was not by taking in a Family but by admitting all that would become Disciples over all the Countries After the Ascention of Christ the first Example of Baptizing is that recorded Acts 2. 44. And there it is said they that gladly received the Word were Baptized And those were they of whom he had said V. 39. The Promise is to you and to your Children And there were added unto them about 3000 Souls But no mention of any Infants neither indeed is there any probability that any Infants were at all Comprehended in that Number in as much as 't is afterwards told us Ver. 42. That they continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship and in Breaking of Bread and in Prayers Which cannot with any shadow of pretence be applied to Sucking Infants The next Example is that of the Samaritans of whom it is said Acts 8. 12. That when they â—elieved Philip Preaching the things Concerning the Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ they were Baptized both Men and Women Where Children if any had been Baptized might very aptly have been Inserted But we find none mentioned to have been Baptized but those that Believed and Received the Word of God both Men and Women not Children Concerning Cornelius we are told that he was a Devout Man One that feared God with all his House Acts 10. 2. And Ver. 44. we are told While Peter yet spake these Words the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the Word and they spake with Tongues and magnified God which cannot be affirmed of Infants And accordingly there being convincing Evidence that they that had thus heard the Word had received the Holy Ghost he commanded them to be Baptized in the Name of the Lord. Concetning the Houshold of Stephanus which is said to be Baptized 2 Cor. 1. 16. they are said to have addicted themselves to the Ministry of the Saints To which most aptly may be adjoyned the House of Crispus concerning whom it is said Acts 18. 8. And Crispus the chief Ruler of the Synagogue Believed on the Lord with all his House And many of the Corinthians hearing Believed and were Baptized Where under the term Houshold those only are meant that Believed And those that among the Corinthians were Baptized are said first to hear and Believe The next mentioned is the Houshold of Lydia of whom it was said that She was Baptized and her Houshold Acts 16. 15. But this must be understood by other places which when they express the Baptizing of the Houshold they express also the Believing or Receiving of the Word by the whole Houshold and by the frequent use of the Word which is to put the House for the People of Growth in it The last mentioned is the Houshold of the Jaylor Acts 16. 33 34. of whom it is said that he was Baptized he and all his and when he had brought them into his House he sate Meat before them and Rejoyced Believing in God with all his House Upon the whole then it doth not appear that either one Infant was Baptized or that the Gospel always took place as the Old Administration did by bringing in whole Families together yea the contrary appears out of the 1 Pet. 3. 1. As also from 1 Cor. 7. 13 16. That the Husband was Converted sometimes without the Wife and the Wife sometimes without the Husband So sometimes in the House of Infidel Masters were Converted Servants 1 Tim. 6. 1 2. And on the contrary Phil. 11 12 c. And our Lord Jesus fore-told it should be so in the Preaching of the Gospel Mat. 10. 35. 36. To affirm therefore that there were Infants in any of those forementioned Housholds or if there were that they were Baptized is more than doth well become us to assert since the Scripture makes no mention of them in either respect And consequently much to blame are they that build their Practice upon so infirm a Bottom Obj. 17. But then it is again Objected That as there is no Express Command or Example in the Scripture concerning the Baptism of Infants so neither is there any concerning the Baptism of Persons at Age whose Parents were Christians and who have been Educated from their Child-hood in the Christian Religion the Scripture giving no account of the Baptism of any in the Apostles Days but such as were Converted from Judaism or Paganism to Christianity And if a just Consequence may be admitted for the proof of the one Why not for the other also You are wont to reject all Scripture Consequences in respect of Infants Baptism and yet here you must of necessity admit of the same So that this Argument therefore returns upon your selves To this we Reply First that though it should be granted that there is no express Example in the Scripture of the Baptism of Persons at Age whose Parents were Christians yet the Precept concerning Baptism is as express for such as for any others Mat. 28. 19. Go Teach all Nations Baptizing them c. Mark 16. 15 16. Go Preach the Gospel to every Creature He that Believeth and is Baptized shall be Saved Where none are excluded that are capable of being Taught or Discipled into the true Faith or Profession of Christianity let their Parentage be what it will Secondly It is sufficient unto us that as the Commission is express so there are Examples enough in the Scripture concerning the Baptism of Believers So that let a Person be but a Believer and we have no Reason to look into his Pedigree nor have we any Rule that so directs us in order to his Admission to Baptism And as we have no Rule nor Reason to accept of a Person that believes the rather because he had Christian Parents so neither to reject him upon that ground Could the like Command or Examples be produced from the Scripture concerning Infants Baptism as can easily be produced concerning the Baptism of Believers for under that Notion only are we bound to take Cognisance of those Baptized by us the present Controversie would suddenly be concluded betwixt us And therefore Thirdly This cuts not off our Pretensions to something more than a bare consequential Deduction for the Justification of our Practice whilst Consequences only and those far fetch'd and streined enough are the best bottom that Infants Baptism is built upon Which Consequences of yours are a most insufficient ground for the Justification thereof For though it is true that in respect of all sorts of moral Duties or other concernments of Christianity Consequences are allowable enough and we are sufficiently warranted in our Practice therein and that not only from the Practice of our Saviour himself who took this Method for the Proof of the Resurrection but from several other such like Instances in the Scripture And indeed without them neither can the Word be Preached not the Duties of Christianity inforced as they ought upon the Conscience yet this is an infallible Maxim a Rule beyond
Baptism of Believers be the only Baptism which Christ hath appointed How comes it to pass that so many Learned and Pious Men should for so long a season and throughout so many Generations cleave to Infants Baptism whilst so few in Comparison do embrace the contrary Practise Answered from p. 73 to 79. Obj. 20. The Apostle tells us that neither Circumcision availeth any thing nor Uncircumcision but a New Creature It is our main business therefore to press after the Power of Godlyness And we are affraid that while there is so much stress laid upon the Circumstantials of Religion it tends to the losing the Substance Besides having been already Baptized in our Infancy what Necessity is there for the Repetition thereof Answered from p. 79 to 82. The Conclusion of the Second Part. 82 85. The Third Part. Containing Some Animadversions on Mr. Sidenham's Treatise of Baptism Wherein that of Infants is further disproved Together with some further Reflections on Mr. Allen's forementioned Discourse to the same purpose Whereunto is Annexed an Answer at large unto Mr. Baxter's chief Argument for the Church-membership of Infants from the Nature of the Covenant made with Israel in the Land of Moab Mentioned Deut. 29. where Children are Represented as fellow Covenanters with their Parents which saith he was a Covenant of Grace or a Gospel Covenant And therefore neither it nor the Church-membership of Infants which was built thereon Repealed The Fourth Part. Wherein the Baptism of Infants is further Disproved By way of Answer to the Arguments made use of by Dr. Burthogge and others for the Support of that Practise Wherein the Covenant made with Israel at Mount Sinai Exod. 20. as also the Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham Gen. 17. 7 8 9. Whereon so much stress is laid for the Support of Infants Baptism are plainly proved to be no other than two Several Editions of the Covenant of Works And Consequently that no just Argument can thence be deduced for the Justification of that Practise Together with a clear and distinct Explanation of the true Nature and Difference between the two Covenants that of Works and that of Grace The Fifth Part. Containing a Description of that truly Evangelical Covenant God was pleased to make with Believing Abraham wherein lies the Sum of the Everlasting Gospel then Preached unto him Since Proclaimed by the Apostles And which now Remains to be yet further Published unto all Nations for the Obedience of Faith Rom. 16. 25. 26. Rev. 14. 6. 7. Wherein the true Nature and Difference between the two Covenants that of Works and that of Grace is further Explained Wherein Mr. Baxters Argument also concerning the Morality of Infants Church-membership is duly weighed and Answered The Conclusion Containing a Solemn Call unto all Gods People Speedily and Seriously to attend unto the Primitive Puritie of the Gospel Doctrine and Worship THE FIRST PART Containing some Animadversions and Reflections upon a Late Dicourse of Mr. William Allen Entituled A Perswasive to Unity or A Serious and Friendly Address to the Nonconformists And first in reference to his Arguments against the Antipaedobaptists MR. Allen's first Argument is That a known Anabaptistical Principle Condemns the Practice of Anabaptists themselves The Principle is That Christ's Commission is to be Interpreted as to the Extent of it only by Scripture Examples And it Condemns the Practice of Anabaptists because there is no Scripture Example for the Baptizing such Persons as they Baptize viz. those of grown Age whose Parents were Christians and who have been Educated from their Child-hood in the Christian Religion but only such as were newly Converted from Paganism or Judaism to Christianity To this we Reply First That though it should be granted that there is no express Example in the Scripture concerning the Baptizing Persons at Age whose Parents were Christians yet it is sufficient unto us that there are Examples enough in the Scripture concerning the Baptism of Believers So that let a Person be but a Believer and we have no reason to enquire into his Pedigree nor have we any Rule that so directs us in Order to his Admission to Baptism And as we have no Rule nor Reason to accept of a Person that Believes the rather because he had Christian Parents so neither to Reject him on that Ground Could the like Command or Examples be produced from the Scripture concerning the Baptism of Infants as can easily be produced concerning the Baptism of Believers for under that Notion only are we bound to take Cognizance of those Baptized by us the present Controversie would soon be concluded between us Secondly This Argument will easily fall to the Ground if we duly consider the Scope of the forementioned Commission concerning Baptism as it is Recorded Mat. 28. 19 20. Go ye therefore and Teach or Disciple all Nations Baptizing them c. Wherein as the Order to be observed is plainly Exclusive of Infants who are uncapable of Teaching or Discipleship by Instruction as the Rule here directs So it is as evident that it Includes all other sorts of Persons that are capable of Actual Teaching whether they be Jews or Gentiles or whether they be the Off-spring of Pagans or Believers there being therein no Exception of any it extending to all sorts of People in all Nations that are capable of being effectually taught or instructed in the Rudiments of the Christian Doctrine so as to make an Answerable Profession of the same which we hope it will not be denied but that the Off-spring of Christian Parents are as capable of as others if not more by the Advantage of their Education when coming to years of Understanding and therefore are plainly included in the Commission concerning Baptism as well as others which Infants are not because uncapable of being taught as the Commission directs But against this it is objected That if the Commission Mat. 28. 19. Excludes none from Baptism but such as are to be excluded by the Order therein to be observed And if Baptizing and Teaching are to precede or follow one the other as there named by Christ Then these two Conclusions will follow First That Infants are not there Excluded from Baptism Secondly That a Person may be Baptized before he is Taught And that these Propositions do follow from those before mentioned will appear from that Text in the Original where on a little Consideration it may be observed that the Order so much talk'd of and which so much stress is laid upon by the Anabaptists is clearly for the Paedobaptists and not for them We have there First 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which will be easily allowed to signify Disciple all Nations Make them Disciples o◠Christians Secondly we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. which litterally to translate is Baptizing Teaching Now then Discipling being a general Word that centains in it the two other that follow Baptizing and Teaching and being the Imparative Mood
one and the same In order to the Resolution whereof we must understand that as Abraham by Promise stood in a double Capacity viz. First As he was a natural Father unto the Jews who proceeded from him in a course of Natural Generation Secondly As he was a Spiritual Father in which respect he was the Father of many Nations comprehending the Spiritual Israel whether Jews or Gentiles throughout the World So accordingly the Promises made unto Abraham were of two sorts some respecting his Natural Seed whether Domestick or National which were Typical of the Spiritual as the Birth of Ifaac the Deliverance of his Posterity out of Egypt the possessing of the Land of Canaan with many other temporal Blessings and Benefits Annexed thereunto And others again respecting in a peculiar manner the Spiritual Seed the Family of the Faithful the Elect of whom through Christ he was the Father and which are Evangelical belonging in an especial manner to the Gospel Covenant As Gen. 17. 5. I have made thee a Father of many Nations And that which we find Gen. 15. 5. So shall thy Seed be In which it is promised That there should be of the Nations innumerable that should be Abrahams Seed by believing Rom. 4. 17 18. And again it was an Evangelical Promise that we find Gen. 12. 3. and Gen. 18. 18. And in thy Seed shall all the Families of the Earth be Blessed For in these is promised a Blessing to Believers of whom Abraham is Father Gal. 3. 8 9. And by Christ who is the Seed of Abraham Gal. 3. 16. And therefore Secondly It is of great moment in the present Case rightly to distinguish and truly to apply the several Promises God made unto Abraham according to their proper Subjects It being evident from what hath been already said that though under the Domestick or National Promises to Abraham peculiar to him and his Posterity by Sarah Spiritual Blessings in Christ were shadowed yet Circumcision was not a Token to every one Circumcised that the Promises whether National or Spiritual did belong to him Nor was Interest in the Covenant the Adequate Formal or proper Reason of the Circumcising of them For Ishmael was Circumcised and others were to be Circumcised to whom none of the Promises in that Covenant were made as is plain from Gen. 17. 21. Rom. 9. 7 8. Gal. 4. 28 29. It is no good Argument therefore to say they were in the Covenant therefore to be Circumcised For Females were in the Covenant yet not to be Circumcised Nor on the other side Males were to be Circumcised therefore they were in the Covenant For Ishmael and others were to be Circumcised yet not in the Covenant Whereby 't is plain that the true Reason why any were Circumcised was the Command not Interest in the Covenant Much less is it true that is suggested by some That Children are to be Baptized by Vertue of the Promise first to the Parents as Believers and in them to their Seed as subordinates For besides that there is no such Promise in Scripture that God will be a God to every Believer and his natural Seed So the Rule of Baptizing either Parents or Children is not Interest in the Promise by God's Promise to them But their Profession of Faith or being actual Disciples of Christ whom alone Christ hath appointed to be Baptized Thirdly As to what concerns the Covenant of Grace therefore or the Gospel Covenant which according to the foregoing Argument is said to be now made with Believers and their Seed as the ground of their Admission to Baptism We must know that the Covenant of Grace is to be considered either in respect of the Promises of Eternal Life made to all the Elect in Christ the which remains one and the same in all Ages though variously Administred in the times of the Old and New Testament or else in respect of the manner of its Administration For if the Covenant be understood in the first sence of the Promise of Eternal Life and Salvation made to the Elect in Christ That did never belong to all the Children born of Believing Parents as hath been already Instanced in Ishmael and Esau c. but only such as are Elected of them Rom. 9. 7 8 9. Neither because they are the Seed of Abraham are they all Children c. The Covenant of Grace being first made between God and Christ and all the Elect in Christ And therefore in Scripture it is called The Promise of Eternal Life which was made to the Elect before the World began who are therefore called the Heirs of Promise Which Promise had its first Promulgation to Adam in the Garden of Paradise where we have also the first Discovery of the Mystery of the two Seeds Now the Covenant of Grace in this Sense is not the Ground and Reason of Administring Ordinances to any Person whatsoever But the Law of Institution only is the Ground and Reason of visible Administrations For the Administration of Ordinances belongs not to the substance of the Covenant but depends meerly upon the Law of Institution without any other Consideration And hence we find that from the first Promulgation of the Covenant to Adam until God made the Covenant of Circumcision with Abraham there was no Ordinance to be administred to Infants Though some Infants as well as grown Persons both of Believers and Unbelievers might be comprehended in the Covenant Yet not to be Circumcised and so not to be Baptized for want of an Institution So the Promise Acts 2. 39. is said to be to them afar off in the present tense while uncalled And yet not to be Baptized before calling unless you will Baptize Gentiles in professed Gentilism And so the Jews some not yet born some not called have the Promise of God made to them Rom. 11. 27. For this is my Covenant unto them when I shall take away their Sins And yet they are not to be Baptized ' til Converted Nor indeed can the Covenant considered in its pute Nature be a Ministers Rule to Administer Ordinances by seeing it is unknown who are in the Covenant and who are not But that which is their Rule must be something that is manifest As for the External Administration of the Covenant as you have already heard that hath varied in several Ages according to the Will of the Law-giver for during all that period of time from Adam to Abraham there was no Ordinance to be Administred to Infants In Abraham's time indeed Circumcision was Instituted which Ordinance belongs peculiarly to the Old Testament Administration and was part of Moses's Law which is now Abrogated and done away And this was the first Ordinance that was Administred to Infants and not to all Infants but only to Male Infants Living in Abraham's Family if they did Live to the Eighth Day otherwise they had no right to this Ordinance though many of them doubtless in the Covenant of Grace and so Saved So we say of
Infants in the Days of the Gospel many of them are in the Covenant of Grace and so Saved by Virtue of the Free Promise But yet not to be Baptized if they do not Live to the time of Believing and Repenting the only time appointed for Baptism So that the Administration of Ordinances to Infants depends upon the Law of Institution only and not upon their being in Covenant Fourthly In this respect therefore it ought to be duly considered as hath been before Observed That the Covenant of Grace or the Gospel Covenant which Believers are now under whereof Christ is the alone and only Mediator was not made with Believers and their Seed but with Abraham and his Seed that is Christ For so the Apostle tells us expresly That to Abraham and his Seed were the Promises made He saith not unto Seeds as many but as of one And to thy Seed which is Christ So that all Gospel Promises run to Christ the Inheriting Seed To Him they are made In Him do they all center and from Him alone are all the Blessings in Promise to be derived unto all His Members 'T is true In the Covenant of Circumcision Gen. 27. 7 8 9. which was a Legal Bondage Covenant and therefore now repealed as shall be afterward shewn God doth indeed therein promise to be a GOD to Abraham and his Fleshly Seed and to give them the Land of Canaan for an Inheritance And their Obedience to Circumcision is expresly called the Covenant on their Part. Gen. 17. 10. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between Me and you and thy Seed after thee Every Man-Child among you shall be Circumcised So Acts 7. 8. And he gave them the Covenant of Circumcision and so Abraham begat Isaac and Circumcised him the Eighth Day By which they stood engaged to keep all those other Additional Ordinances which Moses gave them when they were about to enter their Promised Inheritance Gal. 5 3. For I testifie that whosoever is Circumcised he is a Debtor to do the whole Law But the Covenant of Grace which God shade with Believing Abraham before his departure out of his own Countrey and therefore long before the Covenant of Circumcision was in being runs in another strain For therein as GOD freely Promiseth to Bless Abraham himself so he doth as freely Promise to make him a Blessing For that in him that is in his Seed Christ should all the Families of the Earth be Blessed Gen. 12. 2 3. And this was a Covenant of Grace indeed a Covenant that was purely Evangelical every way Extensive and Absolute and therefore unchangeable For therein God hath freely Promised a Blessing unto all sorts of true Believers whether Jews or Gentiles in giving unto them an Eternal Inheritance Heb. 9. 15. Incorruptible and Vndefiled that fadeth not away Purchased by the Blood of Jesus and reserved in Heaven for them of which the Earthly Inheritance in the Land of Canaan was a Type So that as there was a two-fold Covenant made with Abraham a Covenant of Grace and a Covenant of Works So there is a two-fold Seed of Abraham a Fleshly and a Spiritual Typed out by Ishmael and Isaac and a two-fold Inheritance an Earthly and a Heavenly But the Heavenly Inheritance was not given to the Fleshly Seed but only in Types offered to them and confirmed only to the Spiritual Seed whether Jews or Gentiles who in that respect are called the Heirs of Promise yet not immediately or at first hand rate but through the Mediation of Christ alone in whom all the Families of the Earth are Blessed For as Ishmael the Child of the Flesh had no right with Isaac in the outward Typical Promise so Isaac himself by vertue of his fleshly descent had no right nor interest in the Heavenly Inheritance Rom. 9. 7. any otherwise than as he came to have an Interest in Christ And therefore we find the Apostle expounding the Word of Promise sheweth that the Evangelical Promises made to Abraham were not made to any one Fleshly Seed no not with the meer Fleshly Seed of Believing Abraham himself but these Promises did all run to Christ the Inheriting Seed to whom they were made and when Christ was come they all centre in Him Now to Abraham and his Seed saith the Text were the Promises made He saith not unto Seeds as of many but as of One and to thy Seed which is Christ In whom all the Promises of the Gospel are Tea and Amen Fifthly Having thus followed the Promises down from Abraham unto CHRIST let us now see to whom they come forth again and it is not to any ones Fleshly Seed whatsoever but from Christ they all Flow forth again to Believers and only to Believers and that by vertue of their union with Christ To this purpose the Apostle tells us That if we be CHRIST's then are we Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to the Promise There being no way to partake of the Promise but by Faith in Christ Gal. 3. 22. The Scripture hath concluded all under Sin that the Promise by Faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that Believe So that all the Promises run to Christ and from Him Flow forth again only to Believers not to them and their Natural Off-spring as is Suggested further than they are Believers also in their own Persons For no otherwise was it with the Fleshly Seed of Believing Abraham himself Which being Impartially Consider'd is a full Answer to all Arguments drawn from the Covenant and the the Promises made to Abraham and certainly and unavoidably cuts off Infants Church-member ship in the Days of the Gospel unless you can find a new Institution for it and consequently it leaves no room for Infants Baptism unless it can be proved that all the Infants of Believers are Heirs of Abraham's Faith Believing as he did and that the Promises are theirs not by Application or Analogy but directly and properly and by their own Personal Faith Which the Scriptures do no where Affirm And indeed so to Assert would be not only contradictory to the Scriptures which tell us that we are all Children of Wrath by Nature But to all former and latter Experience Then would Grace be a Birth Priviledge and Regeneration tied to a Natural Generation Then must all the Posterity of Believers be Saved unless that Doctrine be true that Men may fall from Grace Then must we tie up and restrain the Grace of God's Covenant to the Children of Believers only and then what Hope for the Posterity of Vnbelievers Contrary to the Experience of all Ages whilst Grace was extended to the Gentiles who were not the Off-spring of Believers when the Natural Branches the Children of Believing Abraham were cut off Sixthly Whereas you tell us That all those that were Faederati were to be Signati that is all those that were in the Covenant were to have the Seal thereof Gen. 17. 10. And that therefore it naturally follows that
after Breaches do Else why doth the Apostle tell us as he doth concerning the same Sinai Covenant that it is dis-annulled Heb. 7. 18 For there is verily a dis-annulling of the Commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof So likewise Heb. 8. 7. For if that first Covenant had been faultless there should no place have been sought for the second And Vers 13. In that he saith a New Covenant he hath made the first Old Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away Though the Sinai Covenant therefore was Renewed after the first Breach thereof yet the Scriptures do give us a Positive Assurance that at length it was utterly and irreparably broken And so broken that at last it was dis-annulled made to Expire and vanish away which is utterly Inconsistent with the Nature of the Covenant of Faith according to the whole Scope and Tenour of the Scriptures So that we see that without a Manifest and Palpable Absurdity there is no Resisting the force and Evidence of the forementioned Objection The Conclusion whence Resulting is therefore highly Rational and remains firm and unshaken That since the Sinai Covenant is both by the Prophet and Apostle plainly opposed to the New Covenant and is said to be broken and so broken as to Expire and vanish away Therefore it is not a Covenant of Faith which is Everlasting and cannot be broken but a Covenant of Works that was but Temporary and liable thereunto As for the unchangeable nature of the Covenant of Faith at least on Gods part whatever it is on ours besides a multitude of other Testimonies that might be produced the 89. Psalm gives us a clear and convincing Evidence thereof Vers 30. c. If his Children forsake my Law and walk not in my Judgments if they break my Statutes and keep not my Commandments Then will I Visit their Transgression with the Rod and their Iniquity with Stripes Nevertheless my Loving kindness will I not utterly take from him nor suffer my faithfulness to fail My Covenant will I not break nor alter the thing that is gone out of my Lips Once have I Sworn by my Holiness that I will not lie unto David his Seed shall endure for ever and his Throne as the Sun before me It shall be Established for ever as the Moon and as a faithful Witness in Heaven The like Assurance we have concerning the Promise made to Abraham Wherein saith the Apostle Heb. 6. 17 18. God willing more abundantly to shew unto the Heirs of Promise the Immutability of his Counsel Confirmed it by an Oath that by two Immutable things in which it was Impossible for God to lie we might have strong Consolation c. So that we see the Covenant of Faith or which is all one the Covenant of Grace is every way perfect unchangeable unrepealable and Everlasting Whereas the Sinai Covenant was of a faulty decaying vanishing Nature and accordingly was at last disannulled and therefore could not possibly be any other than a Covenant of Works § 8. The Second Absurdity is this Whereas Mr. Roberts pag. 772. of his forementioned Discourse pretending to Answer the Seventh Objection against his Assertion the Objection it self as himself states it runs thus Object 7. The Condition upon which Life and Happiness is held forth in the Law or Sinai Covenant is Perfect Doing For Moses describeth the Righteousness which is of the Law that the man which doth these things shall live by them Rom. 10. 3. with Lev. 18. 5. Gal. 3. 12. And he denounceth a Curse upon the least failing Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them Deut. 27. 26. Gal. 3. 10. But the Condition upon which Life and Happiness is tendred in the Covenant of Faith is Believing in Christ Rom. 10. 6. to 12. Doing and Believing Works and Faith are two Contrary Conditions of Life Consequently the Law or Sinai Covenant which requires Doing unto Life cannot be a Covenant of Faith but must needs be a Covenant of Works The Answer which Mr. Roberts returns unto this Strong and Substantial Objection first of all in general runs thus This Objection saith he as it is most Obvious to every one that reads the Epistles of Paul to the Romans and Galatians so it is in my judgment of greatest difficulty to be clearly and satisfactorily Answered And yet it is of great Consequence and Necessity to be Cleared because otherwise the true Nature and Intent of this Sinai Covenant as a Covenant of Faith in Christ Jesus will not be fully and sufficiently evidenced Several Answers are given I shall propound them and pitely upon such as afford best satisfaction And accordingly he proceeds to give an Account of the several Answers given thereunto by Mr. John Ball and Peter Maâ—â—yr by D. Pareus and Mr. Anthony Burgess but neither of these fully pleasing him p. 775. I add therefore saith he for the unfolding of this Mysterie more clearly and for Answering of this Objection more fully First That the Sinai Covenant was purposely so dispensed as to tender Life and Happiness upon two Opposite and Contrary Conditions viz. Works and Faith Perfect Doing and Believing This is clear saith he by Paul's Epistles without Dispute And to deny this which is so clear will but tend to weaken Paul's Authority to darken many Scriptures both of Moses and Paul and to strengthen the Objection And so proceeds to make out this Notion § 9. Reply But if ever there was an Absurdity or plain Contradiction imposed upon the Scriptures we think we may justly and truly say that here it is For though 't is true there are those that labour to fasten an absurdity upon such as affirm that Gods People of old were under two Contrary Covenants at one and the same time yet was it ever known that the same Fountain did at the same time send forth Bitter Waters and Sweet Or can it ever be rationally imagined that the same Sinai Covenant was purposely so dispensed as to tence life and happiness upon two Opposite and Contrary Conditions For though 't is true two Opposite Covenants may be allowed to be purposely so dispensed as to tender Life and Happiness upon two Opposite and Contrary Conditions Works and Faith yet it is utterly impossible that the same Covenant should be so dispensed For as the Apostle reasoneth concerning Election Rom. 11. 6. So it is here If by Grace then it is no more of Works otherwise Grace is no more Grace But if it be of Works then it is no more Grace otherwise Work is no more Work So that we see according to the Apostles reckoning it is utterly impossible that two Opposite and Contrary Conditions should be able to consist together in one and the same Covenant Either the Sinai Covenant therefore is a Covenant of Grace or it is a Covenant of Works If it is a Covenant of Grace
the Covenant of Works made at Mount Sinai and to take them for his Peculiar People upon Condition of their Obedience to the Law So in the Covenant of Circumcision I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed And I will give to thee and to thy Seed the Land of Canaan c. upon the same condition of Obedience Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations In both which the Promises themselves are as large and as full as can be desired And that with Respect to the Blessings of this Life as also of that which is to come So that the Promises of the Gospel Covenant it self cannot be better than were those under the Law for the substance of them or in themselves considered For what doth the Gospel promise more The betterness therefore of this Evangelical Covenant whereof Christ is the onely Mediator and Surety must of necessity consist in the terms of it the Promises thereof being free and Absolute and onely to be Received by Faith which the forementioned Covenants were not And therefore called the Word of Faith which we Preach Rom. 10. 6 7 8. That if thou shalt Confess with thy Mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thine Heart that God raised him from the Dead thou shalt be saved He had told us before that Moses describeth the Righteousness of the Law that the Man which doth these things shall live by them But saith he the Righteousness which is of Faith speaketh on this wise c. So likewise Gal. 3. 21 22. If there had been a Law which could have given Life verily Righteousness should have been by the Law But the Scripture hath Concluded all under Sin that the Promise by Faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that Believe So also Rom. 4. 14. If they which are of the Law be Heirs Faith is made void and the promise made of none effect Therefore it is of Faith that it might be by Grace that the Promise might be sure to all the Seed The Gospel Covenant therefore we see is free and Absolute Proclaiming Liberty to the Captives c. Isa 61. 1 2. And declareth that to him that worketh not but believeth on him that Justifieth the ungodly his Faith shall be counted to him for Righteousness Rom. 4. 4 5. Whereas the Covenant at Sinai and that of Circumcision was clog'd with conditions of perfect Obedience unto the whole Law of God and therefore Impossible to be performed For the faultiness of both which in that respect they are therefore now Abollished So that Christ was not the Mediator of either of these but of this better Covenant which is Established upon these better Promises § 2. Besides when the Apostle tells us That 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 He could not have the Covenant of Circumcision in his Eye Because the Promises of that Covenant were expresly made unto Seeds as of many Gen. 17. 7 8. 9. I will Establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy Seed after thee in their Generations plainly and expresly Plural And I will give to thee and to thy Seed after thee the Land wherein thou art a stranger and I will be their God still expresly in the Plural and not in the Singular Number And so runs the Obligation also Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations Those words of the Apostle therefore Gal. 3. 16. cannot possibly refer to the Promises contained in the Covenant of Circumcision as it hath been generally though mistakingly imagined they do But must of necessity refer to that Evangelical Covenant first Recorded Gen. 12. 2 3. I will make of thee saith God to Abraham there a Great Nation and I will Bless thee and make thy Name Great and thou shalt be a Blessing And I will bless them that Bless thee and Curse him that Curseth thee And in thee shall all Families of the Earth be Blessed Which latter Promise is afterwards more fully Explained Gen. 22. 18. And in thy Seed shall all the Nations of the Earth be Blessed In which respect well might the Apostle say that 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 For those Gospel Promises can be understood in no other Sence but as of one For it is plain that it is Christ alone that is the Promised Seed there spoken of In whom God there promiseth that all the Nations of the Earth should be Blessed To him therefore all the Promises of the Gospel were first made Psal 89. 27 28 29. In him they are all yea and Amen 2 Cor. 1. 20. And from him alone are they to be Communicated to all his Members Isa 49. 6 8 9. Jo. 1. 16. Jo. 6. 27. Gal. 3. 29. Some refer Gal. 3. 16. to Gen. 17. 7. But I conceive the Apostle hath here a direct and special Eye to that Promise Gen. 22. 18. In thy Seed shall all the Families of the Earth be blessed which runs directly parallel both in Terms and Sence with the Promise given to Abraham Gen. 12. 3. which was before pleaded by him Gal. 3. 8. And if it be Objected that the Promise there is made of or concerning Abrahams Seed and not to his Seed Let it be minded that all the Promises made of this Seed viz. Christ in one respect may be said to be made to this Seed in another because they are Originally Established in the Everlasting Covenant of Redemption that was between the Father and him Mr. Cox in his Discourse of the Covenants page 77. 78 79. SECT VII AND in this respect it is yet further Observable That as God promiseth Abraham Gen. 22. 18. That in his Seed should all the Nations of the Earth be blessed plainly speaking of Christ the Promised Seed So in the words just before he was also Expresly told And thy Seed shall Possess the Gate of his Enemies Not their Enemies but his Enemies expresly in the Singular whereas the Promises of the Covenant of Circumcision were all his Expresly in the Plural Number So that as the Apostle might justly say in Reference to this Gospel Covenant that to Abraham and his Seed were the Promises made not a single Promise onely but the Promises So it is as evident that Seed there must of necessity be understood in the Singular Number For as it is by Christs Single Prowess that both his and his Peoples Enemies are vanquisht Isa 63. 3. John 16. ult In which respect Abraham was told And thy Seed shall Possess the Gate of his Enemies So it is as evident that the following Promise And in thy Seed shall all the Nations of the Earth be blessed The Seed there spoken of must of necessity also be understood in
8 9. as well as those mentioned Gen. 2. Exod. 19. Exod. 20. and Deut. 29. were all Conditional and therefore Legal Covenants requiring strict and perfect Obedience as the Condition propounded in order to the Enjoyment of the Mercies Contained in them Which are all of them therefore done away in Christ So on the other hand we see that the Covenant that God made with Abraham Gen. 12. 2 3. Gen. 17. 2 3 4. and Gen. 22. 16 17 18. was wholly Free and Absolute and therefore purely Evangelical and that which never shall be disannulled being Confirmed both by Word and Oath and consequently sure to all the Seed therein concerned For as therein God hath Absolutely promised that in Christ the Promised Seed all the Nations of the Earth shall be Blessed which according to the whole Current of the Scriptures must of necessity be limitted to the Elect or the true Believers of all Nations that all that shall be blessed shall be blessed by this means and no other way So lest it should be suspected that any Condition should start up whereby they might either be hindered from obtaining the Promised Blessing or forfeit it when in Possession thereof we are therefore also told that God having raised up his Son Jesus hath sent him to Bless us by turning away every one of us from his Iniquities And it is as plain that of the same Nature and Tenor is â—he Covenant mentioned Deut. 30. 6. As was also the Covenant which God made with Noah Gen. 9. 9 10 11. As also those mentioned Jer. 31. 31 32 33. Jer. 32. 38 39 40. Ezek. 36. 25 26 27. Heb. 8. 7 8 9 10 11. For as God Promiseth to the Israelites Deut. 30. 6. That he will Circumcise their Heart and the Heart of their Seed to Love the Lord their God with all their Heart and with all their Soul that thy mightlive So in Jer. 31. Jer. 32. and Heb. 8. the Lord there also promiseth unto the House of Israel and to the House of Judah after those Days to put his Law in their Inward parts and to Write it in their Hearts and that as he will not turn away from them to do them good so neither shall they depart from him c. Wherein as well as in the Gospel Covenant before mentioned which the Believing Gentiles are now under the terms are not Conditional or failable I will if ye will But Absolute and Soveraign I will and ye shall So that that which God had before required as the Condition of the Covenant of Works and was not before Promised is now become a main Branch of the Covenant of Promise it self § 2. And therefore when the Apostle tells us Gal. 3. 21. That if there had been a Law given that could have given Life verily Righteousness should have been by the Law from hence it appears that the Gospel Covenant doth more for us than the Legal did For it giveth Life and then Enables to the performance of that which it requireth of us whereas from what the Apostle there tells us it appears that the Legal Covenant did not give Life and that it failed because it was Conditional The Law indeed shews us our Duty but gives no strength to perform it The Gospel Covenant doth both by Writing the Law in the Heart Hence it is truely and properly a Covenant of Grace as not depending at all upon Works For if it be of Works then it is no more Grace otherwise Work is no more Work Rom. 11. 6. And if by Grace then it is no more of Works Otherwise Grace is no more Grace And therefore Christ is said to have obtained a more Excellent Ministry than that of Moses by how much also he is the Mediator of a better Covenant which is Established upon better Promises Heb. 8. 6. 'T is true the Promises for the Substance of them as hath been before observed are the same as before I will be their God and they shall be my People But now the terms are altered For whereas before it depended upon the Works of our Obedience Now Faith alone is required in order to the receiving and consequently in order to our participation of them Thus Paul directs the Jaylor Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved Acts 16. 31. So Rom. 4. 5. To him that worketh not but believeth on him that Justifieth the ungodly his Faith is Counted for Righteousness And in like manner the Apostle tells us Gal. 3. 22. That the Scripture hath Concluded all under Sin that the Promise by Faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that Believe Not that Believing is the Condition of the Promise as 't is generally Asserted but a Designation rather of the Persons to whom the Promise is given that is to Believers or a Declaration of the Way in which the Promise is given that is in a way of Believing For indeed Faith is not the Condition but the Fruit of the Promise For if it be the Condition either it must be wrought by us of our selves Or it must be given us of God If it be to be wrought by our selves Then is the Promise of Grace worse and harder than the Covenant of Works which God made with our First Parent For though it was required of Adam to do and live yet he had then a Power of Doing But so have not we of Believing Yea no more was required of him than was put into his Nature For the Covenant of Works was Written in his Nature but so is not Faith in ours If it be given us of God as the Scripture doth plainly affirm it is Eph. 2. 8. For by Grace are ye saved through Faith and that not of your selves it is the Gift of God then it is given by vertue of some Promise For God gives nothing but by vertue of some Promise which Promise can be no other than the Free Promise the Promise of Grace From whence it plainly follows that the Covenant of Grace is wholly free and Absolute Since Faith it self is the Fruit and therefore cannot be the Condition thereof § 3. So that the Material Difference between the Covenant of Grace and that of Works Consisteth in the Different Terms of either The one being Conditional the other free and Absolute Not that we are therefore discharged from Duty under the Gospel For as the Apostle tells us by way of Answer to the same Objection Rom. 3. 31. Do we then make void the Law through Faith God forbid yea we Establish the Law Because that Obedience which was before the Obedience of Servants and Slaves is now become Filial or Son like Not for Life as under the Legal Covenant but from a Principle of Life already received which Powerfully Constraineth and Effectually Enableth unto the Love and Service of God 2 Cor. 5. 14. 15. Tit. 2. 11 12. Tit. 3. 8. It is certain therefore that Working is required under the Covenant of Grace as much as under
not expresly Commanded provided they be not some way or other forbidden in the Word But as for the matters of God's Worship We have no such Rule but rather the contrary Render therefore to Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto GOD the things that are GOD's Mat. 22. 21. God having above all things expressed His Jealousie concerning the same and hath frequently given Testimonies of his severest Displeasure against His People because of their Presumptuous Additions thereunto Witness Deut. 12. 32. and 18. 20. Prov. 30. 6. Ezek. 43. 8. Mat. 15. 9. Exod. 39. 43. And among the rest to this purpose Remarkable is that Reprehension given by our Saviour unto the Scribes and Pharisees when he tells them that their Worship of this kind was but vain Worship Mark 7. 7. 8. Howbeit in vain do they Worship me Teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men. For laying aside the Commandment of God ye hold the Tradition of Men as the washing of Pots and Cups and many other such like things yee do And he said unto them ver 9. Full well ye reject the Commandment of God that ye may keep your own Tradition Neither indeed is there any Power on Earth that hath Authority sufficient to Innovate or Institute any thing in the Worship of God the highest Government that Christ hath ordained in His Church being but of a Subordinate and Ministerial Property and therefore not Absolute but limited in its Commands by the Word of God Deut. 12. 32. Whatsoever I command you Observe to do it thou shalt not add thereunto nor diminish from it Deut. 18. 20. The Prophet that shall speak a Word in my Name that I have not commanded even that Prophet shall Dye Ezek. 43. 7 8. Son of Man the place of my Throne and the place of the Soles of my Feet where I will dwell in the midst of the Children of Israel for ever and my Holy Name shall the House of Israel no more defile neither they nor their Kings by their Whoredom nor by the Carkases of their Kings in their high Places In their setting of their Threshold by my Thresholds and their Post by my Posts In the Work of the Tabernacle of Old nothing was to be Superadded but what God had Expressly appointed Exod. 39. 43. And the Reason is the same in the Gospel Ministration But by way of Opposition hereunto is that general direction of the Apostle urged 1 Cor. 14 40. Let all things be done decently and in order From whence it is Inferred that whatsoever Church Governours shall Judge decent and orderly in God's Worship ought to be submitted unto We Answer That this cannot be justly Inferred from these Words for the following Reasons For First To Worship GOD in a way that is not decent and orderly according to Scripture Rule is manifestly our Sin 1 Cor. 14. 40. But to Worship Him in the use of those enjoyned Ceremonies is to Worship Him in a way not decent and orderly according to Scripture Rule Therefore so to do would be manifestly our Sin The Major is proved the Minor is thus proved If to Worship GOD in the use of such Ceremonies be decent and orderly according to Scripture Rule then to Worship Him without such Ceremonies is not to Worship GOD decently and orderly according to Scripture Rule For one Rule cannot make the same Worship decent and undecent orderly and disorderly But to Worship Him without the use of these Ceremonies is to Worship Him decently and orderly according to Scripture Rule the Apostles and Primitive Christians Worshiping Him decently and orderly without them Ergo c. Second Argument To part with our Christian Liberty purchased for us by the Blood of CHRIST is our Sin But to submit unto the Injunction of such Indifferent things is to part with our Christian Liberty Therefore so to do is our Sin The Major is undeniable from Gal. 5. 1. Stand fast therefore in the Liberty wherewith Christ hath made us Free and be not intangled again with the Yoke of Bondage The Minor is Evident from Scripture 1 Cor. 7. 23. Ye are Bought with a Price be not ye the Servants of Men. And from Reason For all Actions fall into these three Classes viz. Things Commanded Things Forbidden and Things Indifferent In the two former we have no Liberty it remains therefore our Liberty must consist wholly in the Latter and to submit to the Injunction of those things as necessary is to part with that and consequently with all our Liberty which would therefore be our Sin Third Argument To Derogate from Christs Honour and Royal Authority is manifestly our Sin But to submit to the Imposition of unnecessary Rites in the Worship of God by the Authority of Man is to derogate from the Honour and Royal Authority of Christ Therefore to submit to their Imposition is Sin The Minor only needing Proof hath it abundantly from all those Scriptures that Assert Christ to be the only Lord and Lawgiver to His Church Mat. 23. 8. Be ye not called Rabbi For One is your Master even Christ Jam. 4. 12. There is One Lawgiver who is able to Save and to Destroy And all those Scriptures that Assert the Plenitude and Perfection of His Laws for Government Heb. 3. 5. 6. Moses verily was Faithful in all his House as a Servant But Christ as a Son over His own House c. 2 Tim. 3. 16 17. All Scripture is given by Inspiration of GOD and is profitable for Doctrine for Reproof for Correction for Instruction in Righteousness That the Man of GOD may be perfect throughly furnished unto all good Works And by all those Scriptures which Condemn the Observance of any Religious Rites Imposed by any other Authority 2 Col. 21 22 23. Touch not Tast not Handle not which all are to Perish with the using after the Commandments and Doctrines of Men. Which things have indeed a shew of Will-worship and Humility c. Mark 7. 7. For laying aside the Commandment of God ye hold the Tradition of Men as the Washing of Pots and Cups and many other such like things ye do Fourth Argument To cross the Imitable Example of Christ in our Practice is Sin But to submit to the Imposition of things Indifferent though by Men in a Lawful Authority is to cross the Imitable Example of Christ Therefore so to do would be our Sin The Major is plain from all those Precepts that make it our Duty to follow Treading in His Steps 1 Pet. 2. 21. To Walk as He Walked 1 John 2. 6. To be followers of God aâ— dear Children Ephe. 5. 1. The Minor is as Evident from Mat. 15. 2 3 11 13. Washing of Hands there spoken of was an Indifferent Ceremony The Authority Commanding it was Lawful the Elders or Sanhedrim who at this time were not only their Ecclesiastical but Civil Rulers Besides the Argument from Decency to Induce it yet all these Motives in a thing so Innocent and Small as that
of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had while Uncircumcised that he might be the Father of all them that believe in Uncircumcision to one that never had Faith either before or after his Circumcision nor ever had or should have the Relation of a Father to all Believers as Abraham had In which respect it is equally absurd to say that Circumcision was a Seal unto all its Subjects of the Righteousness of the Faith which they had while Uncircumcised as to affirm that it was the Seal of a Paternal Relation to all Believers unto every one that received it And therefore both these must necessarily be resolved into the particular Circumstances of Abraham the particular Relation he had in the Covenants made with him and not into the Nature of Circumcision considered simply and in it self What Circumcision was directly and in its immediate use is one thing and what it was as subordinate to a better Covenant and Promise that had Precedency to it is another And it is easie to conceive that it was that to the Father of the Faithful in its extraordinary Institution that it could not be to the Children of the Flesh or carnal â—â—ed in its ordinary Use Page 189 190 191. 194. Upon the whole therefore it clearly appears That Circumcision was never appointed by God as a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith or of the Gospel Covenant to the Generality of the Subjects thereof It was indeed a Token of the Covenant then made betwixt God and them but a Seal only to Abraham and that in respect of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had being yet Vncircumcised that he might be the Father of all them that believe which cannot be affirmed of any others And so for Baptism it is indeed called a Figure 1 Pet. 3. 21. But a Sign or Figure proper only for men of Understanding not as Circumcision which was a Sign not improper for Infants because it left a signal Impression upon their Flesh when they came to understand the Reason of it But so cannot Baptism be to any Infant And indeed if Baptism be as you say it is a Seal of being already ingrafted into Christ and consequently into the Church then it is a Seal only to Believers who alone are capable thereof Since it is by Faith that men are in Christ and Christ in them 2 Cor. 13. 5. Rom. 11. 20 29. Eph. 3. 17 And therefore it cannot be any Seal at all to Infants that have no Faith But as it is evident that a Profession of Faith is required of all to be Baptized Mark 16. 16. Act 8. 37. which Infants are uncapable of so it is as evident that though Baptism is indeed a Sign or Figure of Regeneration to the Baptized 1 Pet. 3. 21. yet a Seal it cannot be that being the Work which the Holy Scripture assigns unto the Holy Spirit only Eph. 1. 13. In whom also after ye believed ye were Sealed by that Holy Spirit of Promise And no where is it assigned unto Baptism Besides as the true Seal of the Gospel Covenant is not at all at Man's dispose Jo. 3. 8. as Baptism is if that be it So it is as certain that God never sets his Seal to a Blank Which yet it must of Necessity follow that he doth if Circumcision or Baptism either were appointed by God as Seals of the Gospel Covenant or as Seals of their Interest in the Righteousness of Faith to whom soever they were to be Administred 'T is true both serve to represent Spiritual Things and Mysteries and therefore may be justly enough termed Signs Tokens or Figures But yet in a different Respect as well as also in a different manner For though Circumcision might and did signify the Duty of Regeneration or the Necessity thereof to Infants when they came to Years of Understanding Yet Regeneration in Actual being before their Circumcision could not be signified by it for then they had been all saved as it ought to be in the Baptized at least in Profession Mar. 16. 16. Acts 8. 37. Which is all the Baptizer is to require which cannot be expected of Infants However by the Secret Operation of God the great Work of Regeneration may be wrought in them from which they are not excluded by us though they are from Baptism for want of an Institution And if you say you have as much Reason to look upon Infants of Believers to be Sanctified as we have to esteem grown Christians to be such because our owning of these as such depends upon their own Testimony only in a Verbal Profession which may be Counterfeit We Answer That this is not Cogent forasmuch as we have no Testimony of Infants that they are Regenerate but Visible Profession of grown Per sons being Free and Serious is not only in the Judgment of Charity buâ— also of Ministerial Prudence to be taken for a Sign of Regeneration though it may be in God's Sight Counterfeit which belongs to us to examine Eighthly But then at last you tell us That though it cannot be made out that God hath promised to be a God by Regenerating and Justifying every Believer's Child which cannot be affirmed of all the Natural Posterity of Believing Abraham himself without contradicting Rom. 9. 6 7 8. Yet say you they are in Covenant in Respect of outward Priviledges But this we also deny Nor do the Scriptures any where give any Countenance at all unto such a conceit No Scripture in the whole New Testament doth affirm it neither by their Profession nor any other way as a Nation or by solemn Oath or by having Prophets sent unto them or by any other Revelation of Gods Mind or Promise are Infants said to be now at all in Covenant with God upon this Account And if it could be made out that they have an External being in the Covenant yet that gives them no Interest in the Covenant of Grace by God's Promise to be a God to Abraham's Seed Gen. 17. 7. And therefore that Text is in vain alledged to prove Infants to have an Interest in the Covenant of Evangelical Blessings and so of right to be Sealed with the Seal thereof For your Argument if the terms be distinctly opened is nothing else but this Infants of Believers as their Natural Seed are all in the Gospel Covenant not in the Inward but the Outward that is in the Outward Administration that is Baptism and therefore to be Baptized Which is meer trifling as proving that they are to be Baptized because they are to be Baptized and is but a meer Petitio Principij or a pitiful begging the Question in dispute It hath been frequently demanded by us what plain Scripture can you produce for the Warrant of Infants Baptism But for want of a plain Scripture Proof you are driven to make Use of Consequental Deductions And among the rest you seem to have your Principal Reliance upon those drawn from Gen. 17. 7. deriving your Consequence
Blessings and the Eternal Inheritance were first made to Christ Personal and in Him they are made over to his Mystical Body the Church who are united to Him by Faith And in this respect therefore it still lies upon you to prove that God hath made the Natural Birth Priviledge a way under the Gospel Administration to be Ingraffed into Christ Mystical So that upon the whole as to this you may see to how little purpose the Promise in Gen. 17. 7. is alleadged to Prove the thing in Question to wit the Baptism of Infants now under the Gospel That Text speaks of a Covenant made with Abraham and his Seed It doth not say with all Believers and their Seed or all Church Members and their Seed Neither doth it follow by any necessary Consequence that because GOD made a Covenant with Abraham and his Seed therefore He hath made a Covenant with Believers and their Seed Certain it is the Apostle was of another Mind who when he Expounds the Covenant of Grace understands it to be made to Abraham not as a Natural Father but as the Father of the Faithful both Jews and Gentiles Rom. 4. 11. 12. He received the Sign of Circumcision that he might be the Father of all them that Believe and walk in his Steps So Gal. 3. 7. Know ye therefore that they which are of Faith the same are the Children of Abraham And those only are the Seed to whom the Gospel Covenant was made and not to the Natural Seed either of Abraham or any other Believers Which hath been already made appear and that beyond any just Contradiction Object 13. But then it is yet again Objected That in the Commission Mat. 28. The Apostles are there commanded to Teach or Disciple all Nations Baptizing them But Infants are Disciples and therefore to be Baptized To this we Answer That by that very Commission Mat. 28. The Lord hath plainly given a Caution for the leaving out of Infants in this Administration according to ordinary Rule For in that he directs them to Baptize Disciples upon Preaching he doth exclude Infants who are not such Disciples nor according to ordinary Providence can be Infants after an ordinary rate are uncapable of understanding the Gospel when Preached and therefore are uncapable of being made Disciples thereby And there is no other way according to an ordinary Rule of being at all made Disciples but by that means And this the Apostles could easily understand as knowing that under the term Disciple in common Speech and in the whole New Testament those only are meant who being taught Professed the Doctrine Preached by such a one As John's Disciples Christ's Disciples the Disciples of the Pharisees and the Disciples of the Perverters Acts 20. 30. And accordingly they Administred Baptism And in that Christ appoints these to be Baptized he Excludes others For the appointment of Christ is most certainly the Rule according to which we are to Administer Holy things and they that do otherwise follow their own Inventions and are guilty of Will Worship If you say that Infants are Disciples Seminally in and by their Parents as if Believers could beget Believers or Disciples of Christ by natural Generation this hath been already at large disproved The Christian Church being not made up of Persons by meer humane Birth but Spiritual Regeneration And to say that Infants are Born Disciples by a Relation to the Covenant and so may have the Seal set on rhem without any precedent Teaching is but an unproved Dictate as if a Title to Baptism were by a Relation to the Covenant and Baptism were in its Nature a Seal of the Covenant which the Scripture no where Affirms nor is there any Rule for the Baptizing of Persons because of Relation to the Covenant But it is further Urged to this purpose that Infants are called Disciples by the Apostle Acts 15. 10. Now therefore why tempt ye God to put a Yoke upon the Neck of the Disciples Which being spoken of Circumcision must needs say you refer to Infants as the Disciples there spoken of as well as others To this we Answer That there is no necessity nor colour of giving to Infants the Name of Disciples from that Text For though it is true that they are called Disciples upon whose Necks the false Brethren would have put the Yoke of Circumcision yet this proves not Infants to be certainly meant by Disciples since adult Believers of the Gentiles also were required by the Jews to be Circumcised as Timothy Acts 13. 20. And again though it is true that they would have had Infants as well as the converted Gentiles to be Circumcised yet the putting the Yoke of Circumcision is not Actual Circumcision in their Flesh For that the Jews were able to bear for many Ages and that both before and since also to this day But the Yoke of Circumcision is the Necessity of it on Men's Consciences and therewith the whole Law of Moses ver 5. and that as Necessary to Salvation ver 1. And therefore Peter having said ver 10. Why tempt ye God to put a Yoke upon the Necks of the Disciples Adds ver 11. But we believe that through the Grace of the Lord Jesus we shall be saved even as they Plainly implying that the Yoke he meant was the necessity of Circumcision and keeping Moses his Law to Salvation Now this Yoke was not put upon Infants but upon Brethren taught the necessity of it So that upon the whole to insist upon a Command by virtual Consequence from hence for the Baptizing the Infants of Believers according to ordinary Rule is so far from being right and genuine that on the contrary this Text Mat. 28. 19. clearly proves Infants are not by ordinary Rule to be Baptized because Disciples of all Nations and no other are Appointed thereunto Whence it follows that the Baptism of Infants is beside the Institution and Rule of Christ and therefore no other than Will Worship and a Humane Invention Obj. 14. But the Infants of Believers even while they are Infants are capable of being made Partakers of the Inward Grace of Baptism as well as grown Men And therefore they ought to receive the outward Sign of Baptism Reply The Question between us is Whether the Infants of Believers universally or indifferently are to be admitted to the Ordinance of Baptism according to ordinary Rule Now it cannot be supposed that the Infants of Believers indifferently or vniversally have actually the thing signified by Baptism that is the Holy Ghost Vnion with Christ Adoption Forgiveness of Sins Regeneration and Eternal Life For then they are all Sanctified and all Believers And if this could be proved there would be no Question about Padobaptism Those Texts Acts 8. 37. Acts 10. 47. Acts 11. 17. would undeniably prove it And there is no Antipaedobaptist but will grant that all those concerning whom there is any tollerable Evidence given that they are Regenerated Persons Vnited to Christ whose Sins are
therefore whoever will pertinaciously persist in this Opinion of the Paedobaptists and Practise it accordingly they pollute the Blood of the Everlasting Covenant They Dishonour and make a Pageantry of the Sacrament they ineffectually represent a Sepulture into the Death of Christ and please themselvet in a Sign without effect making Baptism like the Fig-Tree in the Gospel full of Leaves but no Fruit and they invocate the Holy Ghost in vain doing as if one should call upon him to illuminate a Stone of a Tree Thus far Dr. Taylor p. 244. Mr. Baxter saith If there can be no Example given in the Scripture of any one that was Baptized without the Profession of a Saving Faith nor any â—recept for so doing then must we not Baptize any without it But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the consequent 2. Disp against Mr Blake 16. Arg. p. 149 2dly Christ hath instituted no Baptism but what is to be a sign of present Regeneration But to Men that understand not a Justifying Faith it cannot be Administred as a sign of present Regeneration therefore he hath Instituted no Baptism to be Administred to such 10th Arg. p 117 118. 3dly If it be the appointed Vse of all Christian Baptism to solemnize our Marriage with Christ or to Seal and Confirm our Vnion with him Then must we Baptize none that profess not justifying Faith But the Antecedent and Consequent are evident Gal. 3. 27 28 29. p. 98. The Lord Brookes saith That the Analogy which Baptism now hath with Circumcision in the Old Law is a fine Rationall Argument to Illustrate a Point well proved before But I somewhat doubt whether it be Proof enough for that which Some would prove by it Since besides the vast difference in the Ordinance the persons to be Circumcised are stated by a Positive Law so Express that is leaves no place for Scruple But it is far otherwise In Baptism Where all the Designation of Persons fit to be Partakers for ought I know are such as Beleeve For this is the Qualification which with Exactest Search I find the Scripture Repuires in persons to be baptized And this it seems to require in all such Persons Now how Infants can be properly said to Believe I am not yet fully resolved Dr. Barlow Bishop of Lincoln hath these Words in a Letter of his in Print I do believe and know saith he that there is neither Precept nor Example in Scripture for Paedobaptism nor any just Evidence of it for ahove 200 Years after Christ That Tertullian condemns it as an Vnwarrantable Custom And Nazianzen a good while after him dislikes it too Sure I am that in the Primitive Times they were Catecheumeni then Illuminaâ—i or Baptizati And that not only Pagans and Children of Pagans converted buâ— Children of Christian Parents The Truth is I do believe Paedobaptism how or by whom I knnow noâ— came into the World in the second Century And in the Third and Fourth began to be practised though not generally and desended as Lawful from that Text grosly Mis-understood Jo. â— 3. Vpon the like gross Mistake of Jo. 6. 53. They did for many Centuries both in the Greek and Latine Church communicate Infants and give them the Lord's Supper And I do confess they might do both as well as either But although they Baptiz'd some Infants and thought it Lawful so to do yet Austin was the First that ever said it was Necessary I have read what my Learned and worthy Friends Dr. Hammond Mr. Baxter and others say in Defence of it And I confess I wonder not a little that Men of such great Parts should say so much to so little purpose For I have not as yet seen any thing like an Arguument for it Thus far Dr. Barlow Obj. 20. But the Apostle tells us That neither Circumcision availeth any thing nor Vncircumcision but a New Creature It is our main Business therefore to press after the Power of Godlyness And we are afraid that while there is so much stress laid upon the Circumstantials of Religion it tends to the losing the Substance Besides having been already Baptized in our Infancy what necessity is there for the Repetition thereof It being an approved Maxim that that which ought not to be done being done ought not to be undone We Answer First whereas you tell us that neither Circumcision availeth any thing nor Un circumcision but a new Creature Certain it is that once Circumcision was something when the Lord would have killed Moses because of the Circumcision Exod 4. 24 26. And when the Lord said That whosoever was not Circumcised should be cut off from his People Gen. 17. 14. True it is that now under the Gospel it is nothing because Abolished Gal. 5. 2. If you be Circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing But shall we therefore say that Baptism is nothing Baptism is the Counsel of God Luk. 7. 29. And is that nothing Baptism is a Command of the Lord Jesus Mat. 28. 19. And is his Command nothing And therefore Secondly We cannot be justly affirmed to have placed more stress on the Ordinance insisted on than the Scripture it self chargeth on it In which respect it ought to be considered what our Saviour himself speaks when he was to be Baptized by John after the manner we are now pleading for Mat. 3. 15. Suffer it to be so now For thus it becometh to fulfil all Righteousness And what is that Righteousness or Holiness which God now requireth of us but our answerable Conformity to the revealed Will of God and that both in respect of the Duties of the first as well as the Second Table Upon which account we ought further to consider what a special charge our Lord Jesus left with his Apostles upon his Departure hence That they should teach the Nations to observe all things whatsoever he had commanded them And this of Believers Baptism amongst the rest Mat. 28. 19 20. Mark 16. 16. And elsewhere Paul commends the Corinthians for that they had kept the Ordinances as they were delivered unto them 1 Cor. 11. 2. It is therefore certainly an undue Reflection when you suppose that we place too much stress upon an Ordinance of Christ while we plead for the Purity of its Practise according to the Primitive Institution It was our Saviours passionate Expression to his Disciples John 14. 15. If ye love me keep my Commandments And John 15. 14. Ye are my Friends if ye do whatsoever I Command you We cannot therefore express our Friendship to Christ as we ought if we are negligent on this Account And certain it is that as we cannot express our Love to Christ aright if we do not whatsoever he hath commanded us So if we do it not as he hath commanded us for if God were so strict as we all know he was upon this Account under the former Administration we cannot rationally expect to be Indulged in a known Deviation in respect of any part of
that Worship which he hath now Prescribed unto us Holiness and Righteousness respecting our Duty both to God and Man is indeed indispensibly required of us and it cannot be denied but that the Baptism of Believers we are now pleading for is a main part thereof it being that Homage or Worship which we do more immediately perform and offer up unto the great God So that we place no more stress thereon than the matter requires we dare not indeed lay that stress upon it as some of our Adversaries in this point have done who have made it absolutely necessary to Salvation From a gross Misunderstanding of that Text. John 3. 5. Except a Man be born of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God but though an Ignorant or Vnwilling neglect thereof will not unavoidably shut us out from God's presence yet since Christ hath commanded it and hath promised his presence to his People in the due performance of it it cannot be denied but that we are infinitely obliged to be found in an answerable Practise And therefore Thirdly Whereas you tell us that having been already Baptized in your Infancy you reckon there is no necessity lying on you to be again Baptized We Answer that it is no way safe for any to rest Contented with that Pretended Baptism they received in their Infancie It being a meer Nullity in respect of the New Testament Ordinance of Baptism And the Reason is plain because there was that wanting in it which is Absolutely Essential thereunto For when you Baptize Infants or were your selves baptized in that Capacity by sprinkling a little Water only on the Face there was a manifest failure First in respect of the right Subject and Secondly in respect of the right form or manner of the Administration of that Ordinance First In respect of the right Subject which must be qualified according to the Institution that is the Person to be Baptized ought to be a Believer or at least one that makes an External Profession of Faith in Christ as hath been already proved from Mark 16. 16. Acts 8. 37 c. Now unless you can demonstrate that at the time when Baptism was Administred to you in your Infant state you were then Actual Believers or at least that you did then make some sensible Profession thereof you were not according to Christ's Rule the right or proper Subjects of such an Ordinance Secondly In respect of the External Mode or Form of its Administration which if we consult the Scripture Rule is not to be performed by sprinkling or pouring a little Water upon the Face only but by dipping the whole Person under Water and raising him up again to Figure out unto us our Communion with Christ in His Death Burial and Resurrection And that the Manner and Ceremony of Baptism ought to be by dipping or plunging the whole Body under Water and not by sprinkling or pouring a little Water only on the Face or Head as hath been commonly used since the Subjects have been changed from Men to Babes is thus made good First from the proper and genuine Signification of the Word so well agreeing with the ends and use of Baptism the Ceremony with the Substance and the Sign with the thing signified The Word we call Baptism and the Latins Baptismus is no other than the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in plain English is to dip plunge or cover all over Which we find witnessed unto by the following Authors Men of Learning and Piety though differing from us in our present Practise Stephens and Scapula two as great Masters of the Greek Tongue as we have any and both Defenders of Infants Baptism do tell us in their Lexicons That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Mergo Immergo obruo item tingo quod fit immergendo inficere imbuere viz. To dip plunge overwhelm put under cover over to Die in Colour which is done by Plunging They tell us also it signifies abluo lavo Leigh in his Critica Sacra saith It s native and proper Signification is to dip into Water or to plunge under Water Salmatius in his Book de Prim. Papae p. 193. saith That is not Baptism they give to Children but Rantism Mr. Dan. Rogers in his Treatise of Sacraments Part 1. C. 5. P. 70. Saith the Greeks wanted not other Words to express any other Act besides Dipping if the Institution could bear it What Resemblance of the Burial or Resurrection of Christ is in Sprinkling All Antiquity and Scripture saith he confirm that way To Dip therefore is exceeding Material to the Ordinance which was the usuage of Old without Exception of Countries hot or cold Dr. Taylor in his Rule of Cons L. 3. C. 4. If you would attend to the proper signification of the Word Baptism signifies Plunging in Water or Dipping with Washing Mr. Joseph Mede in his Diatribe on Tit. 3. 2. Saith that there was no such thing as Sprinkling or Rantism used in Baptism in the Apostles Days nor in many Ages after them Chamier â—an Gathol Tom. 4. l. 5. c. 2. Serm. 6. The Antient Vse of Baptism was to dip the whole Body into the Element which is the Force of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Therefore did John Baptize in a River which is nevertheless changed into Aspersion though uncertain when and from whence that Custom was taken Dr. Martin Luther in his Book de Baptismo Tom. 1. p. 71. 72. Speaking of the signification of the Word Baptismus Graecum est Latine potest verti mersio cum Immergimus aliquid in Aqua ut totum tegatur Aqua quamvis ille mos aboleverit apud pleresque debeant tamen prorsus immergi statim retrahi sane si Spectes quid Baptismus significet idem requiri videbis That is Baptism is a Greek Word and may be Interpreted an Over-whelming when we plunge any thing into the Water that it may be covered all over And although that Custom is now out of use with many yet they ought truly to be dipt and presently lifted up again And certainly if you consider the nature of the thing you will see that to be necessary Secondly It is very considerable how Emphatically this Sense and Signification of the Word is confirmed unto us by the several Metaphors used by the Holy Spirit in Scripture in allusion hereto viz. when Persons are Implunged into great Afflictions they are said to be Baptized therein Mark 10. 38. And so for Persons that were endowed with great measures of the Spirit they are said â—â— be Baptized therewith Acts 1. 5. The Children of Israel being encompassed with the Cloud over their Head and the divided Sea on both sides were said to be Baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea 1 Cor. 10. And Baptized Persons are said to be Dead and Buried in allusion to putting Men into the Earth and covering them therewith None of which can be figured by
Decency of the Practice will find Cause sufficiently to Vindicate it from the Reproach of Unseemliness and be able to convince Gainsayers of their Unchristian Slauders in that Respect So as for the hazarding of Health to the Weak the constant and known Experience of Thousands doth amply refute it as a groundless Suggestion THE THIRD PART Containing some Animadversions on Mr. Sidenham 's Treatise of Baptism wherein that of Infants is further Disproved Together with some further Reflections on Mr. Allen 's forementioned Discourse to the same Purpose Whereunto is Annexed an Answer at large unto Mr. Baxter 's chief Argument for the Church-membership of Infants from the Nature of the Covenant made with Israel in the Land of Moab Deut. 29. where Children are Represented as Fellow-Covenanters with their Parents which saith he was a Covenant of Grace or Gospel Covenant And therefore neither it nor the Church-membership of Infants which was built thereon Repealed SECT I. WE shall begin with Mr. Sidenham's Treatise And First Whereas Mr. Sidenham pretending to Answer that Argument of ours That there is no express Command nor any positive Example in all the New Testament concerning the Baptism of Infants For the Refutation thereof He tells us That this Argument is built on this false Principle That no direct Consequences from Scripture are Mandatory and so obliging and of Divine Authority Whereas we affirm no such thing but only say That in all Positive or Instituted Worship such as Baptism is which hath no other Rule nor Reason than the meer will of the Law-giver there must be either an express Command or an express Example to enforce it In all other Respects we justly allow such proper Consequences as are deducible from the Scriptures for the enforcing of Duty or for the Comfort of God's People For therefore is Preaching Expounding and Searching the Scripture appointed unto us But as it would have been a Sin for Abraham upon bare Consequences only and without an express Warrant to have Circumcised his Children So it would be no less to us without the same Divine Warrant in respect of Baptism And therefore Mr. Sidenham doth not well to say That we may as well argue That because Abraham was Circumcised when 99 Years old Therefore old Persons are to be Circumcised and none else As because grown Persons were Baptized therefore not Infants Whereas he knew Abraham had an express Command as for the Circumcision of himself so for his Infants also Which is that which we justly affirm to be wanting under the Gospel in respect of Baptism SECT II. § 1. BUT then Mr. Sidenham doth also tell us That it is to be considered that there is nothing in all the New Testament against the Baptizing of Infants no hint from any express Word dropt from Christ or his Apostles nor any Phrase which doth forbid such an Act. p. 1. And this Argument both he and others do lay very much stress upon But then Mr. Sidenham should have considered That it is the Opinion of divers able and godly Divines That what is not commanded in the Worship of God is forbidden And that every Affirmative command of Christ includes a Negative For saith Tertullian This is a certain Rule if it be said 't is lawful because the Scripture doth not forbid it It may equally be Retorted It is therefore not lawful because the Scripture doth not command it And herein therefore consisted the Sin of Nadab and Abihu Lev. 10. who were destroyed for offering strange Fire which God had not Commanded They might have said Lord 't is true Thou hast not commanded this strange Fire But as thou hast not Commanded it so neither hast thou Forbidden it And by the same Reason might Abraham have Circumcised his Children on the seventh day as well as on the eighth because God had not forbidden it For though God had commanded it to be done on the eighth day yet he had no where expresly forbidden the seventh But since the eighth day was expresly appointed and not the seventh though the seventh was no where expresly forbidden therefore Abraham was bound to the former and not to the latter and it would have been his Sin to have varied from the Rule prescribed him In like manner we say The Baptism of Believers is expresly commanded That of Infants is not commanded and therefore though it be not forbidden yet since 't is not commanded it would be our Sin to practise it And so in the Passeover Whereas God commanded a Lamb a Male of the first year to be eaten they might as well have made use of an Ewe or a Ram of the second or third Year because not forbidden no express Word of God had forbidden it So when David and the People of Israel had made a new Cart for the Carriage of the Ark which was to have been born on the Priests Shoulders only and when God smote Vzzah for holding the Ark they might as well have Pleaded that neither of these was expresly forbidden But yet nevertheless For this Cause the Lord made a Breach upon them for that they did not seek him after the due order that he had expresly appointed 1 Chron. 15. 13. § 2. We find no where in all the Scriptures That ever any express Word dropt from Christ or his Apostles to the Prohibiting or Forbidding of Crucifixes Beads Altars Praying to Saints Pictures in Churches Pilgrimages Which things are still in use among Papists but disowned by Protestants because not commanded though not expresly forbidden The like may be said concerning Bowing at the Name of Jesus the Cross in Baptism Surplices in Preaching Kneeling at the Sacrament set Forms of Prayer In respect of which it is no proper Argument that therefore these things are lawful to be used in the Divine Service because not forbidden For as they are not forbidden so neither are they commanded Which is the very Argument made use of by the Generality of Dissenters for their Justification in Opposition to Prelatical Incroachments And therefore thou art Inexcusable O Man For wherein thou Judgest another thou Condemnest thy self Rom. 2. 1. There is no express Word of God against the Communicating of Infants in the Lord's Supper And yet you your selves do not therefore count it lawful to admit them to that Ordinance without an express Word to that purpose And lastly Bells are not expresly forbidden to be Baptized and yet we do not reckon that a sufficient Argument for such a Practise And whereas it is Objected as to this That Bells are not Subjectum Capax A fit or capable Subject for such an Ordinance we would then ask wherein lies their Incapacity Cannot a Minister sprinkle a little Water upon a Bell and use the Words of the Institution in as solemn a manner as he does when he Baptizes a Child Or are they incapable for want of an Institution We say the same of Infants And if you say they are not capable of the uses and ends of
§ 2. But then Mr. Sidenham contradicts himself and spoils all again afterward when he tells us That whereas Christ took up those Infants in his Arms and laid his Hands upon them it cannot be understood but in one of these 3 Senses either First in order to the Cure of Diseases by a Miraculous Power Secondly for Consecration of any to any Divine Work and Service or Thirdly for Confirmation after Baptism And to this purpose saith he may we apply Christ's Act to these Infants to confirm the Promise solemnly after Baptism For saith he It was most generally used after Baptism and presupposeth baptism to Precede And saith he Let any that differ from us shew any where in the Gospel when Christ laid his Hands upon any Person in this latter Sense Vnbaptized Wherein he doth expresly take it for granted or at least he doth strongly suppose that these Infants had been already Baptized and that this Act of Christ was for their Confirmation after Baptism Now if those Infants had been already Baptized it must have been Administred to them either by Christ himself or his Disciples Not by Christ himself who as Mr. Sidenham grants Baptized noâ—e And if they had been already Baptized by the Disciples which must be by vertue of some Special Order or Commission from Christ Then how doth this agree with what Mr. Sidenham had said before When he tells us p. 91. That the reason why the Disciples forbad and rebuked those that brought these Children unto Christ must needs be from some such Principle which those of a contrary Judgment take up that they were not capable and were first to be Taught that only grown Men and Professors of Faith were fit for Ordinances For if they had been already Baptized upon Christ's special Order to that purpose to them which must be supposed if they had been Baptized at all there had been then no room for such Scruples as these Neither is it any way likely that they would have at all Rebuked those that brought them but rather have encouraged them so to do and have been helpful themselves to have Introduced them into Christ's Presence in order to the obtaining his Benediction on them after the Administration of so Solemn an Ordinance § 3. So that this doth clearly demonstrate to us That at least these little Children were not then Baptized nor indeed can this Scripture be intended at all as a Rule unto us to that purpose where nothing of Baptism is at all mentioned or can at all rationally be Supposed to have been Practised either by Christ or his Disciples upon this Occasion That they had not been Baptized by Christ himself is evident from the very Letter of the Text He Himself Baptizing not And that they had not been Baptized by the Disciples is also as plain for otherwise they had not express'd the unwillingness they did that such should be brought unto Christ for their Confirmation after Baptism which as we see Mr. Sidenham doth so ungroundedly suppose had been already Administred unto them Let us then bring our Infants to Christ in the way that himself hath appointed But let us not of our own Heads Administer such an Ordinance as Baptism to them without his special Warrant lest we incur the guilt of Will Worship and lest he say unto us at leaò as he did unto the Jews upon another Account Who hath required these things at your Hands But whereas Mr. Sidenham tells us p. 99. That as for grown visible Professors they are but probable Members themselves and yet must we with scorn poor probable Disciples our selves deny a little Water to Infants § 4. To this we Answer We do not with scorn deny a little Water to Infants or with scorn reject them from Christian Baptism but it is the meer Conscience of our Duty and Allegiance to Christ that makes us refrain without his special Warrant so to do as being afraid of Prophaning so Sacred an Institution as Baptism is by misapplying it to a wrong Subject And whereas Mr. Sidenham calls grown visible Professors but probable Members We acknowledg that it is at best but a Judgment of Probability or Charity that we can at all pretend unto in our admission of any such to Baptism But then it cannot be denied but that we are upon the surer ground when according to Christ's Rule we admit only grown visible Professors thereto who besides that Birth Priviledge which you so much insist upon which they may equally pretend unto as well as Iâ—faâ—ts are capable of making also a verbal Profession of their Love to Christ with an answerable Conversation So that it cannot be denied but that we have a greater ground of hope that unto such belongeth the Kingdom of God who have this double Advantage than we can have in respect of Infants who have only a pretended Birth Priviledge to be insisting on and concerning whom there is no Word of God that gives the least Warrant for their admission to Baptism upon that Account For however some of them may belong to the Election of Grace and though our Saviour doth assure us that of such is the Kingdom of God yet this is no sufficient ground to Administer Baptism to them 'till capable of making an answerable Profession as the Gospel directs And therefore we do not refuse to Baptize them from a Principle of Scorn as Mr. Sidenham suggesteth but because we dare not take the Holy and Dreadful Name of God in vain as it useth to be by those who presume to sprinkle Water upon the Face of an Infant in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit without his special Direction or Appointment in that respect For as we have seen that the present Scripture doth not prove it So neither doth any other that we can meet with give any Warrant or Countenance at all unto such a Practice SECT VI. § 1. MR. Sidenham Arguing from the Institution Mat. 28. 19. tells us p. 128 129 130. That if that place be the Prime Institution of Baptizing from which place we Exclude Infants where Christ useth such universal and Comprehensive Expressions We shall desire saith he but to deal with them on their ground and the same Text will Serve to prove our Positions more demonstratively than theirs And this Text saith he shews that Christ gave Commission to the Apostles and Ministers to Preach and Baptize but in what order to do it or what should be required or the qualification of the Subject as absolutely Necessary is not at all discovered in this Scripture They must look for another Text to Exclude Infants besides this Ele give up their Confidence Either saith he this place is the full and Exact Rule or Institution of Baptizing or it is not If they say it is then it would discribe the Persons and the maner The matter and the form of Baptizing and that in the usuall Phrase with other Scriptures But here is only a General Commission to
Spiritual We say not For it is plain there was no such Inquisition concerning the good or bad qualities the Fruitfulness or Unfruitfulness of the Members of the former Church in 〈◊〉 to Admission thereinto It was enough barely to be of Abraham's Seed or Family to be so esteemed But now saith John the Axe is laid unto the Root of the Trees And they must all be hewn down under the Gospel that have nothing else to pretend unto but that of a Godly Parentage which plainly excludes Infants as well as all other unfruitful Branches from the Gospel Church And to this same purpose is it that he doth further assure them ver 12. That Jesus Christ was now resolved with the Gospel Fan to Purge thoroghly the Floor of the Gospel Church and to gather the Wheat into His Garner Under the Law and before also even in Abrahmam's time the Chaff and the Wheat remained together unsevered but now the Fan must go to Work We read of no such Fanning Work in the former Church state And to what purpose is it else that Christ told the Woman of Samaria as he doth Jo. 4. 23. The Hour cometh and now is when the true Worshippers shall Worship the Father in Spirit and in Truth For the Father seeketh such to Worship Him Which plainly sheweth that God expecteth now greater Purity Exactness and Spirituality in such as were to approach His Presence in the Celebration of Gospel Worship And indeed of this the whole fifth of Mat. is a sufficient and convincing Proof giving clear evidence concerning the refinedness and spirituality of the Gospel Administration above and beyond that of the Law For then saith our Saviour it was thus and thus but I am come to tell you a New Doctrine and do call you up to greater Purity and Strictness § 4. Secondly We Answer That that Holiness which was ascribed unto the whole Body of the Jewish Nation was a Typical Ceremonial Holiness and was no other than was ascribed to the whole Land City Temple Altar and divers other things and is therefore now Abolished For if all things under the Law were but a Figure and Shadow of good things to come then such was the Holiness of the Jewish Nation and People also Now this the Apostle in the 9th and 10th Chapters to the Hebrews proves at large shewing that all things under the Law all the Priviledges of the Old Covenà nt with all the Perquisites Dependancies and Appurtenances thereunto belonging are called by such Names as make them evidently appear to be Typical As First they are called a Figure Heb. 9. 9. Which was a Figure for the time then present So verse 24. For Christ is not Entered into the Holy Place made with Hands which are the Figures of the true Secondly They are called a Pattern Heb. 9. 23. It was necessary that the Pattern of things in the Heavens c. Thirdly They are called a Shadow Heb. 10. 1. For the Law having a Shadow of good things to come and not the very Image of the thing◠c. Now the Holiness of the Jewish Nation being an Appurtenance belonging to the Law or the Old Covenant It was but a Figure Pattern or Shadow of all good things to come and was therefore Typical and is now Abolished And if we will know what the Holiness of the Jewish Nation did serve to Typifie or Represent unto us It is evident that as it Typified the Holiness of Christ himself So of all Abraham's Spiritual Seed who are made Holy by Believing in Christ § 5. The Time of Reformation therefore spoken of in the forementioned Scripture Heb. 9. 8 9 10. being come wherein those Imperfect Gifts and Sacrifices with all those Carnal Ordinances which were for a Season Imposed on the Jewish Nation were to be done away and the Gospel-Church taking place in the Room thereof It cannot rationally be supposed but the one doth far exceed the other at least in Purity and Inward Glory For by how much Christ hath now obtained a more excellent Ministry than that of Moses and by how much also he is the Mediatour of a better Covenant Which is Established upon better Promises as the Apostle affirmes Heb. 8. 6. By so much of necessity must the gospell Church exceed in lustre beauty Refinedness and Spirituality the former Administration SECT VIII THE Second Argument in Mr. Allen's Book remaining to be Answered is this That all Persons and so little Children that were of the Legal Church must needs in one Respect or other have been Persons of a Religious or Spiritual Consideration And this considered saith he I know not upon what better to place the Visible Church-Membership of Infants or to Attribute it to than God's Electing and Calling them to his People and their Parents Dedicating and Devoting them to God and his Service And the Scripture useth to reckon little Children as having begun to do this or that when they are but placed in Circumstances that will bring them to it Actually in the Issue And thus the Children of the Kohathites of a Month Old were numbred with their Fathers as with them keeping the charge of the Sanctuary when they were but in a way of being trained up to it And for the same Reason little Children were said to enter into Covenant with God when their Parents did so Deut. 29. 11 12 § 2. To this we Answer First By granting that it was in a Religious Consideration that Children were then Admitted Members of the Legal Church But yet it doth not therefore follow that they are to be admitted Members of the Gospel-Church for the Reasons before rendered The Terms of Admission into that being far more strict and Spiritual than were those under the Law Secondly Whereas he tells us That the Reason of their Admission into the Legal Church was God's Electing and Calling them to that Priviledge This we also grant But then we also say that though the Call and Election of God in Reference to the Inward Substance of the Covenant of Grace or to an Invisible Membership in the Invisible Church is Invariable It doth not follow that the Gifts and Callings of God in Reference to External Membership are therefore also Invariable or Irrevokable as is afterward by Mr. Allen Asserted and unto which we have already in the Second Part of this Discourse given a sufficient Answer For we find by undeniable Evidence that those External Gifts and Priviledges that the Natural Posterity of Abraham were once Invested with are now Rescinded Repealed and Repented of and it cannot be affirmed that in any Religious Capacity whatsoever they are now at all owned by God as his Church and People as once they were neither Parents nor Children But for the most part remain broken off and Unchurched to this Day And if you say That they and their Children being broken off We and our Children are Ingraffed in their Room This is that which remains to be proved and indeed the
Transgression and Sin That Covenant can never be a Covenant of Grace but of Works But the Legal Covenant is plainly in Scripture opposed unto the Gospel Covenant in all these Respects Heb. 12. from the 18th to the 24th Gal. 3. 10 11 12 13 14. Gal. 4. 21 c. Therefore the Legal Covenant could not possibly be a Covenant of Grace but of Works § So that notwithstanding all the most plausible Arguments which are usually urged by way of opposition to what we have now Asserted unless we must shut our Eyes there can be nothing more plain than this That the Law given by Moses to the Seed of Abraham at Mount Sinai instead of being a Covenant of Faith in Christ Jesus or a Covenant of Gospel Grace as many Divines famous for Learning and Piety do confidently affirm it is was no other than a Covenant of Works and that which is therefore now done away 2 Cor. 3. 7 8 9 11. Col. 2. 14. Heb. 8. 7 13. From whence it plainly and undeniably follows that the Covenant of Circumcision mentioned Gen. 17. 7 8 9 10. which God there promised to Establish betwixt Himself Abraham and his Seed after him in their Generations being the same thing and of the same nature as hath been already proved is therefore now also Repealed and done away therewith Acts 15. 10. Gal. 5. 3 4 5. Col. 2. 14. And consequently all the Arguments thence deduced howsoever or by whomsoever formed for the support of Infants Baptism do of themselves vanish THE FIFTH PART Containing a Description of that truly Evangelical Covenant God was pleased to make with Believing Abraham Wherein lies the Sum of the Everlasting Gospel then Preached unto him since Proclaimed by the Apostles and which now remains to be yet further Published unto all Nations for the Obedience of Faith Rom. 16. 25 26. Rev. 14. 6 7 Wherein the true Nature and Difference betwixt the two Covenants that of Works and that of Grace is further Explained Rev. 11. 19. And the Temple of God was opened in Heaven and there was seen in his Temple the Ark of his Testament and there were Lightnings and Voices and Thundrings and an Earth-quake and Great Hail SECT I. § 1. BUT though the Covenant of Circumcision which God was pleased to make with Abraham Gen. 17. 7 8 9 10. was no other than a Covenant of Works as the Covenant at Sinai was and are both therefore now done away yet as we have already declared it is evident and undeniable that God was also pleased to enter into a Covenant of Grace with Believing Abraham even such a Covenant as was purely Evengelical and that which never shall be abolished And it is also as evident that this Gospel Covenant had been Established and Preached unto Abraham long before the Covenant of Circumcision was made with him For both Abraham and all true Believers in that Age were in the Covenant of Grace long before the Covenant of Circumcision was made and would have been so if that had never been which Covenant of Grace or Gospel Covenant which God was thus pleased to make with Believing Abraham is indeed the great Charter by which the Believing Gentiles always did and do claim Heaven and Earth and all the Promises they have title to For in this respect it is that the Apostle tells us as he doth Gal. 3. 8. That the Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the Heathen through Faith preached before the Gospel unto Abraham saying in thee shall all Nations be Blessed Which he quoteth not from Gen. 17. 7 8. but from Gen. 12. 2 3. Where before Abraham's removal out of his own Country and therefore long before the Covenant of Circumcision was in being God enters into a solemn Covenant with Abraham saying I will make of thee a great Nation and I will bless thee and make thy Name great and thou shalt be a Blessing 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 § 2. If we are to seek therefore of the Covenant of Grace that God made with Abraham which is the Great Charter of the Gentiles hope behold and see lo here it is a Covenant of Grace indeed A Covenant truly Evangelical as being every way Extensive Full Free Absolute and without those Conditions that the Covenant of Circumcision was manifestly clogged withal And therefore called the Covenant of Promise in the forementioned 3d of the Galatians for having told us vers 8. of the Promise that God had made unto Abraham that in Him should all Nations be Blessed And having also told us vers 14. 16. that the blessing of Abraham was to come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ that we might receive the Promise of the Spirit through Faith He adds vers 17 18. And this I say that the Covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ the Law which was 430 years after cannot disanul that it should make the Promise of none Effect For if the Inheritance be of the Law it is no more of Promise but God gave it to Abraham by Promise Which clearly argues the Absoluteness of this Gospel Covenant For if it had not been Free and Absolute but Conditional as the Covenant of Circumcision was and as the Legal Covenant at Mount Sinai was then according to the Scope of the Apostles Reasoning it had not properly been a Covenant of Promise but a Legal Covenant and so the Inheritance had been of the Law For wherein differs the Law from a free Promise but that the one is Conditional the other Absolute The one promiseth Life upon condition of Obedience the other without Mony and without Price Isa 55. 1. And therefore the Covenant which God made with the Israelites at Mount Sinai though it had many Glorious Promises in it that God would be their God and they should be his peculiar People and Treasure c. Yet these Promises being clogged with Conditions of Obedience impossible to be performed That Covenant therefore is never presented to us in the Scripture under the Notion or Denomination of a Covenant of Promise but under the Denomination of the Law or as a Covenant of Works only For Moses saith the Apostle describeth the Righteousness of the Law that the man that doth these things shall live by them Rom. 10. 5 And so likewise Gal. 3. 10. As many as are of the Works of the Law are under the Curse For it is written Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the Book of the Law to do them And vers 12. The Law is not of Faith but the man that doth them shall live in them And for the same Reason therefore is the Covenant of Circumcision represented to us also under the same Denomination of the Law Rom. 4. 13. as shall be afterward shewn because though it is true it had Promises in it that were