submit to the discipline of Baptism Thus I have proved Infant-baptism and Church-membership to be of divine Institution and therefore have a right to the Ordinance of Baptism by vertue of Christs command and the Apostles argumentative mandatory Exhortation and also their covenant interest 1. Therefore I challenge all our Opponents to prove that ever the children of believing parent were once denied the Ordinance of Baptism is our Saviours time or his Apostles 2. I also challenge them to prove by any one Text of Scripture that none but adult believerâ— were to be baptized 3. Let them give us but one single Instance among all those Housholds which were baptized that any one child was exempted 4. And lastly Let them prove that Infant-baptism is any where forbid in the holy Scripture But if they can do neither of these as I am sure they cannot where then is divine Right which they so highly boast of and so confidently laâ— claim unto Why it appears clearly to be on our side and not on theirs and the Reason for it is undeniable For nothing can be of divine Right that is repugnant to the holy Scriptures But to deny the Infant-seed of Believers to have an Interest in the Covenant or Promise of God which intitles them to Baptism is repugnant to the holy Scriptures and therefore cannot be of divine Right as is clear from Acts 2.38 39. 1 Cor. 7.14 and Gen. 17.7 5. Some of those that are against Infant-baptism have publickly and confidently asserted in print that the children of Turks and Heathens have as much priviledge as the children of believing Christians but Mr. D. seems to be of another mind if he had but held tightly to it for saith he in page 2. Many of those you call the outward priviledges of the covenant of Grace our children have as well as yours Pray note by the way Mr. D. saith we call these Priviledges so he doth not own them to be really so and yet at the same time he saith their children have them This is a contradiction in it self for it is to have and enjoy that which they hold is not in being 6. I will prove that the children of believers have a far greater priviledge than the children of Turks and Heathens 1. First of all when the ungodly World was drowned and all destroyed all those children whose parents were not in the covenant were destroyed with their parents not so much as one of them escaped Pray take notice I do not judge nor meddle with their future estate But holy Noah and all his Houshold were saved Heb. 11.7 not one of his children perished in the Flood because they were all in the Covenant of Grace 2. When Sodom and Gomorah were destroyed by Fire from Heaven all those children whose wicked parents were not in the covenant perished with them in that conflagration but righteous Lot who was in the Covenant of Grace was saved and all his own children 3. Where is the chapter or verse to be found in all the Book of God that doth declare that the children of Turks or Heathens are holy children as it doth the children of either believing father or mother in 1 Cor. 7.14 4. And lastly Where is it said in Scripture to Turks and Heathens while such that The promise is unto you and to your children as in Acts. 2.39 Thus you see I have proved That the children of Christian believers have a far greater priviledge than the children of Turks and Heathens by which I have utterly destroyed that carnal ignorant presumptious Assertion of theirs 6. Saith our Opponents What benefit is it for a child to be baptized To which I Answer thus So might proud carnal Reason and natural Affection much more have queried in the time of the Mosaick Law What good doth this smarting Ordinance do to our children Or what benefit is it for them to be circumcised at eight days old which the Apostles themselves counted to be an intolerable yoke which they were not able to beaâ— Acts 15.10 and yet in Rom. 3. he counts it a very great priviledge and advantage for saith he What advantage then hath the Jew or whâ—â— benefit is there in circumcision Much every way chiefly because that unto them were committed the oracles of God Here you see the Apostles Answer is very compatible to this Query but saith he farther For what if some did not believe shall their 〈◊〉 belief make the faith of God without effect Here you see those eight-day disciples were capable of receiving the Oracles of God or else they would not have been committed unto them 6. Saith Mr. D. in p. 3. The primitive Fathers for six hundred years after Christ had a far different Medium to prove Infant-baptism by viz. The necessity of it to salvation Your notion of covenant-right from Abraham and habitual faith is not to be found in their Writings To which I Answer We are not bound to sail by their Compass if the Fathers were mistaken must we be so too I can produce some that were mistaken in a paraelel case long before their time and some of Mr. D's own Opinion that have been mistaken also in this Point in our Time 1. Some of those Jews that were converted to the Christian Faith in the Apostles time who were Teachers of others Acts 15. And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren and said Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be saved Here those men laid a very great stress upon the very manner of circumcision it must not be after the manner of Abraham but Moses 2. I have heard of some even in our Time that are against Infant-baptism that have held the same thing in effect for say they No baptism no salvation and they hold That there is no Baptism but that of dipping which is to reprobate all those who are not for dipping in baptism and all their own children also that die before they are dipped which is to place an Ordinance in the room of Christ's Righteousness But my good Friend It is safer relying upon Thus saith the Lord than upon Thus say the Fathers 2. I shall in the second place prove that the mode of baptism is by sprinkling or pouring water on the subjects in baptism and this I shall do partly to satisfie my much esteemed friend Mr. B. D. who gave me a strict charge on the Royal Exchange so to do though I have been very large already on this subject in my Replication to Mr. B. K's Book 1. I shall begin and make some Observations from Acts 2. where we find a great number that were baptized at one time but we do not find that the Apostles did lay any Injunction upon them to change their Rayment to be baptized in 1. They did not command the men to strip themselves and put on other Garments proper for the Ordinance and then come and be baptized neither did they say unto the women and
Covenant of Redemption and were so from all Eternity for that Covenant was made between God the Father and his Eternal only Son 2 Tim. 1.9 Who hath saved us and called us with an holy calling not according to our works but according to his own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began But the Covenant of Grace was made with Man by God the Father in his Son Christ Jesus in the beginning of Time immediately as soon as man Fell Gen. 3.15 8. Not one Soul of all those in the Covenant of Redemption shall ever sin to such a degree as to fall short of eternal life and salvation for they are all in the hands of Christ and none can pluck them thence John 10. My sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow me and I give unto them eternal life And they shall never perish neither shall any pluck them out of my hand 1 John 3.9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin for his seed remaineth in him and he cannot sin because he is born of God This respects the believers perseverance in his spiritual state and not his spiritual frame of heart for the same Apostle saith in the same Epistle chap. 1.8 If we say that we have no sin we deceive our selves and the truth is not in us Many Thousands have sinned themselves out of the Covenant of Grace and fallen short of eternal life and salvation For as God's eldest Son upon Earth namely Adam sinned and broke the Covenant of Works so Adam's eldest Son namely Cain was the first that sinned himself out of the Covenant of Grace and Ham was the first that sinned himself out of the Covenant of Grace after the Flood and Judas sinned himself out of the Covenant of Grace under the Dispensation of the Gospel and all those Jews we read of in Rom. 11. where it is thus said For if the first fruit be holy the lump is also holy and if the root be holy so are the branches And if some of the branches be broken off and theâ— being a wild-olive tree wert graffed in among theâ— and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive-tree Well because of unbelief they were broken off 9. This Olive-tree which the Jews were broken of from and the Gentiles graffed into was the Covenant of Grace Mistake me not for I do not hold that popish Doctrine of falling from true saving Grace for it is impossible for any to fall out of a state of Grace though they may out of the Covenant of Grace because they are in the Covenant of Redemption which is the inner Court viz. Sanctum Sanctorum 10. And Lastly All that are in the Covenant of Grace are the Subjects of Water-baptism they are either baptized or ought to be But none but those that are in the Covenant of Redemption are circumcised in heart and baptized with the Holy Ghost and with fire 2. Saith Mr. D. in pages 2 3. How came it to pass that holy men such who were interessed in the Covenant of Grace at the very instant of making this Covenant of Circumcision with Abraham were not concerned in that Covenant and the Token of it such as Melchizedec c. and the Fathers before the Flood to Abraham 's Time and after to Job and his Family and the Saints of God contemporary with him such as Elihu and Job 's Three Friends c. The Learned Mr. N. Cox hath so solidly opened this Covenant of peculiarity made with Abraham c. Here are several things to be observed from these Words of Mr. D's 1. Is this He calleth the Covenant which God established with Abraham and his Seed a Covenant of Circumcision 2. He queries how it came to pass that these holy men were not concerned in that Covenant and the Token of it Which is a contradiction for first he asserts the Token of the Covenant viz. Circumcision to be the Covenant it self and how and where he will find another Token for the Token of the Covenant I know not 3. I observe Mr. D's drift and design in calling God's Covenant with Abraham and his Seed a Covenant of Circumcision is to make way to lay a foundation to build their Covenant of peculiarity on but this I will prove to be a gross mistake for these Reasons following 1. Circumcision could not be the Covenant it self because according to their own Principles all the female seed of Abraham would have been excluded and shut out for they will not grant nor allow that the female seed of Abraham were any way concerned in Circumcision or had any benefit by it 2. Circumcision could not be the Covenant because it was but a Token of it Gen. 17.11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your fore-skin and it shall be a token of the covenant between me and you That was with Abraham and all his Seed both male and female 3. Circumcision could not be the Covenant because in the Covenant it self God promised to be Abraham's God and the God of his Seed after him in their Generations Gen. 17.7 Ay and to a thousand Generations Psal 105.8 And God said I will make an everlasting covenant with thee c. Now Circumcision as to the Letter of it was not everlasting for it expired with the Ceremonial Law 4. And Lastly Circumcision could not be the Covenant it self because then Ishmael would have been in it which is repugnant to the holy Scripture â—â—r he had neither part not lot in the Covenant Gen. 17.18 19 20 21. But they run upon this mistake to prove Gods Covenant with Abraham and his Seed to be a Covenant of peculiarity with a design to exclude all the Gentile Believers and their Seed purely to destroy Infant-baptismâ— for they know that unless they can do that they cannot bring it to pass and this is the reason why they press these holy men aforesaid into their service viz. Melchizedec Job Eliâ—â— c. because they were not circumcised 2. I shall humbly offer my Reasons to shew why Abraham and his posterity were circumcised and not those holy men aforesaid 1. The first is because God never required it of them and therefore it would have been superstition for them to have done it 2. Because Abraham was chosen by God himself and fixed in a publick station to be a sub-representative Head and father of the faithful to the end of the World and so was not any of those Worthies aforesaid 3. God's Covenant was with Abraham several years before Circumcision was annexed unto it Gen. 17.4 As for me behold my covenant is witâ— thee and thou shalt be a father of many nations Now to which of those Worthies did God ever say he would make him a father of many nations 4. In Gen. 12.3 And I will bless them that bless thee and curse him that curseth thee And in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed This
cure them of their Itch of Pride and Ambition which he perceived they began to be contaminated with and therefore he said unto them Whosoever shall humble himself as this little child the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven Pray note by the way that Humility is the first step unto true greatness in the Church But to proceed fâ—rther on our Saviours Words And whosâ— shall receive one such little child in my 〈◊〉 receiveth me 1. That is Whoso shall receive little children of believing Parents into the bosome of the Church in Christs Name receives Christ along with them because Christ is externally formed in them 2. How can little children be received into the bosome of the Church in Christs Name but by Baptism And for a clear demonstration of this pray observe strictly the Words of Christs general Commission unto his Ministers and Servants and there you will find that Christ commanded them to baptize all in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Ghost This is in the Name of Christ and to receive them into the Church in the Name of Christ which is by a publick solemn dedication of them to God in Baptism Act. 2 38. But whosâ— shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea What a dreadful threatning is here against all those that offend these little ones And for my part I declare that I do not know who among Christians there are that do offend young Infants so much as all those do that are against their being dedicated unto God in the Ordinance of Water-baptism Pray mind our Saviours threatning all you that oppose Infant-baptism and be no longer wilful and obstinate for it is a most dreadful one viz. But whose shall offend one of these little ones c. How so offend them If you observe narrowly it will appear that the ground of the offence is the not receiving them into the Church in Christs Name for the threatning follows upon that of our Saviour Christs saying And whoso shall receive one such little one in my name receiveth me But whoso shall offend me of these little ones which believe in me c. The offence cometh upon the contrary of receiving them in Christs Name This could not be meant of their Parents first reception of them into the World at their Birth and Nativity But some of our Opponents have been so confident in Print as to say What offences are young Infants capable of taking which is carnal reason all-over for though they are not personally capable of taking offence yet Christ himself is fâ—r as those that receive them into the Church in Christs Name by baptism receive Christ himself even so all these that offend them offend Christ himself even as those that persecute his People persecute Christ himself because by their not receiving them into the Church in Christs Name they shut Christ himself out of the Church therefâ—re Christs must needâ— be offended at them Mark 9.41.42 These little ones which were brought unto Christ to be blessed by him were 〈◊〉 of believers and this will clearly appear to be so if we do but consider these things 1. The old Disâ—iples which were of Christ peculiar â—amily rebuked those that brought them for which Christ rebuked them and said Suffer little children and forbid them not to come unto me for of such to the kingdom of heaven Mat. 19.13 14. and â—â— Maâ—k 10.13 14. Luke 18.15 2. Pray who had to do to bring young Infants to Christ for his blessing on them but their Parents And if they had not been believers themselves they would not have brought their children to Christ to be blessed by him And for this reason they must be the â—â—ed of believers nay they had the Grace of Faith in them for they believed in Christ Maâ— 18. Therefore I demand of our Opponents Two Things 1. If the receiving of young Infants the seed of believers in Christs Name was not to receive them into the Church Then I demand where they are to be received for they mentioned in the Text were not to be received into Christs peculiar domestick Family for he had his select number of them viz. the Twelve Apostles 2. If this receiving them in Christs Name be a receiving them into the Church in some visible way being of the Church before by descent of believing Parents 1 Câ—â— â— 14 If it be not by the Ordinance of Baptism then I desire them to tell us in what other way or publick Ordinance in the Church it is to be done in Christs Name for you see it must be done or else they that reject them are 〈◊〉 to the threatning 2. In the second place Christ proceeds farther to inform us of the great Priviledge that those little ones have by being in the Church for they are under the Ministry and Charge of the holy and blessed Angels as in verse 10. where we have Christ introducing it with a caution to all those that despise these Infant-disciples viz. Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones for I say unto you that in heaven their Angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven But as they offend all thâ—se little ones by refusing to receive them in Christs Name into the Church visible by Baptism even so they despise them by saying What good doth Baptism do a young Child And what Grace is a young Infant capable of receiving And thus they both offend and despise them 3. If there be such a dreadful threatning against him that shall offend but one of these little ones which belong unto Christ viz. the Seed of Believers what then is it against them which boldly adventure to offend and despise them all by not receiving them in Christs Name into the Church by baptism and justifie themselves therein It is better for them that a millstone were hanged about their neck saith the Scripture and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea than to offend one of these little ones which believe in Christ It is very strange to me that our Opponents will allow them to be of Gods Family Royal in Heaven the invisible Catholick Church and yet will not allow them so much as a Name in the House of God the Church militant here on Earth which is a spacious pretext of allowing of them the greatest Priviledge of all and yet at the same time deny them one of the lesser 4. Mr. D. hath publickly owned and declared that Elect dying Infants shall be saved which I own to be true And if dying Infants are elected then are they Heirs of Salvation and if they are Heirs of Salvation then are they under the conduct and ministry of the holy and blessed Angels and do share as much in their Ministry as any of the