Covenant of Grace as Mr. Grantham saith they are p. 19. then they have the Name of the Trinity upon them for the Covenant is a part of his Name and so they are discipled and what hinders their being baptized Doth not Matth. 28. 19 command it He thinks then they ought to partake of the Lord's Table But are they as capable of Self-Examination and of that Eating and Drinking and Spiritual Growth as they are of being washed As to my second Argument from some Infants being visibly or externally in the Covenant made with Abraham Obj. He premiseth that the Covenant of Grace with Abraham was Twenty four Years before Circumcision Others under it as Salah not so circumcised And others were to whom the Covenant of Grace seems to have the least extent as Ishmael Esau Bond-men p. 9. Then if by Covenant Mr. P. means the Covenant of Circumcision and Infants of Christians or the Covenant of Grace Gen. 12. he denies the Minor But if Infants be in a visible State of Salvation yet he denieth the Consequence of the Major that they are to be baptized p. 10. Ans 1. The Covenant of Grace was made and published before Abraham Gen. 3. 15. and those might have Salvation by it through Christ as Salah Arphaxad Then the Church was Domestical but no such clear Declaration of the Subjects and their Church-state and Privilege in a Community of many Families for publick Worship and Ordinances no such Sign or Token of the Covenant for Infants till Circumcision was granted Gen. 17. And after that Grant to Abraham all good Men that could were obliged to joyn with him or his Seed as the only Church in such Order then in the World as they would enjoy such Church-Privileges Witness his Servants which were Professors v. 13. Gen. 18. 19. and the Proselytes Exod. 12. 48 49. Isa 56. 3 6. 2. I mean that Covenant which Circumcision was a Token of Gen. 17. v. 7 to 15. Indeed This is the same Covenant for substance with that Gen. 12. but in a new Edition with a Declaration of the ancient Subjects and an Enlargement of Privileges as aforesaid which expresly extended to the Infant-Seed Gen. 17. 7 9 12 In the same Covenant and Breath Abraham himself and also his Seed are commanded to be circumcised and that as a Token of the Covenant between God and him v. 9 10 11. He and his Seed then were in the same Covenant and Circumcision was of the same use to him and others And that Covenant was not only for Circumcision and the Land of Canaan but that at least visibly God would be a God to them and there is a double Assurance thereof v. 7 8. and that clearly was a Covenant of Grace and is still continuing for it was to him a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 4. 11. It is then his gross Mistake to think that the Covenant Gen. 12. is one and that Gen. 17. another distinctione Indeed the Sign Circumcision is ceased but the Covenant is not repealed as to the Subject of it Infants This cannot be proved 'T is true some did forfeit their visible external Interest in the Covenant as Ishmael and Esau and so may Professors of the Gospel also after duly baptized But they were so in Covenant before as it had been broken if the Token had been neglected or not applied Gen. 17. 14. 3. At last he denieth the Consequence of the Major which is to say That though some Infants be visibly or externally in the Covenant which God made with Abraham yet by the Will of Christ they are not to be baptized I am glad to hear Men of this Persuasion confess Infants within that Covenant which indeed they must do or else shew a Repeal of that Covenant as to the Subjects of it which I think they can never prove But I am sorry this Man granteth Infants being in that Covenant upon such a corrupt unscriptural Principle viz. That all Infants are in a visible State of Salvation by the Covenant of Grace he must say by the Covenant with Abraham if he deny my Major which is grounded upon that and it will be impossible for him to prove all Infants in the World to be the Seed of Abraham that in the very mentioning of it importing a Limitation The ground of his Denial is p. 10. upon a great Mistake viz. that the Covenant of Grace must be abstracted from the Covenant of Circumcision whereas that which Circumcision is annexed to as I have proved is the Covenant of Grace only in a new Edition Also he saith That never required the Application of any Ceremony to Infants as a Pledge of it either before the Law or as it is now established in the Gospel All which is false for Circumcision was such a Pledge and Token of the Covenant to be applied to Infants above Four hundred Years before the Law Gal. 3. 17. and so Baptism under the Gospel Act. 2. 38 39. for that is commanded upon that Ground and Encouragement that the Promise is to them and that is there to a double Subject You Repenters and your Seed and so to Infants and so they are commanded to be baptized All that are under the Ground and Encouragement unto the Duty of being baptized are obliged to the Duty and some Infants are under that for the Promise is to them Gen. 17. speaketh not expresly of Baptism but it commandeth the Keeping the Covenant by applying the Token of it which now is not Circumcision but Baptism and so commandeth that even to Infants seeing they are in the Covenant as aforesaid and there is no Scripture-Warrant to delay the applying that first Token of it after Opportunity is offered If it were limited as Circumcision was to the Eighth Day it might be delayed till then but now may be applied before The Females were uncapable wanting the part and yet were deemed circumcised in the Males for all Israel are called the Circumcision Which answers his p. 9 10 11 12. It still runs there in his Head that all I say is brought forthwith to prove Infant-Baptism whereas I prove other Mediums in order to it Thus p. 8. I mention Heb. 10. 16 17. only to prove Remission of Sins to be a great Blessing of the Covenant He p. 11. dreams that I must mean it of Infants So I mention the Second Commandment as requiring the observing Gospel-Institutions as Baptism after the alteration of the Sign as of old it required Circumcision He fancieth that I produce it presently to prove Infant-Baptism So I p. 41. mention Matth. 16. 18. Rom. 16. 16 1 Cor. 12. 27. c. to prove that the Church is Christ's He p. 13. conceiteth that I would hereby prove Infants visibly Christ's which I do by other Mediums And here he talketh that Infants may be saved who were never baptized which was not there my Business I am weary of his Impertinencies but hope that by serious reading my Book any judicious
Person will have enough there to answer him Abraham had an Ecclesiastical Seed even of Infants Gen. 17. The Infant-Seed of Jews were broken off with their Parents from external Interest in and Privilege by the Covenant Rom. 11. unless he can prove the Infants remained in Covenant still The Seed of Believers are visibly under the Promise the Word of Faith as the Seed of others are not and so are of the Faith I see nothing to invalidate what I said thereof I said Infants Interest in the Covenant Gen. 17. is not cut off Instead of proving a Repeal and the Cutting them off without which all that he or others say is nothing he replieth Obj. 1. Infants had as good Right to the Covenant of Grace before Circumcision and have the same Right now v. 17 18. Ans And what if they had and have it That is for me not against me But under favour Circumcision was a new Privilege which Infants had not before Gen. 17. However this doth not prove them cut off from any but the contrary Obj. 2. No Person 's Right to Circumcision did arise out of the Covenant of Grace but it did only issue from the Command of God p. 17. Ans 1. Here is no Syllable to prove that Infant-Interest in the Covenant Gen. 17. is cut off Some Infants certainly had it and so must still unless there be a Repeal 2. The Command is express to all the Seed of Abraham to keep the Covenant by applying the Token And Infants are expresly concerned in that Command Gen. 17. 9 10 11 12. and so all Infants within that Covenant are under that Command still unless cut off 'T is true the Sign of Circumcision is changed but the Covenant is the same and the Subject of it the same So that whether the Right ariseth from the Covenant or from the Command or both it matters not all his Seed Infants and all in it by the Command are to pass under the Sign And Circumcision then being a Token of the Covenant the Right to it must arise from the Covenant although a Command was the Direction for applying the Sign Obj. 3. As Circumcision did not give Abraham ' s Seed an Interest in the Covenant of Grace so the Abrogation did not take that Interest from them He instanceth in the delay of it to Moses his Child the Omission Forty Years in the Wilderness Infants now have no part in the Covenant of Circumcision yet they lost nothing by it And then he speaketh of the Typical Covenant of Circumcision being made void p. 17 18. Ans 1. Who saith that Circumcision did give them Interest in the Covenant of Grace Rather a being in that Covenant gave Interest in Circumcision which was a Token of it Moses his delaylaying of Circumcision was his Sin Exod. 4. 24 25 26. and had like to have cost him his Life and Israel's Omission of it was their Sin And is it no Loss in Mr. Grantham's Account to be cut off from External Privileges unless Men be wholly cut off from the Covenant of Grace and the Salvation thereof Is it nothing for God to say Loami The Taking away Circumcision was a Mercy the Lord giving Baptism in lieu of it but if he had taken away that and all Church-Privilege and External Covenant-Interest also from Infants which once they had it must needs be a great Loss an unspeakable Disadvantage a sore Judgment 2. Now he declareth that Covenant which Circumcision did belong to void and distinguished from the Covenant of Grace and calleth it a Typical Covenant But not one Syllable of Scripture-Evidence for any such thing We must believe it if he will because ipse dixit Here he should have proved a Repeal of that Covenant with Abraham and not having done this he hath done nothing I believe that the Covenant Gen. 17. wherein twice God declareth himself a God to the Seed of Abraham v. 7 8. the Sign whereof Circumcision Abraham received as a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 4. 11. must needs be a Covenant of Grace no Typical Covenant nor void for that Righteousness was not of a Covenant only for Canaan but of Grace for Eternal Life And that Abraham received it as a Sign of one Covenant and his Seed of another can never be proved The contrary is plain viz. that both had it by the same Command and Covenant Gen. 17. 9 10 11. But now Mr. Grantham p. 19 20 c. findeth a Medium by a new Position viz. Posit That all Infants as such are in a Visible State of Salvation by the Covenant of Grace and so are of the Vniversal Church of God and cannot be put out of that blessed State till by their voluntary departure from God by chusing sinful Ways they destroy themselves Ans If this were true one would think that all Infants without exception might be baptized being so in the Covenant of Grace and of the Church for then they are made Disciples and so are expresly commanded to be baptized Matth. 28. 19. I hope Mr. Barret or some other will examine this Position I shall not now insist long upon it If never so many Infants be in a State of Salvation or be saved this is not against my Principle of Infant Baptism I would not diminish the number of saved Ones however I think this to be a false unscriptural Position Obj. He telleth us of five Demonstrations p. 20 to 24. but all of them come to one poor Argument from the Covenant of Grace Gen. 3. 15. which he thinketh was made with all Mankind with the whole World Ans 1. That all Mankind or the whole World is this Seed of the Woman with whom the Covenant of Grace was made is altogether without Proof and so all his Demonstrations are wholly groundless Let him but form an Argument from Gen. 3. 15. that is universal and any may see it will have a Non sequitur The utmost here said is that a Seed of the Woman or some of her Seed should be saved but it is not said All the Woman's Seed as such should be saved His Position should be his Conclusion of all his Demonstrations viz. That all Infants as such are in a visible State of Salvation by the Covenant of Grace But such a Conclusion hath no Footing in no Countenance from this Text not so much as by Consequence I think I have better than this for Infant-Baptism and I might say as well that all their Seed have the Spirit poured out upon them and the Word in their Mouth Isa 44. 3. and 59. 21. The truth is Gen. 3. 15. cometh in as a Threatning of Punishment or Severity against the Serpent as any observing Eye may see yet implying a Promise of Mercy attainable by some sinning Men through Christ a Seed of the Woman Until Adam did take hold of that Promise by Faith in that Seed Christ he remained out of Covenant as others Ephes 2. 8 12. When Adam was actually
and personally admitted into the Covenant of Grace yet it was not as a common publick Person and Head of that Covenant representing all his Seed as he was before his Fall a Head of the Covenant of Nature for then Adam's After-Sins against the Covenant would have been imputed to all his Seed as his former were against the Covenant of Works Rom. 5. 12 c. v. 20. Now every individual Man was personally to be in Covenant and if he derived external Privilege it was only to his next or immediate Seed Hence if Adam's Infant-Seed might have outward Privilege by being his Posterity or any before Abraham yet if any of them after rejected the Covenant as Cain did they cast themselves out of that external Privilege and their Infant-Seed with them So in after Generations Hagar and Ishmael her Seed were cast out and Esau and his the Israelites and theirs Rom. 11. and those were Strangers to the Covenants Ephes 2. 12. See also Psal 37. 28. I know not that Adam and Eve two Persons made a Church Let Mr. Grantham prove it But that Promise laid a Foundation for the Erecting a Visible Church afterward If Adam's Family was the Church as you say and the whole World or all Mankind that then was and so his Infant-Seed were Members of it yet Cain and his Seed were soon rejected notwithstanding which many Persons believing in that Seed Christ were so saved in after Generations through that Promise But that all Infants of rejected Cain Ishmael or Esau were in a visible State of Salvation and of the Visible Church or that all dying in Infancy are certainly saved appeareth not Gen. 3. 15. Mr. Grantham asserting it is Presumption without Proof 2. That Gen. 3. 15. mentioneth a Seed of the Serpent which is part of the World as well as the Seed of the Woman which the Covenant of Grace extendeth to and hence this Text which he alledgeth is exclusive of some and so confuteth his Demonstration For if there be in it another opposite Seed then all Mankind or the whole World cannot be comprised in the Seed of the Woman who are under this Promise Will he say the Seed of the Serpent are visibly in a State of Salvation by the Covenant of Grace Or that they are no part of the World 3. Only those are this Seed of the Woman under this Covenant or Promise who have Enmity against the Serpent and such Power over him as to bruise his Head And this is exclusive of others For that is expresly the Qualification of the Seed of the Woman here intended Yea the whole of the Promise which here extendeth unto any of Mankind is Gen. 3. 15. I will put Enmity between thee and the Woman and between thy Seed and her Seed it shall bruise thy Head the following Words concern the Serpent viz. his bruising his Heel So then none else are this Seed of the Woman or visibly in a State of Salvation by this Covenant but such in whom is found that Enmity against the Serpent so as to conflict with and prevail against him Therefore this Seed of the Woman can be only Christ 1 Joh. 3. 8. Heb. 2. 14 15. and such as believe in him for 1 Joh. 5. 4. This is the Victory even our Faith Hence the whole World cannot be here intended If whole Mankind yea all Infants were that Seed of the Woman then all Infants have Enmity against the Serpent and then they are capable of yea have Love to God and Faith in him and so may be baptized It is the Covenant which I called the great Charter of Heaven viz. of the God of Heaven And as others by denying Infants Interest therein do take from it so let him take heed of adding to it A POSTSCRIPT THE foregoing Answer to Mr. Grantham should have been published soon after its Date 1687. with Mr. Firmin's if his had not been out before he expected and it is at the desire of some Friends that now it cometh forth He intimateth p. 9. that Salah Heber c. lived after Gen. 17. and were not circumcised nor had Obligation to Circumcision But this is more than he knows seeing so little is revealed to us of the way of their Worship in that Day And it seemeth to be false because Abraham then was declared the Father of many Nations v. 5. And so Believers of other Nations were then his Seed and obliged if some lawful Impediment hindred not However this is certain that believing Gentiles in Gospel-Times are graffed into or interested in the same Covenant that was made with Abraham Gen. 17. and his Seed the same Olive which the Jews were broken off from Rom. 11. 11 to 27. And as of old they were circumcised not merely by virtue of a Command but as a Token of the Covenant Gen. 17. 14. hence all under that Covenant that could were to submit to it and that as a Mark of Distinction for they were distinguished from others by Circumcision Even so it is now as to Baptism And whereas Mr. Grantham denieth that the Covenant Gen. 17. is a Gospel-Covenant or a Covenant of Grace This is his gross Errour for the Apostle proveth Justification in Gospel-Times to be by Grace from this Covenant with Abraham Rom. 4. 1 2 3 4 16 17. This is the very Ground which his Argument is built upon viz. That we under the Gospel are justified in the same way that Abraham was and therefore by Grace By the Promise and not by the Law If this could be denied all his Arguing were vain and false Now that Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. which Circumcision did belong to is that which his Argument is bottomed upon as is evident Rom. 4. 16. Therefore it is of Faith that it might be by Grace How doth he prove that V. 17. As it is written I have made thee a Father of many Nations Now it is very observable that this is quoted cut of Gen. 17. 4 5. and it is no where else in foregoing Editions of the Covenant It is not found in Gen. 12. nor in Gen. 15. therefore that Gen. 17. was a gospel-Gospel-Covenant and not ceased Doth Mr. Grantham think that the Apostle would seek to prove our Justification by an abrogated Covenant and a legal one too as he would have this be I might prove it a gospel-Gospel-Covenant from his calling Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 4. 11. and there is no Syllable in the Institution declaring it to be of one Use to Abraham and of another to other Persons Also From his setting this Promise to Abraham in opposition to the Law Rom. 4. 13 14. it is contradistinguished from that as elsewhere Gal. 3. 17. This evidenceth it to be a Covenant of Grace and still in force and if for Justification then also for External Privileges to the Subjects of it And once more from Gen. 17. 7 8. where twice he promiseth to be their God which is the great Blessing