon thy Seed and my blessing upon thine offspring Isa 44.3 and then one should say I am the Lord 's c. see v. 5. they should engage themselves to the Lord and to his Church by the strongest bonds And this is a Gospel-promise and belonging to Gospel-times and a great part of that blessing of Abraham that is come upon the Gentiles Gal. 3.14 Why then should any contradict it Is not the second Commandment still in force to parents in Church-Covenant with God in reference to their Children whom they have given over to God in his Covenant Hath he not there said He will have mercy on thousands of them that love him and keep his Commandements That is on such Parents as give up themselves to God in the Commands of his Instituted Worship in reference to their Children Psal 112.1 2. even to a thousand Generations Deut. 7.9 But repayeth them that hate him to wit in a sinful neglecting or rejecting his instituted Worship to their face v. 10. And this is one way whereby God doth testifie it even by rejecting their Children so as not to vouchsafe them the External Priviledge of his Covenant and means of Grace See an eminent instance of it in Esau and his posterity who sold his birth-right Heb. 12.6 which was then a Church-Priviledge and is therefore called a profane person and so lost the blessing from himself and his see the like in Ishmael and his Generations I conclude then that John Baptist did not upon that change discharge the Church-Seed of Abraham which I shall yet a little further explain by opening the Children of the Flesh and the Children of the Promise which are accounted for the seed Rom. 9.6 7 8. 1. Negatively 1. By Children of the flesh cannot be meant the natural Children of believers as their natural Children Nor 2. Their Children that have only sin and corruption in them for then Isaac must have been a Child of the flesh For he was the natural Son of Abraham and by nature sinful 3. By Children of the promise cannot be meant only such as are really-converted For many that were of Isaac's Posterity and so Children of the Promise were not so and some in Gospel-Churches are not so now 2. Affirmatively First by Children of the Flesh are meant 1. Of old Ishmael and his Posterity begotten by strength of nature which was the Type 2. Now in Gospel-times all such as look for righteousness and life by their own personal performances or abilities whether in whole or in part and that not only invisibly but visibly and Ecclesiastically also as the Apostle said of Jerusalem in his time Gal. 4.25 Jerusalem that now is the Antitype of the other in bondage with her Children Secondly by Children of the Promise are meant 1. Of old Isaac and his Posterity in the line of Jacob which was the Type 2. Now in Gospel-times all such as look for righteousness and life alone by faith in Christ his righteousness only according to the Covenant of Grace And these again are either 1. All such as are true believers indeed who look by a true and lively-Faith to Christ and his Righteousness only 2. Or such as profess only and pretend to do so but indeed do not These latter seem and appear to be Believers to Men to the visible-visible-Church but are not really-such before God Yet even these are Children of the Promise in the genuine sence of the Scripture and not Children of the Flesh in the Apostles sence Gal. 4.21 22 23 c. God doth and will indeed distinguish between the spiritual seed and those that are meerly the Church-seed of Abraham but Men cannot unless by some miscarriages they discover themselves and appear to be what they are as Simon Magus did Acts. 8.23 And thus under one we have an exposition of that Eâdem fideliâ duos parietes Gal. 3.7 They which are of Faith the same are the Children of Abraham they which are of Faith to wit true Believers indeed as Abraham was are Spiritually and savingly the Children of Abraham And they which are of Faith to wit Believers in appearance only before the Church only they are only Ecclesiastically the Children of Abraham And this is sufficient to entitle them to Church-Ordinances and their Children to Baptism the initiatory Seal of the Covenant And this also helps us to expound Gal. 3.29 If ye be Christ's then are
or as Externally and Ecclesiastically Dispensed Now if you take both of these together in sensu composito in a compound sence then I grant that the Covenant is no larger than the Vein of Election but they run parallel But if they be taken in sensu diviso in a divided sence for Election only unto Eternal Life and Salvation and Saving-Graces then I deny them to be equal For there is also an Election of some unto External Church-Covenant-Ordinances and Priviledges who are not Elected unto Salvation A Church-Member living and dying in Hypocrisie was within the Covenant Externally and Ecclesiastically dispensed Else how came he to be a Member of the Church which consists by the Covenant which is as the Cement that joyn's them together Yet such a One was never in the Vein of Election unto Eternal-Life which is absolute and not conditional as some Blasphemously hold Hence when it is said the Covenant is no larger than Believing that is It belongs to none but true Believers It is thus to be understood to wit as to the enjoyment of the saving benefits of it it belongs as Immediately to none but true Believers but as to the External proposal and tender of them and Ecclesiastical and Temporary Priviledges of the Covenant so it may and doth belong not only to true Believers but also to such as make a credible profession of true Faith in a visible congregation though they be not true Believers indeed to their Children also To conclude this If the Covenant be no larger than the Vein of Election unto Salvation and no larger than true Believing then some of these absurdities must needs follow 1. Either there must be no Hypocrite in any visible Church for he is not in the Vein of Election to Eternal Salvation and therefore Matth. 13.37 38 39 c. 47 48 49 50. not within the Covenant and this is flatly-contrary to the Scripture and to known experience see also Rom. 9.1 2 3 4. 2. Or if there be any Hypocrites in the visible-Church they must be certinaly-Elected to Salvation For Being in the Visible Church they are within the Covenant as hath been proved and the Covenant being no larger than Election they must of necessity be Elected 3. Hypocrites in the visible-Church must be Damned or Saved Damned they cannot be because they are within the Covenant as I have proved And the Covenant being of the same Latitude with Election they are Elected to Salvation and must not be Damned or if they be God must change his Decree which is Blasphemy even to think Again Saved they cannot be for God never Elected any unto Salvation that lived and died Hypocrites and he will not change his mind And hence according to that Tenet Hypocrites can neither be Damned nor Saved 4. If the Covenant be no larger than Election unto Eternal Life and Salvation and no Infants are in the Covenant then all Infants-dying must be damned For according to this Opinion they being not in the Covenant are not Elected and not being Elected cannot be saved unless the unchangeable God change his Decree that is change himself Hence we see that what we hold is free from that absurdity which you would fasten upon it and the absurdity lies at your own Door But it seem's all my labour is in vain that I have spent in proving this Holiness of Children 1 Cor. 7.14 to be a federal-Holiness because say you Be the Holinese here what it will it is neither here nor else-where assigned to be a ground of Baptizing Children upon c. To which I Answer 1. That if this Holiness be federal which you acknowledge all Children under the Law had yea I shall also add as the Children Inchurched in Abraham's Family had which was long before the Law then if those Children were by God's appointment sealed with the Initiatory Seal Circumcision the same Covenant that God made with Abraham and his Seed being come upon us Gentiles Gal. 3.14 with Acts 2.39 Our Inchurched Children also are to be Sealed with the Initiatory Seal of the Covenant now under the Gospel Especially considering this that God hath never revoked it but hath brought Baptism into the place of Circumcision Col. 2.11 12. And you your self grant so much implicitely in saying that Circumcision and Baptism serve to the same end and that there is an Analogy in some things betwixt the one and the other Pag. 223. But 2. I have already proved out of Christs Commission that Inchurched-Parents Children are Disciples and so federally Holy and by the same Commission to be Baptized And the reason why Women and Females under the Law were not Circumcised nor commanded to be Circumcised was because of an Incapacity in Nature they having no Praeputium or Foreskin as the Males had and what other Reason there might be is hid from us With Reverence I may say It could not suit with the Wisdom and goodness of God dealing with his people in the way of a Covenant of Grace to command a thing impossible I pray what was there in the first Institution of Baptism in John the Baptists time concerning the Baptizing of Women We hear nothing of them expresly till a long while after Acts 8.12 And as for their right to and receiving of the Lord's Supper I suppose we have shewn you as much obscurity in it as you can object to us concerning the Baptism of Inchurched Infants CHAP. IV. Answer to your Arguments of Circumcision examined p. 204. and to the Questions you make and Answers seven in all Quest 1. WHether Circumcision called the Gospel-Seal did belong of old to all in Gospel-Covenant First you deny Circumcision to be the Seal of the Gospel-Covenant to all Believers and so do I there were many Believers before Circumcision was instituted and so they could not be Sealed by it Be it so that Circumcision was tied to the Church in Abraham's Family and afterwards to Jacob and his posterity Might not God do with his own what he would What if God denyed it to others out of the Church in Abraham's Family and afterwards in Jacob's posterity that people might joyn themselves to them as Proselytes which is most probable Are not many Believers without the Seals of the Covenant now because they do not or cannot joyn themselves to a Gospel-Congregation Will you therefore deny Baptism and the Lord's Supper to be the Seals of the Gospel-Covenant to all Believers Are they not instituted of God to be Seals unto them if they come in a right way to enjoy them Again you say there were some to whom the Covenant did not belong who received that called the Seal of Circumcision as Ishmael You indeed Answer this your self in the next words when you say This Covenant was not to be Established with him but with Isaac Gen. 17.20 21 25. It was not to be Established with him to be made to stand and abide with him He doth not say that the Covenant in
that External-Dispensation did not belong to Ishmael or that he was not in the Covenant in that Ecclesiastical administration of it when he was Circumcised from what was he cast out was it not from the Covenant against which he mocked in Isaac Gen. 21.9 10. and from the Church and the External Priviledges of it in which he was Externally before Here you again miss it because you do not distinguish between the Covenant in its several administrations Some of those you mention that you say were not Sealed with Circumcision were within the Covenant Spiritually and Savingly others that were Sealed were in the Covenant Ecclesiastically and Externally to which latter sort alone Circumcision was annexed Some were only Ecclesiastically in it and some others were both And some only Spiritually and not Externally and Ecclesiastically Your Argument therefore makes not against us at all for you speak not ad idem and so there can be no opposition If you had dealt as an artificial and candid Disputant you would have singled out that wherein the difference lay and have opposed that only and not have fallen into the Paralogism of Ignoratio Elenchi of the mistake of the state of the Question This Answer concerning Ishmael will serve to the rest and I see no cause to doubt whether the New-Covenant-Promises under this Ecclesiastical-Dispensation did belong to all the strangers in Abraham's House that were Circumcised according to God's appointment They were part of Abraham's Church-Seed Quest 2. Whether the New-Covenant and that mentioned in Gen. 17. be the same To which the sum of your Answer is that the Covenant in Gen. 17. was a mixt-Covenant as the Seed was which you thus explain to wit as Abraham by Promise stood in a double Capacity to wit The Father of a Nation to wit the natural Israelites So to be also a a Father of many Nations comprehending the Spiritual Israel whether Jews or Gentiles And so accordingly the Promises say you were of two sorts sometimes respecting his natural Seed whether Domestick or National who were say you Typical of the Spiritual c. and others again respecting in a peculiar-manner the spiritual Seed the Family of the Faithful viz. the Elect of whom through Christ he was Father and which are Evangelical and in special manner belonging to the New-Covenant And hence you infer that much of the mistake and errour lies in this by applying that to the one which belongs to the other for want of distinguishing the promises that are often so mixed that the one may be taken for the other I shall first gather up the sum of this into divers positions and then give in my Answer 1. You say The Covenant in Gen. 17. was a mixt Covenant to wit because the promises of it were partly of Temporal partly of Spiritual things I suppose this to be your meaning 2. As the Seed was and so you make the Covenant to depend upon the Seed which you say were Natural-Israelites or Spiritual Israel the Elect. 3. You say the Natural Seed was Typical of the Spiritual 4. That the Temporal Promises respected his natural Seed and the Spiritual and Eternal ones his Spiritual Seed viz. Elect and true Believers 5. And that these Spiritual and Eternal or Promises of Eternal and Spiritual Blessings do in special manner belong to the New-Covenant now in these Gospel-days I judge this to be the sum of what you assert To which I reply 1. That the Covenant in Gen. 17. was no more a mixt Covenant than the Covenant is now in these Gospel-days The New-Covenant doth not now exclude Temporal Blessings Godliness hath the Promise of this Life and of that which is to come 1 Tim. 4.8 The Lord indeed then made them an express Promise of Temporals the Land of Canaan which was also a Type of Heaven and Promises of Spiritual and Heavenly things more covertly and sparingly And now he makes Promises of Spiritual and Heavenly things more clearly expresly and frequently and of Temporals more implicitely and sparingly May not you as well call this a mixt-Covenant 2. The Covenant doth not depend upon the Seed as you intimate but the Seed upon the Covenant The natural Seed then were the natural Children of Abraham running in the posterity of Isaac through Jacob and his posterity And these Natural-Seed of Abraham were also his Church-Seed and to these the Covenant Externally-belonged as also to the Proselyts and their Children The Spiritual Seed of Abraham that were Elected to Eternal Salvation were also a part of that Natural and Church-Seed God promised to be a God to both in a diverse respect And so he is now in these Gospel-days if rightly-understood Gospel-Churches are the Church-Seed of Abraham and God is their God Externally in Covenant as he was to the Church of old And he is the God of the Spiritual-Seed that are now those that are Elected unto Salvation to both in a diverse respect as before And your not owning of this is the fundamental cause of this Controversie which yet is so plain that I know not how you can deny it For are not Hypocrites in Gospel-Churches the Church-Seed of Abraham who profess such a Faith as Abraham did though they have not the Truth and reality of it Hypocrites they are and yet you look upon them as within the Covenant of Abraham and therefore you Baptize them and yet they prove not to be so at last I have spoken largely to the substance of this before 3. You say The natural Seed was Typical of the Spiritual As the Birth of Isaac to wit not by strength of Nature but by Promise which did prefigure those that are born of the Spirit and that look for Righteousness and Life alone by Faith in Christ I suppose this is your meaning according to Gal. 4.23 24 25 26. To which I Answer That this Spiritual Seed which you say is typified by the natural as it respects Gospel-times is to be considered either as such indeed or as such in shew and appearance only in the judgment of the Church who are to judg after the sight of their eyes and the hearing of their Ears and cannot look directly into the heart and know â priori as Christ doth by the power of his Godhead Isa 11.3 And thus it makes not against us but for us and against you For do not Gospel-Churches consist of the one as well as of the other Nay when Christ the Bridegroom shall come again will not the Kingdom of Heaven to wit some Gospel-Churches consist all of them of foolish Virgins which shall have Oyle in their Lamps to wit a profession and outward appearance of true Faith and Grace but no Oyl in their Vessels none of the Spirit and true Faith and Grace in their Hearts Matth. 25.1 2 3 c. What can be more plain 4. The Temporal Promises say you respected his Natural Seed and the Spiritual and Eternal-ones his Spiritual-Seed viz. the Elect and
the same Argument we may as well conclude that it cometh in the Room and stead of the Ark Manna Rock c. It is a grand mistake for Circumcision was one of the two Ordinary Sacraments and Seals of God's Covenant given to Abraham and the Church in his Family about four hundred years before the Ark Manna or that Rock you speak of Gal. 3.17 There were many extraordinary Sacraments that God appointed to that Nonage-people or Heirs under Age to use the Apostles phrase Gal. 4.1 2 3. which God in mercy gave to help their Faith upon special occasions and emergencies besides some that you mention to wit the Brazen-Serpent for one which was but occasional Jo. 3.14 15. But Circumcision was one of the standing Sacraments and Seals annexed to the Covenant under a Church-dispensation all along into the place of which Baptism by the Lord's-appointment is come which holds proportion with it in all the main things it signified and Sealed And hence 5. You will easily have an Answer to those Popish absurdities and abominations you would fasten upon our Tenent We do not affirm meerly from the Analogy that Baptism is come in the room of Circumcision for if we had not something out of Scripture to warrant it we durst not pin it upon a meer Analogy If therefore Papists or other superstitious wits by arguments drawn from Analogies bring-in Jewish Rites as High-Priesthood National Churches Orders of Priesthood and other innumerable Rites and Ceremonies without any Institution of Christ or New-Testament Authority we have as good ground left us in Scripture to convince them as you have and I hope should be as ready to do it as occasion shall be offerred And thus I have done with your sixth Question propounded long before and your Answers to it now come to the seventh Quest 7. Whether the not-Baptizing Infants makes the Priviledges under the Gospel less than the Circumcising them under the Law p. 205. which you somewhat alter p. 228. saying less than under the Law who had then Circumcision Your Answer is not at all and give your reasons why Not-Baptizing of Infants makes not Gospel-priviledges less than legal First they were not say you Circumcised because Children of Believers or sealed with a New-Covenant-Seal as being in the New-Covenant but upon the account of a Birth-Priviledge as of the natural lineage and Seed of Abraham as a Typical Shadowy thing c. I Reply 1. Were not their Parents professing-Believers at least under such a profession as suited that Dispensation Did they not attend upon the Sacrifices which pointed their Faith at Christ to come And were not they as they grew up to come before the Lord and say A Syrian ready to perish was my Father c. See Deut. 26.5 to v. 12. and there they were to worship before the Lord And afterwards v. 27. to avouch the Lord to be their God as he also avouched them to be his People v. 26. Was there no profession of Faith in all this 2. Were they not Sealed with the Seal of the Covenant of Grace under an external and Ecclesiastical Dispensation I suppose you will not say it was the Covenant of Works though when it became National it was given in somewhat a legal manner 3. What was that Birth-priviledge Did it not depend upon the Covenant Ecclesiastically dispensed and submitted to I will be thy God and the God of thy Seed Gen. 17.7 And did it not run in the natural Lineage and Seed of Abraham as they were his Church-Seed as hath been shewn I pray consider what were the Proselytes and their Children who were also Circumcised they were not at all the Natural Seed of Abraham but they were his Visible-Church Seed 4. You say Circumcision was to distinguish them from the Nations and to keep that line clear from whence Christ according to the flesh should come Suppose this last to be true of Abraham's natural Seed what was this to the Proselytes and their Seed from whom Christ was not to come yet they were to be Circumcised 5. You say there is no such thing in the Gospel the Body and Substance being come the shadow was to vanish and pass away no Birth-priviledge but the new Birth c. I Answer 1. There is no such thing as Bodily Circumcision in the Gospel that is indeed abolished But 2. That there is no Birth-priviledge of the Children of Inchurched-Parents under the Gospel but the new-Birth that I must deny and have already proved that there is And that that Birth-priviledge is a means and help tending to the New-Birth if it be rightly improved Christ is the common Father of Inchurched-Parents and their Seed now in these Gospel-days and they are Externally and Ecclesiastically Christ's and Abraham's Seed and in the same sence Heirs of Promise as hath been already proved And this Priviledge is not a Bondage and a returning to the Type and Shadow as you term it but a blessed Fruit of the Covenant made with Abraham who hath a Church-Seed now as well as heretofore What else is the Hypocrite that you admit if he be not one of Abraham's Church-Seed He is not one of Abraham's Seed Spiritually and Savingly nor hath the New-Birth indeed yet you judge him to have it Ecclesiastically and hence you Baptize him So much to your first Secondly neither ought such a thing say you to be any more esteemed the loss of a priviledge than our not enjoying literally a Holy-Land City Temple Succession of a High-Priest c. I Answer 1. The loss of Baptizing the Infants of Inchurched-Parents under the Gospel would be the loss of a great priviledge both to Parents and Children which under the Law they did enjoy For it would be a loss of that which signified and Sealed God to be their God and the God of their Seed and to Circumcise their hearts to love the Lord and to signifie their initiating into the Church by your own concession and this would be the loss of no small Priviledge and therefore we cannot easily bear this loss 2. It is the loss of a Priviledge also in reference to Temporal Blessings and External Ordinances and means of Conversion As Canaan was an External Blessing signified and Sealed to them by Circumcision so Temporal Blessings are to us and our Infants by Baptism Psal 111. For it is a Sign and Seal of God's Covenant wherein Temporal Blessings are also implied and in the Explanation of it by other Scriptures expresly promised So also for External means of Grace 3. It is the loss of a Priviledge also in reference to Heaven and Eternal Happiness there of which Canaan was a Type unto them that if they did truly Believe in the Messiah then to come and walk in the ways of God Eternal Salvation was Sealed unto them thereby All those we must lose and yet esteem the loss of them the loss of no Priviledge 4. There is not the like Reason of the loss of Baptism
and our not-enjoying a Holy Land City Temple and succession of a High-Priest c. For Circumcision was a Sign and Seal of the Covenant and so were not those things the high-Priest was a Type of Christ and that Type was fulfilled in him and we need no succession therein as there was before in the Priesthood which was appointed successively until the Time of Reformation Heb. 9.10 But as for the succession of Infant-Members of the Church I say Infant and Mediate Members that was long before the High-Priesthood in Abraham's Family and the Church there and is not of the same nature with the Priest-hood And whereas you make this succession Typical as that of the Priest-hood was I must crave leave to tell you that it is a Type of your own making and not of the Lord's and a Shadow of your own substance and therefore I must leave it to follow you I never yet could understand by any thing that I have read and heard nor have you as yet proved that the Infant-Membership and Circumcision of Children heretofore was a Type of the Membership and Baptizing only of Adult-Believers under the Gospel and that that priviledge which Infants of Inchurched-Parents had then by Generation from their natural-Inchurched-Parents was a Type of all Church-Members under the Gospel only by Regeneration When you have solidly and out of the Holy Scripture proved this I shall then consider of your Therefore towards the latter end of that Paragraph p. 229. But till then I shall conclude that we should to use your words be great losers by the bargain But perhaps your third with the Reasons thereunto will prove it I shall therefore fairly examine them Thirdly say you if it should be granted that Circumcision was a Seal of the New-Covenant belonging to all the Children of Israel yet would not the Baptizing of the Children of Believers answer it nor amount to so great a Priviledge nor be equivalent to it for these Reasons 1. Say you Because all the Families and Tribes of Israel and all Proselyted-strangers with their Children without distinction of good or bad were to be Circumcised but now in the time of the Gospel one of a City and two of a Tribe Believers are but thin sown c. I Answer first more generally That the Baptizing of the Children of Inchurched-Believers would fitly Answer it and would amount to so great a priviledge and be equivalent to it notwithstanding your Reasons More particularly to your first Reason were not all those Families and Tribes of Israel and all those proselyted-strangers with their Children of the Church of Israel Can you deny that If they were as indeed they were there was good Reason why they should be Circumcised And so we say Gen. 17. of Inchurched-Believers-Children now under the Gospel in reference to Baptism as long as their Parent continues in a right estate in the Church And this doth most fitly and rationally Answer to the other and is in the main substantials equivalent to it What you say of the Children of wicked Men if they be manifestly wicked they should not be admitted into the Church and if they afterwards appear to be wicked as Simon Magus did to continue impenitent they are to be cast out of the Church and so to be looked on as Heathens and Publicans Matth. 18.17 2. Say you You would be very short in another respect at an utter uncertainty when you had a right Subject for the Parent might be a Hypocrite or no Elect-person which is out of your reach to understand you cannot know whether the Child be fit for Baptism for the Seed of a wicked Man you must not meddle with by any means whereas there was not the least doubt or scruple in Israel as to the subject for the Father being Circumcised it was an infallible work they were right For Answer 1. I greatly suspect that for all you have written so much against Paedo-Baptists you are yet to seek of the right hinge of the Controversy I would rather suspect it is so than that you do it maliciously hoping that when you see the true state of it you will not be unwilling to let in the Truth and to see how strongly your grounds of arguing here against us will make against the way you plead for and practice I here assert that though the Inchurched-Parent should be a Hypocrite not discovered and no Elect-person to Eternal Salvation yet our Principle is His Child ought to be Baptized and we know his Child to be fit for Baptism We are not at an uncertainty much less at an utter uncertainty when we have a right subject but we are as certain as they could be in the Church of the Jews They knew the reputed Father of such a Child was a Member of the Church of the Jews and was Circumcised and we do as infallibly know that such a Parent now is a Member of a Gospel-Church and that he was Baptized They had those that knew the one and we have those that know the other as infallibly as they could know Obj. If it be replied that they could better prove their Parents were Jews than we that ours are Believers I Answer 1. They could not prove it while they were Infants any more than our's can that their Parents are Believers and yet the Infants were Circumcised at eight days old 2. There 's no necessity that a Child should prove himself to be the Child of a Jew before he was Circumcised It was the Churches Duty and the Ministers of it to look to that and not the Child's The like I say now of Children to be Baptized 3. Infants now when grown up can as well prove to the satisfaction of their Consciences if there be any scruple about it that their Parents were Inchurched-professing Believers as the others that their Parents were Jews They had the Testimony of the Church and Children now have as much Christ commends the Church of Philadelphia for their care in distinguishing between the true Members of the Church and those of the Synagogue of Satan Rev. 3.9 4. But suppose the Mother did secretly play the Harlot with a Gentile could the Child when grown prove his Father to be a Jew He could no better prove it than we that ours were Believers Unless you will say that wives now-a-days that have Believers to their Husbands are more to be suspected of secret uncleanness and unfaithfulness than the Wives of the Jews were The Mother can best assure the Child in this Case if the Churches testimony will not suffice him 2. My Second Answer to your second Reason will return the force of your Reason against your self I shall peremptorily assert that this absurdity which you would fasten upon us and our Tenent doth strongly reflect upon your self and yours We know our Subject we hold the Baptism of no Infants but of Inchurched-Parents one at least who are of the Visible-Church But you are at an utter uncertainty
thy God will Circumcise the heart of thy Seed Circumcise your selves to the Lord and take away the foreskins of your heart They should seek to the Lord to do it for them And you hold the End and Use of Baptism and Circumcision the same in some of the main things they signifie 2. To the Parents Baptism now as Circumcision of old is a comfort and encouragement to the Parents to stir them up and encourage their Faith to pray and wrestle with God for the Conversion of their Children and to train them up in the way that they should go I bless God I have experienced this to be a Truth and still do and would not leave this Priviledge in the behalf of my Children for all the World 3. To the Church also They have a present Use of the Baptism of Inchurched-Children for thereby they may reflect upon the rich Grace and Goodness of God to them and their Seed and be put in mind of their Duty to their Children to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Hereby also they are minded of their duty of watchfulness over the Parents of such Children to see that they train them up in the ways of the Lord A duty too much neglected And also to mind them of their engagement to such Children in case their Parents should die or be impoverished they having been solemnly consecrated to God in the presence of the Church and owned by them Lastly That it is the duty of the Church as well as of the Ministers of it to pray for converting Grace for such Children whom they have seen solemnly consecrated to God See the judgment and practice of the Waldenses afterwards and under the Seal of the promise of Regeneration CHAP. V. In your fifth Chapter p. 35. you would prove Believers-Baptism to be the only Baptism from the New-Testament-Dispensation so differing from that of the Old Testament-Church which you say was national consisting of the natural and fleshly Seed of Abraham TO which I Reply If by Old-Testament-Church in this place you mean the Church as it was first constituted in Abraham's Family Gen. 17. I must deny it to be National for it became not National till the Lord brought them out of Egypt and set up a National-worship amongst them at Mount-Sinai And this is expresly called the Old-Covenant in reference to the New-Covenant under the Gospel see Heb. 8.8 9. I will make a New-Covenant not according to the Covenant that I made with their Fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the Land of Egypt And to this that of the Prophet Ezekiel hath relation Chapter 16.8 I entred into a Covenant with thee and thou becamest mine Therefore the Covenant made with Abraham when God put him and his Family into a Church-Estate is not that National-Covenant which the Apostle calls the Old-Covenant Heb. 8.8 9. and now gives way to the New but is that blessing of Abraham which for the substance of it still remains and is come upon the Gentiles Gal. 3.14 But by the Old Covenant which is now out of doors is meant as the Lord himself explains it Heb. 8.9 That National-Covenant that he made with their Fathers when he led them out of Egypt unto Sinai the Moral Law being then given with Terrour and the Ceremonial Law annext unto it as their Schoolmaster to lead them to Christ then to come who by his death fulfilled it and put an end to it nailing it to his Cross Col. 2.14 And this is called the Old Covenant in reference to the New one made now in the Gospel-days which is the Covenant made with Abraham revived and freed from those loads of Ceremonies wherewith it was once burdened Now it is not new in respect of the main substance and essence of the Covenant for they are both the Covenant of Grace see Haggai 2.5 Gods Spirit was among them then see also Isa 6.3.11 but in respect of the new manner of Dispensation of it the Articles of Grace being now more express promises instead of precepts and the Seals of it more clear easy significant and suitable to a Covenant of Grace As the Commandment of Love is called an Old Commandment and a New-Commandment in a different respect only 1 John 2.7 8. so may one and the same Covenant of Grace be called old and new in a different respect Hence follows 1. That the Nationality of the Church of Israel did not consist in this that they were the natural and fleshly Seed of Abraham but by virtue of the Covenant dispensed in a national way after they came out of Egypt For God's promise to Abraham to wit I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy Seed after thee in their Generations for an everlasting Covenant to be a God to thee and thy Seed after thee was long before that Church became National 2. That worldly Sanctuary Carnal Ordinances a Temporary Levitical Priest-hood and multitude of Ceremonies did not belong unto the Church in Abrahams Family but were peculiar to the Church as National which began near about 400 years after Gal. 3.17 viz. when God brought them out of Egypt If by spiritual Seed of Abraham p. 36. you mean those that did truly and savingly Believe as you seem to take it for you do not at all distinguish between Spiritual and Ecclesiastical then it is apparently untrue For in the New-Testament-Church there was an Ananias and Sapphyra and a Simon Magus who yet were regularly admitted to the Church though they were not true Believers And here I must again return you to your own experience and practice Therefore upon that change John Baptist did not discharge that Priviledge of the Church-Seed of Abraham as you say he did I mean of the Infants of Inchurched-Parents from any such right in the New-Testament as you affirm But he speaks to the grown-persons that rested in that Priviledge and boasted of their being the natural Children of Abraham though they continued impenitent unregenerate slighting and rejecting Christ on whom John directed them to believe compare Math. 3.7 8 9 11. with Acts 4.19 not at all persorming their Covenant-duty In like manner we may now safely say to Children of Inchurched-Parents that are grown up and please themselves that they were the Children of such Parents and harden themselves in impenitency and unbelief as John did then Think not to say we are the Children of Godly-Inchurched-Parents This will neither free you from unquenchable fire nor bring you to Heaven nor admit you as Adult-Members into a Gospel-Church and into full Communion with the Saints therein in all Church-Ordinances but you must bring forth fruits meet for Repentance at least to the judgment of Rational-Charity or else you cannot be admitted thereunto This therefore doth not exclude the Infant-seed of a Parent admitted into a gospel-Gospel-Church and continuing in a right Estate therein If the Church-Priviledges of the