of Duty Choice and Sanctity is joined with it in order to the Production of the end so mentioned p. 243. Thirdly They that Baptize Children make Baptism to be wholly an Outward Duty a Work of the Law a Carnal Ordinance It makes us adhere to the Letter without regard to the Spirit and to Relinquish the Mysteriousness the Substance the Spirituality of the Gospel Which Argument is of so much the more Consideration because under the Spiritual Covenant of the Gospel of Grace if the Mystery goes not before the Symbole which it doth when the Symboles are Cognations of Grace as the Sacraments are yet it always accompanies it but never follows in Order of Time and is clear in the perpetual Analogy of Holy Scripture Fourthly That the words mentioned in St. Peter's Sermon Act. 2. which are the only Records of the Promises are interpreted upon a weak mistake The Promise belongs to you and your Children Therefore Infants are actually Receptive of it in that Capacity That is the Argument But the Reason of it is not yet discovered nor ever will For to you and your Children is to you and your Posterity to you and your Children when they are of the same Capacity in which you are receptive of the Promise But he that whenever the Word Children is Exprest understands Infants must needs believe that in all Israel there were no Men but all were Infants And if that had been true it had been the greater wonder that they should overcome the Anakims and beat the King of Moab and March so far and Discourse so well for they were all called the Children of Israel p. 233. Fifthly Whereas 't is Argued from the Commission Mark 16. 6. He that Believeth and is Baptized shall be Saved Infants are Believers and therefore according to the Commission they are to be Baptized Whether Infants saith he have Faith or no is a Question to be disputed by Persons that Care not how much they say and how little they prove First Personal and Actual Faith they have none For they have no Acts of Understanding And besides how can any Man know that they have since he never saw any sign of it neither was he told so by any that could tell Secondly Some say they have Imputative but then so let the Sacrament be to that is if they have the Parents Faith or the Churches then so let Baptism be imputed also by Derivation from them And as in their Mothers Womb and while they hung on their Mothers Breasts they live upon their Mothers Nourishment So they may upon the Baptism of their Parents or their Mother the Church For since Faith is necessary to Baptism and they themselves confess it by striving to find out new Kinds of Faith to dawb the matter up such as the Faith such must be the Sacrament for there is no Proportion between an Actual Sacrament and an Imputative Faith this being an immediate and necessary Order to that And whatsoever can be said to take off from the necessity of Actual Faith all that and much more may be said to excuse from the Actual Susception of Baptism The first of these Devices was that of Luther and his Scholars the second of Calvin and his And yet there is a Third Device which the Church of Rome Teaches and that is that Infants have Habitual Faith but who told them so How can they prove it What Revelation or Reason teacheth any such thing Are they by this Habit so much as disposed to an Actual Belief without a Miracle Can an Infant sent into a Mahometan Province be more confident for Christianity when he comes to be a Man than if he had not been Baptized Are there any Acts precedent concomitant or consequent to this pretended Habit This strange Invention is absolutely without Art without Scripture Reason or Authority but the Men are to be excused unless there were a better p. 240. To which saith he This Consideration may be added that if Baptism be necessary to the Salvation of Infants as the Fathers of Old and the Church of Rome and England since upon whom is the Imposition laid To whom is the Command given To the Parents or the Children Not to the Parents for then God hath put the Salvation of Innocent Babes into the Power of others and Infants may be damned for their Fathers Carelessness or Malice It follows that it is not necessary at all to be done to them to whom it cannot be prescribed as a Law and in whose behalf it cannot be reasonably entrusted to others with the Apendant Necessity And if it be not necessary it is certain it is not Reasonable and most certain it is no where in terms prescribed and therefore it is presumed that Baptism ought to be understood and administred according as other Precepts are with Reference to the Capacity of the Subject and the Reasonableness of the thing And again p. 242. If any Man runs for Succour to that exploded Cresphugeton that Infants have Faith or any other inspired Habit of I know not what or how we desire no more Advantage in the World than that they are constrained to answer without Revelation against Reason common Sense and all the Experience in the World Sixthly But Tradition saith he by all means must supply the place of Scripture and there is pretended a Tradition Apostolical that Infants were Baptized But at this saith he we are not much moved for we who rely upon the written Word of God as suffcient to establish all true Religion do not value the Allegation of Tradition And however the World goes none of the Resormed Churches can pretend this Argument for this Opinion Because they who reject Tradition when it is against them must not pretend it in the least for them But if we will allow the Topick to be good yet how will it be verified For so far as can yet appear it relies wholly upon the Testimony of Origen for from him Austin had it Now a Tradition Apostolical if it be not consigned with a fuller Testimony than of one Person whom all other Ages have condemned of other Errors and whose Works saith â—rasmus are so spurious that he that reads them is uncertain whether he read Origen or Ruffinus therefore will obtain so little Reputation amongst those who know that things have upon greater Authority been pretended to be received from the Apostles but falsly that it will be a great Argument that he is Ridiculous and Weak that shall be determined by so weak Probation in matters of so great Concernment But besides that the Tradition cannot be proved to be Apostolical we have very good Evidence from Antiquity that it was the Opinion of the Primitive Church that Infants ought not to be Baptized which saith he is clear in the Canon of Neocaesarea which he mentions at large in the Original Greek determining that none ought to be Baptized without giving an Account of their Faith and desiring the same And
27. Out of whose Mouth God there Promiseth That his Spirit should never depart nor out of the Mouth of his Seed nor out of the Mouth of his Seeds Seed for ever Indeed If God's Holy Spirit were absolutely and everlastingly entailed upon all the Natural Off-spring of Believers now as our Opponents from this Scripture do affirm it is this would be comfortable Tydings indeed could it be substantially proved unto us But alas As the present Scripture proves it not so neither doth any other that we know of and were it so that God had any where promised that at the Request of the Believing Parents he would not fail to give his Holy Spirit unto all their Natural Seed No doubt Noah Abraham and David with many other choice Believers recorded in the Scripture were not defective in their Duty to be wrestling with God for their Off-spring in this Respect that they all might be Partakers of his Holy Spirit and consequently that they all might be made Inheritours of the Heavenly Kingdom For the Holy Spirit once given as the Scripture before alledged proves was never more to depart from them But alas Most evident it is that notwithstanding their most Zealous Prayers and other Pious endeavours for the Spiritual benefit of their Natural Off-spring they had many of them such Children as were very Wicked Flagitious and Prophane and such as were rejected by God which yet they had not been had they been at all possessed of Gods Holy Spirit as the Fruit of their Parents Prayers and Supplications to God for them And to this doth the dayly Experience that occurs to our own Observation very sadly testify The Sum then of our Answer to the forementioned Objection is this They that have Received the Holy Ghost or such at least concerning whom there is any convincing Evidence thereof as was the Case of them in the 10. Act. of whom this word was spoken such are the proper Subjects of Baptism For who can forbid Water that such should not be Baptized But till there can be convincing Evidence given concerning our Children that either all or any of them are actually partakers thereof according to this Rule they are not the proper Subjects of Baptism And therefore till then they are not to be Baptized As for Mr. Allen's Third Argument drawn from Rom. 11. 17. We say that that Scripture is by him and others impertinently alledged to this purpose It being to be understood not of ingrafting into the visible Church by an outward Ordinance as Baptism but into the Invisible by Election and giving of Faith as the whole Chapter shews His Fourth Argument is drawn from 1 Cor. 7. 14. For the Vnbelieving Husband is sanctified by the Wife and the Vnbelieving Wife is sanctified by the Husband else were your Children unclean but now are they holy from whence he would infer that the Children of Believers are Holy with a faederal or Covenant Holiness and therefore to be Baptized To this we Reply That the same sort of Holiness is ascribed to the Children as is to be understood in reference to the Vnbelieving Husband or the Vnbelieving Wife who are both here said to be Sanctified by their Respective Yoak-Fellows which cannot be understood of a Faederal or Covenant Holyness but that which is Matrimonial For if we must understand it of a Covenant Holyness then it will follow that the Vnbelieving Wife or the Vnbelieving Husband may upon the same ground lay claim to Baptism as well as their Children which yet your selves will not grant Besides it is evident from the Words themselves in which the term Believer is omitted which would not be if the Holiness were derived from the Faith of the one Party and so to be understood of a Covenant Holiness And the single terms of Husband and Wife are twice used which shews that the Holiness is from the Conjugal Relation and cannot bâ— meant of any other than Legitimation And the term Vnbeliever is also twice used and said to be Sanctified which can have no other sence but this That the Vnbelieving Yoke-fellow is Sanctified in respect of Conjugal Vse to his or her Yoke-fellow and so though the one be an Vnbeliever they might comfortably enough live together in Lawful Wedlock For else saith he your Children were to be accounted Vnclean that is Illegitimate But this being determined that the Husband is thus Sanctified to the Wife and the Wife to the Husband though the one be an Vnbeliever hence it follows that your Children are Holy that is Lawfully begotten which is the only sence â—pposite to the Determination verse 12. 13. And as for the use of the Word Holy for Legitimate that it is in this Sence used elsewhere in the Scripture is evident from Mal. 2. 15. Where a Seed of God can be understood in no other sence than that of a Lawful Seed in Opposition to those born by Polygamy But though it should be allowed that the Holiness in the Text is indeed to be understood of a Faederal or Covenant Holiness yet we cannot therefore grant That that is a sufficient Reason for the Baptism of Infants For let the Holiness in the Text be what it will whether Moral Faederal or Matrimonial neither of these is either there or elsewhere assigned to be a Ground of Baptizing Children upon that which is laid down in the Institution being that alone that can Warrant the same It is God's Word only not our Reason that can Justifie our Practice in God's Ordinances That a Profession of Faith and Repertance is a Substantial Warrant for Baptism is undeniable to be proved from the Scriptures But that so is Faederal Holiness or any other Indiscernable Qualification in Infants the Scripture is altogether silent therein His Fifth Argument for Infants Baptism is derived from Acts 2. 38 39. Repent and be Baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the Remission of Sins c. For the Promise is unio you and to your Children and to all that are afar off even as many as the Lord our God shall Call But whatever Mr. Allen or others suppose First it is Evident that the Promise here spoken of is not to be understood of a Promise of External Priviledges but the Promise of the Gospel or the Grace of God â—â— Christ Jesus which was now freely held forth unto them upon their Repentance notwithstanding they had been the Actual Murderers of the Lord of Glory which he had before charged upon them which only could be a Suitable Plaister for the Wound now given them thereby telling them that they might have Remission of Sins even of that Sin if they did Repent Because beyond and contrary to their Acting in Crucifying Christ God had brought to pass the raising up of Christ for their Salvation and their Children and all whom God should Call though a far off if they also did Repent and were Baptized into the Name of Christ Nor indeed Secondly was the
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
same unto Jacob for a Law and to Israel for an Everlasting Covenant saying unto thee will I give the Land of Canaan the lot of your Inheritance And though 't is true Canaan was only promised in the Letter and was inherited only by the Carnal Seed and Descendants of Abraham yet in the mysterie it means the whole World of which Canaan was a part in which he took Possession or as it were had Livery and Seisin given him in the name of the whole § 3. The like is to be said concerning the Spiritual Seed of Abraham even the Gentiles also on whom that self-same Blessing of Abraham as being the fruit of the Free Promise doth also descend For in this respect it is that the Apostle tells us that all is ours But how For we are Christ's and Christ is God's And therefore as God hath promised that the Meek shall inherit the Earth Psal 37. 11. Mat. 5. 5. So he hath also promised that the Kingdom and Dominion and the greatness of the Kingdom and Dominion under the whole Heaven shall be given to the People of the Saints of the Most High whose Kingdom is an Everlasting Kingdom So likewise Rev. 5. 10. Thou hast made us unto our God Kings and Priests and we shall Reign upon the Earth All which are glorious Promises and shall certainly receive their full accomplishment in the appointed Season as being indeed no other than Gospel Promises and of the same Nature with the free Promise of that kind even the Promise of Canaan made unto Abraham long before the Covenant of Circumcision was made with him So that it is no wonder that the Apostle tells as he doth that Godliness hath the Promise of the Life that now is as well as of that that is to come § 4. 'T is true Canaan was promised in the Covenant of Circumcision also as was also the Promise of a Coelestial Inheritance too When God told Abraham I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed after thee I will give unto thee and to thy Seed after thee the Land wherein thou art a stranger All the Land of Canaan for an Everlasting Possession and I will be their God Gen. 17. 7 8. But all these Promises though good enough in themselves yet being Conditional they were therefore failable and still liable to forfeiture as they were contained in that Covenant And therefore the Apostle would have us strictly to observe that the forementioned Promise concerning Abraham's Heirship whatever it signifies was not to him or to his Seed through the Law but through the Righteousness of Faith For though it should be granted that it hath reference to a Terrestrial Inheritance in Canaan and consequently to his Interest in the whole World in the sense but now mentioned Yet forasmuch as this Promise wa◠made unto him long before his Circumcision and was therefore a part of the free Promise The Apostle doth sufficiently suggest that that was th◠Promise he had most reason to trust unto or to relie upon as being a far surer Promise of the two and that both to himself and his Seed also than was the Promise of the same kind as it was contained in the Covenant of Circumcision which the Scripture doth so plainly represent unto us as a Conditional Covenant The Promise saith he was not to him nor to his Seed through the Law And why not through the Law Because as he also tells us in the very next following words If they which are of the Law be Heirs Faith is made void and the Promise made of none effect Because the Law worketh wrath for where no Law is there is no Transgression Therefore it is of Faith that it might be by Grace to the end the Promise might be sure to all the Seed The like he tells the Galatians also chap. 3. 18. 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 Freeness or Absoluteness thereof which the Covenant of Circumcision was not It being evident that it obliged all that were under it to Perfect and Universal Obedience as the Condition of Obtaining thc Mercies therein contained Gal. 5. 3. For I testifie to every man that is Circumcised that he is a Debtor to do the whole Law And therefore though 't is true Canaan was promised in that Covenant as well as in the other as was also the Promise of the Coelestial Inheritance too when God promised to be a God to Abraham and to his Seed yet those Promises there mentioned being bounded as they were with Conditions impossible to be performed and therefore of a Legal Stamp and liable to forfeiture That is not the Way that is not the Channel through which the Blessings in Promise must be derived unto the Heirs of Promise For if ever they be derived it must be through the Free Promise and through that alone Yea if ever they be derived it must be through the Free Promise or not at all For saith he vers 21. If there had been a Law given that 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 § 5. But as we have already said the Promise that Abraham should be the Heir of the World is of a vastly different nature from the Promise of Canaan neither indeed is it at all contained in the Covenant of Circumcision where the Promise of Canaan is inserted For it is evident that the Promise that Abraham should be the Heir of the World hath a single reference to his Fatherhood unto all them that believe that is both Jews and Gentiles or the whole World of Believers Thus Pareus in his Comment upon the Place carries the sense of the Words and so the Apostle himself interprets it vers 11 12. And it is as evident that there is no Promise at all of that kind in the Covenant of Circumcision that Abraham should be the Common Father of all them that Believe That Covenant having a plain reference to Abraham's Natural Posterity only for as much as all those to whom the Promises of that Covenant were made were bound to be Circumcised as the Sign or Token of it which doth not concern the Gentiles at all So that it is the Gospel Covenant therefore which we have before spoken of which we find mentioned Gen. 12. 2 3. and not the Covenant of Circumcision mentioned Gen. 17. 7 8 9. that is the Great Charter by which the Believing Gentiles always did and do rightly claim both Heaven and Earth and all the Promises they have Title to SECT III. § 1. BUT whereas the Doctor lays a mighty stress upon those words of the Apostle before mentioned Rom. 4. 13. For the Promise that he should be the Heir of the World was not to Abraham or to his Seed through the Law but
the sprinkling of a little Water upon the Face Thirdly It appears to be so from the Practice and Usage we find hereof in Scripture and the Opinion of the Learned upon it First in the Story of Christ's Baptism we read Mat. 3. 5. That Jesus came from Galilee to Jordan unto John to be Baptized of him And ver 16. When he was Baptized he went up straitway out of the Water The Learned Cajetan upon the place saith Christ ascended out of the Water therefore Christ was Baptized by John not by sprinkling or by pouring Water upon him but by Immersion that is by dipping or plunging in the Water A Second Scripture considerable is that of John 3. 23. And John was Baptizing in Aenon near Salim And the Reason why he pitch'd upon this place is given because there was much Water there Piscator upon the place tells us This saith he is mentioned to signifie the Ceremony of Baptism which John used in Dipping or Plunging the whole Body of a Man standing in the River Whence he saith Christ being Baptized by John in Jordan is said to ascend out of the Water A Third Scripture worthy our notice is Acts 8. 36. 38. As they went on their way they came unto a certain Water and the Enuch said See here is Water and they went down both into the Water both Philip and the Enuch and he Baptized him And when they were come up out of the Water c. Upon which place Calvin saith We see what Fashion the Ancients had to Administer Baptism for they Plunged the whole Body into the Water The use is now saith he that the Minister casts a little Water only upon the Body or upon the Head A Fourth Scripture we shall mention is Rom. 6. 4. Buried with Him in Baptism Where the Apostle elegantly alludes to the Ceremony of Baptizing into Death and Resurrection with Christ Cajean upon the place saith Thus we are Buried with Him by Baptism into Death by our Burying he declares our Death from the Ceremony of Baptism because he who is Baptized is put under the Water and by this carries a Similitude of him that is buried who is put under the Earth Now because none are buried but dead Men from this very thing that we are buried in Baptism we are Assimulated to Christ buried or when he was buried Keckerman Syst Theol. l. 3. c. 8. Says that Immersion not Aspersion was the first Institution of Baptism as it doth plainly appear from Rom. 6. 3. The Assemblies Annotations upon the place do say That in this Phrase the Apostle seemeth to allude to the Ancient manner of Baptizing which was to dip the Party Baptized and as it were to bury them under Water for a while and then to raise them up again out of it to represent the Burial of the Old Man and our Resurrection to newness of Life The like saith Piscator and Diodate upon the place Dr. Cave also a great Searcher into Antiquity in his late Book called Primitive Christianity saith p. 320. That the Party Baptized was wholly Immerged or put under Water which was the almost constant and universal Custom of those times whereby they did most notably and significantly express the great end and effect of Baptism c. And most remarkable is the Testimony that Mr. Baxter himself gives to this Truth As to the manner saith he It is commonly confessed by us to the Anabaptists as our Commentators declare That in the Apostles times the Baptized were dipped over Head in Water though we have thought it lawful to dis-use the manner of dipping and to use less Water In his Third Argument against Mr. Blake All which Arguments from the Genuine Sense of the Word Nature of the Ordinance usage of the Ancients were excellently Inculcated by the Learned Dr. Tillotson in a Sermon Preached at the Lecture in Michael's Cornhill London April 15 1673. From Rom. 6. 4. Therefore we are Buried with Him by Baptism into Death c. Proving from thence that Dipping or Plunging was the proper Ceremony and Rite in the Ordinance And how naturally Arguments did arise from that Sign in Baptism to inforce Holiness and Mortification the Thing Signified thereby Therefore to alter this Rite from Dipping to Sprinkling spoils quite the Symbole and makes it another thing And you may as well take a Wafer Cake or a whole Loaf to represent Christ's broken Body as sprinkling a little Water to represent or figure out his and our Death Burial and Resurrection by And how cometh it to pass that many are so exactly curious about that other Ordinance of the Supper so as to make the gesture of Kneeling a ground of Separation and yet to be so Negligent and Inconsiderate in this And if it be Evil in Papists not to break Bread nor to Eat but to lift up shew and Swallow down whole the Host when Christ did break Bread and bade eat it then it necessarily follows that it is as Evil when He bids Baptize not to do it but to Rantize and instead of Baptizing into the Name of Christ Dead and Risen to Water him that hath no Understanding thereof So that when the Minister saith I Baptize thee to an Infant and doth no more he speaketh that which is not true and deceives those that take it at his Word for Christian Baptism So that thus then we have distinctly and plainly proved you to be defective both in respect of the Internal and External Constituent parts of this great Ordinance that is both in Matter and Form both which are Essentially requisite to the true Constitution or Being of it by which it is manifest that Infants Baptism is a meer Nullity and that which Christ will not own And if it be said that the right Words of Baptism were used it being done in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit We Answer that so there was also in Baptizing of Bells and Churches which yet in your own Judgment is so far from making it a right Ordinance the true Subject being wanting that it is no less than a great Prophanation thereof and a miserable taking the Name of God in vain And therefore certainly Jesus Christ one Day will discover that he takes it not kindly at the Hands of his Professed Friends that of their own Heads and without his Warrant upon a Presumptuous Supposition of unwritten Indulgence having taken it upon them to alter the Subject as well as the manner of the Administration of an Ordinance so Sacred and Venerable as Baptism is As for the Cavils of unseemliness and hazarding of Health to the weak in the way of our present Practice as they are the Fruits of Carnal Wisdom and Vnbelief so it is no other than to reproach the Wisdom of Christ that so Ordained it telling us however the World may call it undecent yet that thus it becometh us as it did himself to fulfill all Righteousness And as they that have or shall see the
two great Acts viz. To Preach Teach and Baptize And we may say in the same place That whoever are outwardly Taught or do but hear the Gospel though they walk never so contrary must be Baptized For the Commission is Teach and Baptize Nothing of the Parties Entertainment of it is mentioned in this 28 Mat. nor of the qualification of the Subject with any distinguishing Character If they say This doth not hold forth all the Institutions in every particular as they must grant then we may compare other Scriptures with this to make out the full Institution as these 〈◊〉 Infants are mentioned so much Gracious Consideration◠as hath been formerly express'd § To this we Reply That notwithstanding all the Confidence which Mr. Sidenham here expresseth both the Qualification of the Subjects of Baptism as also the manner or form of Baptizing are sufficiently set forth unto us in the present Institution For First If we enquire after the Subject It is plain by this Commission that none are to be Baptized but such as are Taught so as to be Discipled into the true Faith and Profession of Christianity Go Teach all Nations Baptizing them c. Infants being uncapable of being thus Taught or Disciped they are therefore Excluded But all others that so hear the Gospel as to understand it Believe it and be Discipled by it are according to this Commission to be Baptized But whereas Mr. Sidenham tells us That whosoever are outwardly Taught or do but hear the Gospel though they walk never so contrary must be Baptized inasmuch as in the Commission Mat. 28. nothing of the Parties entertainment of it is there mentioned With what shadow of Truth could Mr. Sidenham utter such a Sentence When he could not but know that as according to that very Institution Mat. 28. Such as are Discipled by the Preaching of the Gospel are there appointed to be Baptized Go Teach all Nations c. That is as your selves have acknowledged Disciple all Nations Baptizing them So in that parallel place Mark 16. 16. which is but a rehearsal of the same Commission by another of the Holy Pen Men our Saviour there tells us He that Believeth and is Baptized shall be Saved Plainly shewing that those that are to be Baptized must be such as so hear the Gospel as to give a Believing entertainment to it He had said before Go Preach the Gospel to every Greature And then it immediately follows He that Believeth and is Baptized shall be Saved And if here be not a plain notice given of the qualification of such as are to be admitted to Baptism Let such Judge whose Eyes are open Secondly if we enquire after the manner or form of Baptizing the very Word it self is plainly significant of Christ's Mind and Meaning therein Go Teach all Nations Baptizing them that is let them be dipt or plunged under Water which is the native Sense and signification of the Greek Word which we Translate Baptize as hath been already proved So that whatever Mr. Sidenham tells us the Commission which Christ gave to his Apostles concerning Baptism doth afford sufficient Direction both in respect of the qualification of the Subject as also in reference to the manner of the Administration thereof § 3. As for the rest of the Arguments made use of by Mr. Sidenham for the support of Infants Baptism from the Nature of the Covenant made with Abraham from Acts 2. 39. From Col. 2. 11 12. From the Analogy between Circumcision and Infants Baptism From the Baptizing of the several Housholds mentioned in the New Testament As also concerning the Signification and Vse of the Word Baptism Enough hath been already said in the first and second Parts of this Discourse for the Refutation of them which needs not here to be repeated Only there are two Arguments in Mr. Allen's Treatise before mentioned which were then omitted but must now be Answered SECT VII § 1. THE first hath Referrence to those several Titles of a Holy and peculiar People which are frequently in the Scripture given to the whole Body of the Jewish Nation Church and People from whence he infers that there is no such difference as we affirm there is between the Old and the New Testament Churches For saith he If those terms are frequently given in the Epistles to Church Members now the same Epethites are frequently given to the Members of the Jewish Church And therefore there is no such Difference as is Imagined in the Constitution of either of them they being both alike Spiritual § 2. To this we Answer First If there be no difference between the Old and New Testament Churches in respect of the Constitution of either of them but that there was the same Purity Holiness and Spirituality in the one as in the other Then what needed or wherein consisted that Reformation which the Apostle tells us was to take place in the Gospel day Heb. 9. 8 9 10. The Holy Ghost this signifying that the way into the Holiest of all was not yet made manifest while as the first Tabernacle was yet standing which was a Figure for the time then present In which were offered both Gifts and Sacrifices that could not make him that did the Service perfect as pertaining to the Conscience which stood only in Meats and Drinks and divers Washings and Carnal Ordinances Imposed on them until the time of Reformation Plainly Intimating that there were many things faulty among them and many things defective also which were to be Reformed Rectified and Supplied when the Day-light of the Gospel was to break upon them And upon this account not only doth the Spirit of God find fault with the Covenant it self which they were then under which therefore was now to be done away and a new One to take place Heb. 8. 7 8 13. But for this Reason also was the Seed to be changed The Carnal Seed being rejected and only the Spiritual Seed of Abraham admitted as Members of the Gopsel Church A plain notice of which Change is given by John the Baptist the Harbinger of the Gospel Dispensation Mat. 3. 7 8 9 10. Think not saith he to say within your selves we have Abraham to our Father For I say unto you that GOD is able even of these Stones to raise up Children unto Abraham And now also the Axe is laid unto the Root of the Trees therefore every Tree that bringeth not forth good Fruit is hewn down Plainly requiring a personal and actual Fruitfulness in all the Members of this new Church state which is exclusive not only of all those that are such as the Pharisees and Sadduces were whom he was now speaking to who were a Generation of Vipers and were actually debauch'd in their Conversations but of all such also as were either neglective or are uncapable as is the Case of Infants of actual Fruitfulness in the Paths of Righteousness § 3. So that when you tell us that the Legal and Gospel Church are alike
3. 10. And is it not as plain that from hence even that from hence it is that the Apostle calls it as he doth a Ministration of Death and Condemnation Against us and Contrary to us c. Besides it ought to be duly considered that the Gospel and Covenant of Grace it self was liable to aâ— great an abuse as the Law by being turned into Lasciviousness as the Scriptures tells us it was and yet the Apostle never thunders against the Gospel as he doth against the Law because Men had abused it 'T is true he tells us concerning the Gospel that to some it is the savour of death unto death to others it is the savour of life unto life that is to those that Reject it it is the savour of death unto death to those that Receive it it is the savour of life unto life But this is vastly different from the character he gives of the Law For saith he By the deeds of the Law there shall no Flesh be justified in his sight Rom. 3. 20. And therefore whether it is Received or Rejected it is as the Apostle calls it a Ministration of Death c. Whereas the Gospel is such only to those that Reject it and do not give a saving entertainment to it So that the Distinction we now oppose is altogether without Scripture Warrant and is indeed no other than to impute unfaithfulness to Paul and Moses also in declaring the Nature of the Law as they do And accordingly hence we have just reason to conclude that the Law was never instituted as a Covenant of Faith or as a Covenant of Grace that hath such Epethites fixed thereon by the Spirit of God himself § 3. 'T is true as you say the Law was our School-master to Christ to Convince us of our Necessity of him And Christ is also said to be the end of the Law for Righteousness to every one that believeth that is he was the accomplishment thereof he having perfectly fulfilled its Commands submitted to its Curse and answered its Penalty on our behalf whereby it received the Greatest Honour that could be given it a greater by far than ever could be given it by us in our own persons For what the Law could not do in that it was weak through the Flesh God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful Flesh and for sin or by a Sacrifice for Sin condemned Sin in the Flesh that the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us that is in the Person of our Sureâ—y for us Rom. 8. 3 4. But then it is so far from being true that the Law was therefore a Covenant of Faith that it is so much the more Convincingly Evident that it was no other than a Covenant of Works For as much as it is plain that as such Christ himself submitted thereunto on our account And it is as plain that as such it would else have lighted on us in our own Persons in the Execution of its most dreadful Curses and Threatnings But if we will rather have the sense of the words to be as you suggest it is that Christ was the End or Scope of the Law for Righteousness to every one that believeth that is that it was God's design thereby to drive them to Christ their only Remedy by Convincing them of their Necessity of him It still comes to the same Reckoning For though 't is true there is a plain subserviency in the Law towards the promoting of the Designs of the Covenant of Grace yet as we have already seen it no way follows that the Law is therefore the Covenant of Grace it self or the Handmaid the Mistress her self For saith the Apostle Gal. 4. 24. 25 26. These are the two Covenants the one from Mount Sinai which gendereth to Bondage and is in Bondage with her Children The other Answereth to Jerusalem that is above which is free and is the Mother of us all And if these were the two Covenants and those two essentially different the one from the other in the nature and tendency of either as it is plain by the Apostles scope they are so they must be kept Two they were and two they still remain to be so as what the one is the other is not Hagar had indeed a plain subserviency to Sarah But yet as were the Types so are the Antitypes themselves Essentially different so as that the Bondage Covenant can with no more Sense nor Justice be called a Covenant of Faith because it hath a subserviency thereunto than the Covenant of Faith can wish any shadow of pretence be called a Covenant of Bondage § 4. Besides when the Apostle speaks of the two Covenants these were the two Covenants the one from Mount Sinai meaning the Legal the other the Gospel Covenant He doth sufficiently Intimate that there were never but two General Covenants made with Mankind in all that is the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace And if so then if there were any such thing as a Covenant of Works made with our first Parent before the Fall as we all affirm there was it must of necessity be Included in the Sinai Covenant And that both Materially Considered and Intentionally also Else there were three Covenants and those Specifically different each from other whereas the Apostle tells us but of two To say it was Included in the Gospel Covenant is wholly Absurd Therefore it must of necessity be Included in the Sinai Covenant so as that both together make up that first or old Covenant which the Scripture speaks of For when the Apostle Heb. 8. calls the Sinai Covenant by the Name of the first or Old Covenant as he there doth several times over it cannot possibly be understood that it was therefore the first Covenant that God ever made with Men in respect of time for there had been an Express Covenant made with Abraham and with Noah also long before And we also acknowledge that there was an Implicite Covenant of Works made with our first Parent upon his first Creation besides the Promise of Grace that followed soon after the Fall Therefore the Sinai Covenant must of necessity be called the first or old Covenant because of its Congruity Harmony and Identity with the Covenant of Works made with our first Parent And that both in respect of the matter and Intention thereof also Or else iâ— could never with any Propriety or fitness of Expression be called the first or old Covenant as by the Apostle divers times over it is in the forementioned 8th to the Hebrews § 5. The Law therefore could not possibly be a Covenant of Gospel Grace as by many the most Learned and Worthy Divines and it may be the far greater part of Moderns at least it hath been confidently affirmed to be For as we have before acknowledged though there was never any Covenant that God ever made with Men but hath more or less of Grace therein Since it is an Infinite Condescention
tells them Vers 45. That he would for their sakes remember the Covenant of their Ancestors whom he brought forth out of the Land of Egypt This must of necessity have Reference either to the forementioned Covenant with Abraham Isaac and Jacob Or the Promises mentioned Exod. 33. 34. And cannot possibly have any Reference to the Sinai Covenant For that was a Bondage Covenant Gal. 4. 21 22 c. A Ministration of Death and Condemnation 2 Cor. 3. 7 8 9. Against us and contrary to us And therefore now Blotted out Col. 2. 14. And is accordingly by Moses himself represented as a fiery Law that Proceeded from Gods Right Hand Deut. 33. â—â— So that that could not possibly yield any comfort unto them Whereas the forementioned Covenants did plainly give them hopes of Relief and Pardon But say you see Vers 46. and all is ended We have therefore accordingly Examined that Text But cannot discern that it speaks any thing by way of opposition to what we have Asserted For thus run the words These are the Statutes and Judgments and Laws which the Lord made between him and the Children of Israel at Mount Sinai by the Hand of Moses which can have no other Sense than this That this being the last Verse of the last Chapte save one of Leviticus wherein the Statutes and Judgments or the several branches of the Ceremonial Law had been particularly Rehearsed unto them These words in this 46th Verse contains therefore onely the general Sum thereof So that we cannot discern that it makes off or on as to the present Argument Arg. 4. The Fourth and last Argument runs thus Those Covenants which have Seals annexed of vastly different Nature are not Absolutely or just the same but widely different Covenants But so have these two Covenants Ergo not the same The Tree of Life was the onely Sacrament Annext to the first but the Passover and Circumcision to the last Both holding forth Christ and Salvation by him The first a plain Type of Christ in the Paschal Lamb. The other a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith Reply First as to what concerns the Tree of Life which you say was the onely Sacrament annext to Adams Covenant That it was either a Sacrament or a Seal annext to that Covenant the Scripture gives us no Account thereof that we can find And as the Passover and Circumcision which you make to be the Seals of the Sinai Covenant the Scripture is as silent even in that Respect also As for the Passover it was indeed as you say a plain Type of Christ as many other things then were But we do not find that it is ever called a Seal of the Sinai Covenant Nor do we find that Circumcision is ever called the Seal thereof It is indeed called a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith that Abraham had yet being uncircumcized Rom. 4. 11. But the same Apostle expresly tells us Gal. 3. 12. That the Law is not of Faith And if the Law is not of Faith then neither can it be a Covenant of Faith And then it doth also as plainly follow that Circumcision which is by the Apostle termed a Seal of the Righteousness of Abrahams Faith could not be the Seal thereof And in this Respect therefore it is highly observable That though Circumcision is frequently called a Token of the Covenant mentioned Gen. 17. 7 8 9. to the generality that were under it yet the Scripture no where tells us That it was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith but unto Abraham onely For indeed none else had ever before or after their Circumcision such a Faith that Entituled them to such Singular Promises and Prerogatives as Abraham had But of this we have already said so much toward the Resolution of the present Point in the Seventh Branch of our Answer to the Eleventh Objection in the Second Part of this Discourse foregoing and have yet so much to say in what follows where we shall have a further occasion purposely to handle this Argument that we shall need to say the less of it here SECT XV. FOR a Conclusion of the present Point we shall onely Collect the sum of the foregoing Arguments already Insisted on proving that the Legal Covenant was not a Covenant of Faith But was indeed and in truth no other than a Covenant of Works For First That Covenant that is not of Faith cannot possibly be a Covenant of Faith But the Apostle doth expresly affirm that the Law is not of Faith Gal. 3. 11 12. Therefore neither can it be a Covenant of Faith Secondly That Covenant which is now Repealed could not be a Covenant of Faith But the Apostle doth plainly affirm that the first Covenant for the faultiness thereof is now Repealed Heb. 8. 7 13. 2 Cor. 3. 7 11. Col. 2. 14. Heb. 7. 18. Therefore that Covenant could not be a Covenant of Faith Thirdly That Covenant that could not give Life could not be a Covenant of Faith But the Law could not give Life Gal. 3. 21. 22. Therefore it could not be a Covenant of Faith Fourthly That Covenant that is opposed to the Covenant of Faith as quite another thing could not be a Covenant of Faith But the School-mastership of the Law is by the Apostle plainly opposed and contradistinguished unto the Covenant of Faith as quite another thing Gal. 3. 23 24 25. Therefore it could not be a Covenant of Faith Fifthly That Covenant the Righteousness whereof is opposed to the Righteousness of Faith cannot be a Covenant of Faith But the Righteousness of the Law is plainly by the Apostle opposed to the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 10. 5 6 c. Therefore it could not be a Covenant of Faith Sixthly That Covenant that could never Justifie any that were under it could never be a Covenant of Faith For being Justified by Faith we have Peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ Rom. 5. 1. But the Scripture doth expresly Testifie That by the Deeds of the Law there shall no Flesh be Justified in his Sight Rom. 3. 20. Therefore that Covenant could never be a Covenant of Faith Seventhly That Covenant under which though many were Justified yet none were ever Justified by it or by vertue of it could never be a Covenant of Faith But such is the Nature of the Law that though many were Justified under it yet none were ever Justified by it or by Vertue of it Rom. 3. 20. Therefore that Covenant could never be a Covenant of Faith Eighthly That Covenant that saith Do this and Live Or that the Man that doth these things shall Live by them cannot possibly be a Covenant of Gospel-Grace but of Works Since the Apostle Informs us That to him that worketh is the Reward reckoned not of Grace but of Debt Rom. 4. 4. But the same Apostle doth expresly tell us That Moses describeth the Righteousness of the Law that the Man which doth these things shall live by them Rom. 10. 5.
that that is to come The other being the Promise of a Terrestrial Inheritance onely and that which concerned Abraham alone and his Natural Off-spring And if this can be substantially proved it will easily be acknowledged that the Doctors forementioned Argument falls to the ground In order therefore hereunto two things must be done and that is First diligently to Examin the Scope of Rom. 4. 13. where the words themselves do lie that are the bottom of his Argument And Secondly to compare that with other Scriptures that give light thereunto § 2. As to the Scope of the place mentioned It ought to be duely observed that in the 11th and 12th Verses it is told us of Abraham That he received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had yet being Vncircumcized that he might be the Father of all them that Believe though they be not Circumcised that Righteousness might be Imputed to them also And the Father of Circumcision to them who are not of the Circumcision onely but also walk in the steps of that Faith of our Father Abraham which he had yet being Vncircumcised The plain Scope of which is to shew that Abraham was appointed by God as the Common Father of all sorts of true Believers whatsoever whether Jews or Gentiles And that this Divine Priviledge was not conferred on him upon the Account of the Works he had before spoken of Verse 2. 3. or because of his Circumcision which was a main part thereof and which he had been just now insisting on but through Faith Even that Faith which he had yet being Vncircumcised Which self same Argument he further prosecutes in the next following words For saith he immediately Vers 13. the Promise that he should be the Heir of the World was not to Abraham or to his Seed through the Law but through the Righteousness of Faith Now let it be Judged what was the Apostles meaning as to Abrahams Heirship of the World whether it were concerning the Promise made unto him of a Terrestrial Inheritance in Canaan mentioned Gen. 17. 8. that in that respect he should be the Heir of the World Or rather whether it is not to be understood concerning his Common Fatherhood to all them that Believe which he had just before been speaking of For there he had been plainly treating not concerning any Terrestrial Inheritance whatsoever but concerning Abrahams Spiritual Relation as a Father to all sorts of true Believers And in that sense the words in the 13th Verse come in most aptly and Conerently with what he had before told u◠which was that Faith was reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness not in Circumcision but in Vncircumcision even long before he was Circumcised That he received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had yet being Vncircumcised that he might be the Father of all them that Believe as well Jews as Gentiles and Gentiles as Jews Vers 10. 11 12. In which respect well might the Apostle tell us as he doth Vers 13. that Abraham was promised that he should be the Heir of the World Since the whole World both of Jews and Gentiles even as many as the Lord our God shall call were now to become his Spiritual Seed by Believing § 3. And that this is the true Scope and Genuine Sence of the place is plain also from the following words when he comes to the proof of what he had Asserted Vers 13. For saith he Vers 14 If they which are of the Law be Heirs Faith is made void and the Promise made of none effect because the Law worketh Wrath For where no Law is there is no Transgression Therefore it is of Faith that it might be by Grace that the Promise might be sure to all the Seed not to that onely which is of the Law that is the Jews but to that also which is of the Faith of Abraham that is the Gentiles who is the Father of us all What Promise is it the Apostle here speaketh of No doubt the same Promise he had spoken of just before even the Promise that Abraham should be the Heir of the World or as he here expresseth it The Father of us all But how doth that appear Or where is that Promise As it is Written saith he Vers 17. I have made thee a Father of many Nations before him whom he Believed even God who quickeneth the dead who against hope believed in hope that he might become the Father of many Nations according to that which was spoken so shall thy Seed be Wherein it is evident what was the Apostles meaning when he tells us of the Promise that Abraham should be the Heir of the World that is not that he should be the Heir of Canaan or of any Terrestrial Inheritance whatsoever though that be true too and is a part of the same Gospel Covenant as hath been before proved and shall therefore be gloriously fulfiled in the appointed Season when not Canaan onely shall be the Possession and Inheritance of Gods People but the greatness of the Kingdom and Dominion under the whole Heaven shall be given unto them But that which the Apostle intends in these words is that Spiritual Relation whereunto Abraham was designed and appointed by God as the Father of many Nations Or the Father of all them that Believe according to that which was spoken so shall thy Seed be Wherein he plainly refers to the Gospel Covenant which was first Recorded Gen. 12. 2 3. that God had made with Abraham before his removal out of his own Country and therefore long before the Covenant of Circumcision was made with him For then God first promised that he would make of him a Great Nation make his Name Great and that in him should all the Families of the Earth be blessed which free Gospel Covenant was again repeated Gen. 15. 5. and Gen. 17. 4 5. where it is promised that there should be of the Nations innumerable that should be Abraham's Seed by Believing To which the Apostle plainly refers in the forementioned Rom. 4. 17. As it is written saith he I have made thee a Father of many Nations before him whom he believed according to that which was spoken so shall thy Seed be For in this respect we are told Gen. 15. 6. That Abraham believed in the Lord and he counted it to him for Righteousness § 4. And in respect of this Covenant it is that the Apostle affirms as before that the Promise is sure to all the Seed For as herein was promised a Blessing unto all the Spiritual Seed of Abraham even the whole Family of the Faithful throughout the World whether Jews or Gentiles of whom through Christ he was to be Father whereas there is no such Promise contained in the Covenant of Circumcision So the tenor of it being purely Evangelical which the Covenant of Circumcision was not This therefore and not the other is the Great Charter