whither those that have neither Law nor Gospel must go but to a place where neither a broken Law nor a saving Gospel will carry them But this will not touch these that can decline all absurdily by denying of Consequences Antipaed 'T is an easy thing to charge a Doctrin with Inconsistency but can you prove that Covenant of Grace pure and unmix'd Paed. That I can For 1. The foundation of it was laid in Grace viz. God's Love to Abraham 2. It was made in Christ Gal. 3. v. 16. Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made he saith not and to Seeds as of many but as of one and to thy Seed which is Christ v. 17. And this I say that the Covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ the Law which was four hundred and thirty years after cannot disanull that it should make the promise of none Effect v. 18. For if the Inheritance be of the Law it is no more of promise but God gave it to Abraham by promise v. 29. And if ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed and heires according to the Promise 3. It is repeated as such in the New Testament Heb. 8.10 For this is the Covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days saith the Lord I will put my Laws into their mind and write them in their hearts and I will be to them a God and they shall be to me a people 4. It was made upon Gospel Terms Rom. 4. v. 3. For what saith the Scripture Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for Righteousness v. 4. Now to him that worketh is the Reward reckoned not of Grace but of debt v. 5. But to him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifyeth the ungodly his Faith is reckoned for Righteousness Antipaed The Apostle tells us that Circumcision binds to the observation of the whole Law that is the Law given on Sinai The Decalogue for I will not go about to Question the Gospel signification of much of the Ceremonial Law especially in the Sacrifices Paed. The Law saith the Apostle which was 430 years after cannot disanul the Covenant that was before confirmed of God by Christ Gal. 3.17 Whatever then was the design of God in giving the Law it was not any way to contradict or destroy the Gospel For the Law is not against the Promise v. 21. Is the Law then against the Promises of God God forbid It must then be added or put to the Gospel in Subserviency to it and for the discovery of Sin For it by shewing our weakness and Insufficiency puts us upon looking out for some other way of Salvation and thus it is as a School-master to teach us and lead us to Christ V. 19. Wherefore then served the Law It was added because of Transgressions till the seed should come to whom the promise was made and it was ordained by Angels in the hand of a Mediator v. 24. Wherefore the Law was our School-master to bring us unto Christ that we might be justified by Faith Antipaed But there are many things spoke of that Law that seem to make it a Law of Works and oppose it to the Gospel Poed To the better understanding of this you must distinguish betwixt God's design in giving the Law which was as I told you to convince and humble proud Man and shew him the necessity of a Saviour and the abuse of the Law through the mistake of the Carnal and Formal Jews who expected Justification from the Works of the Law which they perswaded themselves they were able to fulfill You are to understand Paul in this latter sense when he pronounces so severely against that Law Now that you may not think that this distinction is made to serve a Turn or for an Evasion The same Apostle is our Voucher 1 Tim. 1.8 But we know that the Law is good if a Man use it lawfully Where he distinguishes betwixt the Lawful use and the Erroneous abuse of the Law Antipaed Well If I yield it to be a Covenant of Grace How will you improve it for Infant-Baptism Paed. If you yield it you give up the Cause for if it be one and the same Covenant as there can be no more Covenants of Grace but one then it must be as to the substance of it the same Tho there be a difference as to degrees of Grace and Knowledge and some particular Ordinances yet is there no alteration as to the main Blessings and Priviledges This appears in the Parable of the Vineyard Where we see the Gentiles signify'd by those in the High-ways upon the Jews rejection of Christ were Invited to the same Marriage Supper the same Church State and Kingdom of Heaven which before had been offered to them the Jews The Vineyard that was taken from the Husbandmen the Jews was given to others that had not been Employ'd in it the Gentiles For tho there be another Succession of men yet it is into the very same Vineyard The Chief Priests understood it in this sense and therefore wisht it might not fall out so Luke 20.16 He shall come and destroy these Husbandmen and shall give the Vineyard to others and when they heard it they said God forbid This sameness of the Covenant is further Illustrated by the Apostle under the Similitude of breaking Branches off an Olive-Tree and Engraffing others in their Room The Tree The Fatness and Nourishment is the same that is the Covenant and its Priviledges tho New Branches be Engraffed in the place of the Old Ones Rom. 11. v. 15. For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the World what shall receiving of them be but Life from the dead v. 16. For if the First-fruit be holy the Lump is also holy and if the Root be holy so are the Branches v. 17. And if some of the Branches be broken off and thou being a Wild Olive-Tree wert Graften in amongst them and with them partakest of the Root and Fatness of the Olive-Tree c. And that which will help you to understand the whole Chapter is That such as the Breaking off is such must the Engraffing be I will but mention one Text more to confirm this and that is Eph. 2.14 For he is our Peace who hath made both one and hath broken down the Middle-Wall of Partition between us Where the Jewish Church is compared to a separate Tenement but by the calling of the Gentiles the wall that parted them is broken down and they are made one houshold fellow-citizens and Enjoy the same Priviledges What can be more Evident Antipaed But doth not the Baptist that was to prepare the way of the Lord tell the Jews they ought not to plead the Covenant of Abraham but if they would be receiv'd to Baptism they must repent Mat. 3.8 9. Bring forth therefore fruits meet for Repentance And think not to say within your selves we have Abraham to our Father c. Paed. We
A DISCOURSE OF INFANT-Baptism By way of DIALOGUE BETWEEN Paedobaptista A Minister for Infant-Baptism Antipaedobaptista his Friend against it Aporeticus An Ingenuous Doubter LONDON Printed for T. Parkhurst at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheapside 1698. A DIALOGUE ABOUT Infant-BAPTISME The Speakers Paedobaptista a Minister for Infant-Baptism Antipaedobaptista his Friend against it Aporeticus an Ingenuous Doubter Paedobap YOu are sensible Antipoedobaptista that Scepticism and Impiety have not only spoiled the Beauty but are ready to Prey upon the Vitals of Religion Antipae The Complaint is General but I am afraid the case of Religion is Desperate and her wound Incurable Paedo It will certainly prove so if Men be resolv'd to hazard the Common Cause of Religion for the sake of Private Opinion and Humour Antipaedo Pray who are they that do it Paed. All those who either begin or hold up the Heats and Contentions that first unsettled and then turn'd Men from Practical Godliness For ever since different Apprehensions diverted Mens Zeal into the Channel of Controversie It hath like a Mighty Torrent born down before it all Religious Stedfastness and true Devotion for when one Truth is undermined it makes way for the shaking if not overwhelming all other Antipae But what measures are now to be taken For our Disputes are now as keen and many as ever they were Paedo The only Remedy now left is candidly and conscientiously to consider of the Matters in Debate and wherein we cannot agree charitably to bear with each other Antipaed Difference in Opinion I know will strangely alienate Mens Minds But I bless God it never had that power over me as to drive me from Communion with those that dissent from me if in other things Orthodox and Sober But yet I will not dissemble my Temptations to the contrary I have sometimes been ready to have harsh Thoughts of all Christians that were not just mine own Length but when I reflected upon mine own Infirmities and Ignorance I perceiv'd I needed the compassion and forbearance of my Neighbour as much as he did mine Then I understood the Use of the great Gospel Command of Love and ever since I am griev'd to see Men revive lengthen or aggravate Controversies that concern or threaten not the Ruine of Fundamental Principles Paed. You speak well and like a Christian tho some of your peevish Brethren will think you too moderate and censure you as no upright Man for halting betwixt two Opinions However to requite your Kindness I shall acquaint you with a Rul'd Case amongst our Divines that is That a meer Antipaedobaptist is to be receiv'd into Church Communion if he will Promise to give no Disturbance by his Opinion and our practice is conformable Don't you think then we have great Reason deeply to resent that unseasonable opposition the Men of your way have lately made by Letters Printing and Preaching without the least provocation from us After so fair a Profession of Catholick Love as you have already made give me leave for our Vindication calmly and plainly to acquaint you with the Grounds of Infant-Baptism I hope you will be more Impartial than those that have their Credit or Interest engag'd in the Controversy Antipaed I willingly assent to your Proposal Aporet And I shall think my self happy to hear the Point amicably discust for since by Reading and Company I began to entertain Objections about Infants Baptism I reap no manner of advantage by that Ordinance This Friendly Conference by God's Assistance may tend to restore me to my former stedfastness Antipaed That our way may be the more clear I must put you in mind that we are very suspicious of Consequences We think there must be plain words for every Institution and Consequences ought to be Genuine Paedo It is evidently to me the suspicion of a weak Cause when the Defenders of it are forced for their Security to declare against Consequences This is but a Blind they raise up to hinder the Light which they are afraid should discover them Read the New Testament and you will find Christ and his Apostles did frequently prove their Doctrines by Consequences How did our Blessed Saviour Prove the Resurrection against the Sadduces Was it not by Consequences and that from a Passage which at first sight one would scarce have thought would genuinely afforded such a Consequence And one would think there was as much in I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee to prove the Right of Believers Children in the Covenant as in the one half of it I am thy God to prove the Resurrection of Believers themselves How doth the Apostle Paul prove that the Gospel was to be Preached to the Gentiles but by Consequence Act. 13.46.47 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold and said It was necessary that the Word of God should first have been spoken unto you ye Jews but seeing you put it from you and judge your selves unworthy of Everlasting Life loe we turn to the Gentiles Taking for their Warrant Isa 49.6 I will set thee as a Light to the Gentiles Concluding from thence he must be Preached to them and yet this was a great part of the Mystery of Godliness 1 Tim. 3.16 Preached unto the Gentiles But if these Instances do not satisfy take any one or two Chapters of the Epistle to the Romans For instance Read the Third and Fourth Chapters How doth he prove that we are not Justifyed by the Works of the Law He asserts that Jews and Gentiles are Sinners And that we must be Justified in a way Exclusive of Boasting And that Abraham was Justifyed by Faith in Uncircumcision That the Blessed Justifyed Man is a Pardon'd Man and from hence he infers by Consequence That we cannot be Justify'd by the Law Antipaed But we expect plain words for a Positive Institution Paed. What think you of the Observation of the Lord's-Day Is it by Divine Institution And what plain words can you find commanding us to observe it If you expect no less than a plain Command to Authorize the Baptizing of Infants you must say the same of the Lord's Day and deny the one as well as the other Do not you also reckon Women's Communicating a Positive Institution Antipaed Yes we do so But I admire you should urge that again after it has been so often Answer'd You have been told of plain Scripture Example Acts 1.14 compared with Chap. 2.42 44. Paed. Not so plain as you imagine it For tho in Act. 1.14 it is expresly said that Mary and the other Women were with the Disciples in Prayers and Supplications Yet it is not expresly said Act. 2.42 that they were with them Breaking Bread And to cut off all further Cavil The words used are all Masculine not so discernable in our English Translation as in the Greek Original and in Act. 4.4 The number of the Men and the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 11.28 wherein you would comprehend Woman
would give the same Answer to the like persons Who are they he speaks to Were they not a company of corrupt men A generation of Vipers that boasted of being Abraham's children and yet did the Works of their Father the Devil The Pharisee was a Self Iusticiary And the Sadduce deny'd the Resurrection of the Dead Should such plead their Parental Right we would bid them Repent But what is this to the outing children of their Right These were adult and had by their wickedness forfeited their right Did not the Prophets while their Church state stood use the same Methods with them Antipaed But you have not yet answered my Objection about the Obligation Circumcision laid upon men to the keeping the whole Law you only prov'd that that Law was not a Covenant of Works Paed. You do well to put me in mind of it The Apostle there speaks of the erroneous opinion of the Jews who sought for a Righteousness by the Works of the Law making the Law to themselves a Covenant of Works Circumcision being an Initiating Seal was to them according to their abuse of the Law an obligation to keep the whole But in it self Circumcision did oblige only to such Obedience as God requires and accepts in his Covenant of Grace according to that dispensation of it that was then on foot and therefore when a more large and manly state of the Church was to succeed he took away that of Circumcision and in its room commanded Baptism Col. 2. v. 10. And ye are compleat in him which is the head of all Principality and Power v. 11. In whom also ye are circumcised with the Circumcision made without hands in putting off the Body of the sins of the flesh by the Circumcision of Christ v. 12. Buried with him in Baptism c. Whereby we are compleat in Christ without Circumcision for it contains all that was signify'd by Circumcision the Circumcision of the heart and the putting off the Body of Sin As their Signification was the same so one succeeded but not typifyed the other Antipaed Circumcision was only in Abraham's family and other Believers in the time of the old Testament had it not Enjoyn'd to them which must for that Reason seal somewhat peculiar to Abraham's Family viz. The Promise of the Land of Canaan and the descent of the Messiah from that Family Paed. If it designed either of the things you mention Then all that received it must partake of the Promise but so could not Abraham's Servants who were neither of Abraham's Lineage nor had a promise of the Canaanitish Inheritance Otherwise as Proselytes Converts or Believers they were capable of the spiritual Significancy All therefore that entred into Abraham's family which then was most properly and eminently the Church of God for other good men that were scattered here and there and were not gathered into one body tho they belonged to the Covenant yet we are left in the dark as to what God requir'd of them and therefore are the less able to judge concerning them and all that were admitted into that House were to be Circumcised nor was Circumcision given them as a Mark of Distinction as you distinguish Beasts by sliting and cutting That is a gross conceit but they were to be acquainted with the meaning of that sign and the contents of the Covenant What a Religious person was Eliezer Abraham's Servant What a noble Testimony does God give to Abraham as to his care in instructing his family after God that is To relinquish Idolatry and false-Worship and make a Profession of the true God Antipaed But Circumcision took in only the Males Baptism both Males and Females Paed. You think you have a mighty Plea in this but it is just nothing 1. Do you not consider that in the various Editions of the Covenant of Grace God hath made gradual Alterations without any change of the Substance Tho Infants were still included in the Covenant from Adam to Abraham as parts of their Parents yet when God brought in the Male Children under the Seal of the Covenant this was an additional Mercy but no change of the Covenant Now were the Female children hereby excluded from the Covenant it self Pray give me the true meaning of Exod. 12.48 For no Vncircumcised Person shall eat thereof By this Rule no Woman shall eat of the Passover Antipaed Surely Women were not debarred Paed. But they were some way or other Circumcised then For the Rule is Positive and Universal What other Answer can you give than this That the Females were partakers of the Circumcision of the Males 2. Do you not consider that God seeing it fit to alter his Covenant for the better when he saw fit to alter the Seal of Circumcision which was a painful Ordinance and not applicable to Females and to Substitute another for the same general end It is but suitable to his usual Method to bring in Females expresly which were Implicitly under the Seal before especially when Baptism is so easily applicable both to Males and to Females Antipaed But it is a doubt to me whether God intended Baptism to be a Seal of the Covenant of Grace Paed. Your Doubting implyes you would willingly deny it if you durst Will you doubt also Whether the Lords-Supper be a Seal of the Covenant of Grace succeeding the Passover pray tell me first Was not Circumcision expresly call'd a sign or a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith And was it not so because it was a Token of the Covenant both on Man's part and God's The contempt of which God reckoned a Contempt and rejection of his Covenant Gen. 17.14 And the Vncircumcised Manchild whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised that Soul shall be cut off from his people he hath broken my Covenant Antipaed Be it so What then Paed. If Baptism be appointed to the same Ends and uses in the New Testament 't is as much the Seal of the Covenant as Circumcision was before But it is evident Baptism has the same Office in the Institution For as Prosolytes and Abraham's seed Entred into the Covenant of the Old Testament by Circumcision so hath Christ appointed that Consenters should be initiated into the new by Baptism as soon as teaching made them capable of giving Consent Mat. 28.19 Go ye therefore and teach all Nations Baptizing them c. and men are said to accept of or reject the New Testament proffer according to their Submission to or Refusal of Baptism Antipaed This indeed seems to be so Else Baptism would not have been so Expresly commanded and so generally propounded to all Paed. The Apostle expresly saith so 1 Cor. 12.13 For by one Spirit are we all Baptized into one body whether we be Jews or Gentiles c. But for your further Satisfaction Tell me 2dly Doth not the very make and frame of Baptism show it to be a sign and Seal as well as Circumcision Why else is Water used but as a Token What is