is not temporary but by an everlasting Covenant and faileth not Infants Covenant Interest is no branch of those priviledges which he saith are expired but on the contrary Dr. O. mentioneth this as one promise to the Church that God will be a God to them and their seed for ever Exercit. 6. on Heb. Neither doth this make three parties in the Covenant Abraham and his seed and their Infant seed any more than it did before the coming of Christ when Parents and their Infants made one joynt Subject all along as Isaac and his Children and Jacob and his and those Circumcised Josh 5. and theirs The Jews ungroundedly claimed all promises by their being the fleshly seed of Abraham but the spiritual seed may duly claim that promise for their Children there being nothing for the nulling of it Besides Dr. O. once and again there declareth that the Church is one and the same not one Church taken away and another set up in the room the Olive-tree is the same only some branches are broken off c. Infants were of the Church shew when they were all cast out the same that the Jews were broken off from the Gentiles were graffed into Rom. 11. Let any prove that the Church-state in the Substance of it was any part of that which was abolished by the death of Christ They were added to the Church Act. 2. 47. i. e. to the Church under its new administration By breaking down the partition wall the former confinement of the Church to the Natural seed of Abraham was taken off and it hath enlargement by the access of the Gentiles but is not straitned by excluding so vast a number as all the Infant seed The degenerate obstinate unbelieving Jews were broken off for the reformation of the Church but it was not dismembred by cutting off all the Infant seed who had actually done neither good nor evil nor had their Parents rejected the Covenant Some ordinances of worship expired and new were appointed as D. O. well observeth but I cannot find that God cast out any who formerly were members of it as Infants were without a forfeiture of their privilege Obj. 5. Infants are not capable of entring Covenant with God and if they were absolutely in it then God did not perform his promise because many prove wicked and if only conditionally then it is no more to them then others and what advantage by it A. 1. Infants were of old in Covenant and so are capable Gen. 17. v. 10 11 12. Deut. 29. v. 10 11 12. ye stand this day all of you your little ones that thou shouldst enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God So then little ones are in a capacity to be engaged by Covenant for the Lord. I may ask were they absolutely in it or conditionally 2. Some answer the Infant seed of Believers are in Covenant absolutely in the Species conditionally in the individuals Cobbet Many promises run to a Collective body as the Church and are accomplished there and yet may not be made good to every member particularly as it is promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church Mat. 16. 18. and yet Satan may prevail against particular Members or Churches So the Covenant of not drowning the World doth not secure every particular Man from drowning 3. As to advantages there are many as a Covenant-state is a state of greater nearness unto God then others are in is declared to be a priviledge Rom. 3. 1 2. and 9 4. and it is a misery to be strangers from the Covenants of promise Eph. 2. 12. many advantages I could discover of being externally in Covenant and thus Men may be in it and may so miscarry as to be rejected as Ishmael Esau the Jews Rom. 11. and yet God not break Covenant against Infants Baptism it is objected thus Obj. 6. Faith and Repentance are required before Baptism Mark 16. 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Act. 2. 38. Repent and be baptized If the Jews the natural seed of Abraham might not be baptized without Faith and Repentance much less others And such affirmative Precepts have their negative and so Infants not believing or repenting may not be baptized Ans 1. I freely grant that those which believe and repent are to be baptized but I deny the consequence that therefore Infants may not be baptized Such Texts conclude affirmatively that such may they do not conclude negatively that none else may as for example it is said Act. 8. 37. If thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest i. e. be baptized This doth not conclude negatively that none else may if any will say hence none may be baptized who do not believe with all their heart then they can baptize none for they cannot know that another doth believe with all his heart and Simon Magus who did not so yet was duely baptized Act. 8. 13. If it could be proved that it is intended exclusively then 2. It importeth that none but those who believe and repent of adult ones may be baptized it is not to be understood in opposition to Infants often affirmative Commands intend only capable Subjects and the negative part extendeth no further Thus as believing and repenting are commanded before Baptism so confession with the mouth is commanded before Salvation Rom. 10. v. 9. 10. If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus thou shalt be saved and with the mouth Confession is made unto Salvation Will any hence deny that any Infants can be saved because they do not confess with their mouth the Lord Jesus It is meant of adult ones only who are capable subjects So labour by a general term is commanded before eating 2 Thes 3. 10. We command you that if any would not work neither should he eat Will any conclude thence that Infants shall not eat because they will not labour So some commands about eating the Passover as with sower herbs are intended only for capable subjects not sick Persons or Infants That of preaching the Gospel to every creature Mark. 16. 15 16. is meant not to Infants but others So as to Baptism the command to believe and repent before it concerneth capable subjects only and the negative part only saith that adult Believers and impenitent ones may not be baptized it concludeth nothing against Infant Baptism That new Institution of Baptism was firstly to be received by the adult being given to a Church where many such are found and so it was proper to preach to them believe repent and be baptized and thus we going to Turks Indians or others where Baptism hath not come we may preach in the same language believe repent and be baptized without excluding Infants from it Yea of old the Proselites and Strangers must own the Jewish Religion make a profession of Faith and Love as Isa 56. v. 3. to 8. Exod. 12. and then had Circumcision for themselves and their Infant seed 3. Faith and
of water are said to Baptize or wash and v. 8. Luk. 11. 38. so in a sacred sense 1 Cor. 10. 2. and were all Baptized unto Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea. Who will say they were dipped in the cloud or their whole bodies plunged in the Sea but the cloud did sprinkle or pour water upon them So our pouring water on the face of an Infant in such a manner is truly Washing or Baptizing of it And seeing dipping or plunging is not prescribed by the Lord only washing yea if it were so as it were a sin to omit it yet for any to lay so great a stress upon that modality placing so much Religion in it as if all were hull without it I fear cannot be excused from Superstition which is ungroundedly charged upon others We answer the Scripture signification of the word Baptize and Conscientiously think that Christ hath left us to a liberty as to that mode hath not obliged us to submersion because whatever might be done in hot Climates yet in cold Countries such a usage would make the service of the Gospel worse then that of the Law against Mat. 11. 28. it would without a Miracle hazard life whereas God will have mercy rather than Sacrifice let us not then be censured for the omission of it Yea further the thing signified is answered by our Baptism in Infancy be it a sign of regeneration or of being buried with Christ Rom. 6. 4. Col. 2. 12. or both for either noteth Communion with Christ in his Death and that is expressed even by sprinkling ye are come to the blood of sprinkling Heb. 10. 24. Heb. 10. 22. sprinkling noteth the thing signified by Baptism and so may express Baptism the sign but we use washing by pouring water upon and that is expressive in both Eph. 5. 25 26. Rev. 1. 5. hath washed from our sins in his blood Tit. 3. 5. no necessity that Baptism should resemble his death or burial in every thing not in his being carried into the Sepulchre and being there till the third day they would not willingly be so long under water our being buried with him in Baptism is a metaphorical expression noting Communion sharing in his death which aptly is expressed by washing Obj. 1. But the first pure way of Baptizing was by dipping they went into and came out of the water Mark. 1. 9. Mat. 3. 15 16. Act. 8. 38. 39. and John Baptized in Arnon because there was much water there Joh. 3. 23. A. 1. If this was the mode or usage in those hot Climates then it is lawful there but it doth not follow that it is necessary in cold Climates much less so as it were a nullity without it 2. Some usages in the first administration of ordinances being extra-essential to them may lawfully be omitted afterwards in some cases circumstances much alter cases as the Passover must be brought the tenth day and kept till the 14th and the blood of it must be struck on the door posts in Egypt and be eaten in hast with loyns girded c. Ex. 12. but all these things were not duty afterward let it be proved that they were used by Christ and the Apostles Baptism was applyed to Christ at above 30 years of age to the Jaylor at midnight Act. 16. 33. So the Lords Supper was at first administred only to Men to the Apostles in an upper room at night yet all these things are not necessary duties for our imitation so as a variation is sinful 3. The words do not necessarily note any more than that they went to or unto and came from the water 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often rendred not into but to or unto as Mat. 15. 24. I am not sent but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to or unto the lost sheep so Act. 16. 40. Rom. 15. 16. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth from as Mat. 1. 17. from Abraham Mat. 7. 23. depart 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from me ye workers of Iniquity and 9. 15. Mark. 14. 2. Mat. 27. 45. Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 8. 39. is rendred as well from as out of Mark. 6. 14. from the dead Mat. 19. 20. from my youth not out of my youth And thus these Texts necessarily import only that they went to or unto from the water and however they might go into and come out of the water without dowzing or plunging their whole bodies into the water and it s said as much of Philip as of the Eunuch he went into and came out of the water Act. 8. 38 39. and will any say that he which Baptizeth must always plunge himself into the water 4. None of these Texts speak a word that the Baptizing was in the form of Submerston Dipping or Plunging it might be only by pouring water on them by washing for ought is said here As to Joh. 3. 23. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many waters may note that there were many rivelets here and there where he came which were not usual in those parts and however John having many hundreds perhaps thousands to Baptize in those hot Countries where he might go many miles for a little water to shew the conveniency of that place above others it might well be said he Baptized in Arnon because there was much water there and I am informed that Arnon is so shallow a water that no person can be overwhelmed in it And now what remaineth that can pretend to invalidate Baptism in Infancy if it be said their not being professed Believers or their wanting faith I add that God his declaring Infants visible Covenant Interest is as good an Evidence of their right to Baptism as the visible profession of faith can be And if the want of faith would render the Baptism a nullity then such as appear to be but formal professors they loose their Baptism and if they become real Believers afterwards they must be Baptized again If they object against the Administrator it falleth heavy upon themselves for according to their own principles how is it possible for them to find a regular Administrator If Infant Baptism be a nullity and Baptism be that which constituteth a Gospel Church or any person a member thereof as they affirm then their own Baptism is a nullity unless they can prove a lineal succession from John Baptist or the Apostles or that he which began their Rebaptizing work had an immediate call as John Baptist and the Apostles had For he that first began this Baptizing work in their way had no other Baptism but that in Infancy if that were null then was he an unbaptized person and no Church member neither could he make himself a Church member wanting that which should constitute him so viz. Baptism I ask what Scripture is there express or by consequence for an unbaptized person and no Church member to Baptize himself or others without an immediate call without that all Baptism and Church-membership in their way is
be a God to any is far greater than any temporal good whatsoever I shall now consider what is objected to prove a repeal of the Infant seeds Interest in the Covenant with Abraham and also against their Baptism Ob. 1. Mat. 3. 9. Think not to say within your selves we have Abraham to our Father Joh. 8. 33. we be Abrahams Seed None be the Children of Abraham but those that do the works of Abraham v. 39. if ye were Abrahams Children ye would do the works of Abraham and so Infants are not the Seed of Abraham A. 1. These are severe reproofs to a degenerate adult seed who trusted in their priviledge in having Abraham to their Father but speak nothing of cutting off all Infants from a Govenant Interest which they formerly had All this might be said to such as were wicked and rested in birth priviledges in any times of the Old Testament when yet Infants were undoubtedly in the Covenant both before and after and so it is nothing to the purpose Jer. 7. 4. Trust ye not in lying words saying the Temple of the Lord are these Yet all this may be said to such persons in Gospel times of whatever perswasion Baptists Congregational Men or any other that own Infants in Covenant think not to say you are Church members or Baptized whilst you do not the works of Abraham and yet we may own Infants Covenant interest where the Parents are Believers 2. It is certain that when that was said Mat. 3. 9. and Joh. 8. 39. the Covenant Interest of the Infand seed was not repealed nor they cut off from it For this was some time before the Death of Christ till which there was no abrogation or disanulling of any legal observations much less of priviledge by Abraham Eph. 2. v. 14 15 16. Col. 2. 14. the Jews were not broken off till afterwards and so Infants yet were of the seed of Abraham Ob. 2. None but those that are Christ's visibly and that are of the Faith are Abraham's seed Gal. 3. v. 16 26 29. Infants then are not the seed of Abraham An. 1. Here is not a syllable for a repeal of any priviledge which Infants of old undoubtedly had by the Covenant with Abraham or as his seed here is nothing for cutting off any that were of the seed as Infants once were Gen. 17. Deut. 29. v. 10. to 14. rather he asserteth the sameness of the Covenant in respect of its seed and that it could not be disanulled see Gal. 3. 16 17. and as God claimed Israel as his Exod. 4. 22. Lev. 20. 26. So if Infants be still in Covenant why may they not visibly be Christ's 2. The Apostle here speaketh of a seed of Abraham as to Justification and Life and it is they which are of Faith v. 8 9 10. And this not in opposition to an Infant seed but to an adult seed which sought Justification by works of the Law as those verses witness and v. 24 26 29. And thus it was in all Ages since Abraham when Infants were certainly in Covenant yet then the seed of Abraham as to Justification were they of the Faith and not of Works and only real Believers are this seed What is this against Infants being a seed as to Ordinances as well as unsound Professors This is confirmed to be the meaning in the next Chapter Gal. 4. v. 24. to the end where they that were born from Mount Sinai from the Law and Works are said to be born after the Flesh they are in the Apostles sence the fleshly seed which with Ishmael are to be cast out and they by Promise are those of the Faith. What is all this against Infants being of Abraham's seed as of old and the less because they are of the Faith as their Covenant Interest followeth Faith viz. of the Parent to whom the Promise is given for the seed as that Promise was directed to Abraham Gen. 17. 7. for him to act Faith upon the Lord in it for his seed as well as for himself and other Believers are to do the like Hence see the true meaning of Gal. 3. 16. To Abraham and his seed were the Promises made he saith not unto seeds as of many but as of one and to thy seed which is Christ i. e. Always Abraham had but one seed Christ and those that are Christ's and are of the Faith as to Justification he never had two seeds for that end in the times of the Old Testament there was but one seed not two seeds one by the Law and another by Promise but only one in Christ by Promise and that this is the intendment is evident seeing he addeth v. 18. For if the Inheritance be of the Law it is no more of Promise but God gave it to Abraham by Promise So that the one seed excludeth only a pretended seed seeking Justification by the works of the Law such God never owned for the seed And so it is not in the least mentioned to exclude Infants as a fleshly seed from an ecclesiastical seed nor to repeal any priviledge or limit to cut them off from what they had before the coming of Christ this is not in the least the meaning for all the time wherein Infants enjoyed such priviledges yet there was but one seed in the Apostles sence and which further cleareth it observe this Gal. 3. 16 17. intendeth that Promise to Abraham which was 430 years before the Law which can be only that Gen. 12. 3. as any may find by computing the time this was when Abraham was seventy five years old v. 4. and so they greatly mistake who would have it expounded Gen. 17. 7 8. where Infants Covenant Interest is asserted it is no repeal no restriction or limitation thereof no cutting them off from any priviledges granted or confirmed to them there for that was not four hundred and thirty years before the Law but when Abraham was ninety and nine years old v. 1. which was twenty four years less 4. Some Infants are visibly Christ's and so are Abraham ' s seed as Abraham had a natural fleshly seed and a spiritual seed consisting only of real Believers which are justified and shall certainly be saved Gal. 3. 8 9 11. Mark 16. 16. So also Abraham had and hath an ecclesiastical seed he was and is a Father of the visible Church and all in it are his seed in this sence where are many foolish Virgins Mat. 25. 1 2. unsound Professors of Faith which yet are duely baptized as Simon Magus was Act. 8. 13. Such as may be in Christ and be taken away and cast forth Joh. 15. 2. 6. and be broken off Rom. 11. 20. which none of his spiritual seed of real believers can be Either then such Hypocrites are the seed of Abraham or not If they be then he hath a seed which are not his Spiritual seed If they be not then we may Baptize some who are not the seed of Abraham and then why not Infants