that the Covenant he is received into and of which Baptism is a Sign or Seal neither is nor can be the Covenant of Grace because he had his Faith reckoned to him for Righteousness before his Baptism or while in an unbaptized Condition how absurd would that be So that this Argument is so far from being irresistible that it hath not the least weight in it But to proceed Having removed out of our way these feeble Argumentations whereby these two Authors endeavour to prove That that Covenant Gen. 17.7 is not the Covenant of Grace but the Covenant of Works the direct contrary whereunto I have affirmed whereby the Arguments I have laid down for the Proof of my Assertion may be rendred somewhat doubtful in the Judgments of Persons of weaker Capacities seeing Propositions lying so diametrically opposite the one to the other cannot both be true I doubt not those Arguments laid down by me will be seen in their full force And therefore I shall return to my first Design which is as I have said to direct to the laying a sure Foundation to the Practice of infant-Infant-Baptism in this Covenant established between God and Abraham and his Seed in their Generations 2. The second thing then to be done is to determine the true and proper Subjects of this Covenant The first as I have said is convincingly to prove that it is indeed the Covenant of Grace the very same Covenant under which Believers still are 2. The second thing I now say is to determine the true and proper Subjects of it And that they are and were Abraham and his Seed in their Generations the very words of the Covenant do assure us for so the Covenant runs I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy Seed after thee in their Generations Here let it be observed That it is not said I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy Seed in thy Generations but between the and thee and thy Seed in their Generations to be a God unto thee and thy Seed Now the Question is Who we are to understand by Abraham's Seed and who are intended and included in that Phrase Their Generations For the first I answer That by Abraham's Seed we are undoubtedly to understand all that is Scripture bare that Denomination of his Seed And these are of two sorts 1. His Natural Seed And 2. His Spiritual Seed All those who through their taking hold of and Reception into this Covenant were or are adopted into his Family as the Proselytes under the first Testament and Believers under the New As for Believers under the New Testament whom at present we are only concerned in that they are to be accounted as Abraham's Seed is expresly according to the Letter of the Scripture Rom. 4.16 Gal. 3.29 Now I say this Covenant God promiseth to establish between Himself and Abraham and all his Seed whether Natural or Spiritual Here is no Exception of the one or the other kind of his Seed but the words are absolute I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy Seed after thee in their Generations And when God makes no Exception we ought to make none 2. But who are intended and included in this Clause Their Generations Who are these Generations of Abraham's Seed To that I say they are the natural Infants or natural Seed of Abraham's Seed And that we are to understand the Infant-Seed naturally descending from this Seed of Abraham I have as I hope sufficiently proved formerly and have as yet met with no Contradiction And indeed unless we include the Infant-Seed of Abraham's Seed in that Clause Their Generations there can be no Reason assigned of God's adding it nor can it be interpreted in any other Sense in a Consistency with the Truth and Faithfulness of God in his Covenant But 3. That which is to be done in pursuance of the End mentioned is to settle and establish the true Tenour of this Covenant as here establish'd between God and Abraham and his Seed in their Generations And for this we must observe that this Covenant as here established may be considered two ways 1. As having a more general Respect to all Abraham's Seed 2. As having a peculiar and special Respect to those who heretofore did or yet do stand immediately related to him as his Seed Such were the Children immediately descended from his own Loins as Isaac Ishmael c. and such are his Spiritual Seed viz. Believers they stand in as an immediate Relation to Abraham as his Seed immediately descending from his own Loins did And the Covenant as established with these gives them a present actual Right to and Interest in the Good promised in it And for the more clear understanding the true Tenour of this Covenant these three things must be observed 1. That the Covenant was and is established between God and all these his immediate Seed universally one as well as the other That it was so established between God and Abraham's natural Seed I have fully proved and that it is so established between God and his Spiritual Seed will certainly be readily granted by all that lay claim to this Spiritual Relation unto Abraham 2. That it was and is established between God and every one of these that were or are the Seed of Abraham in their Generations including as I said their Infant-Seed with their Parents between God and whomsoever this Covenant hath been established it always hath been and is established between him and them in their Generations this is according to the express words of the Covenant So that supposing it to be granted as I judg it is pass'd all rational Contradiction proved that in that Clause Their Generations the natural Infants of Abraham's Seed are included it must be granted that all the Infant-Seed of Believers are as such in Covenant with God and answerably have a present Right and Title to the Good promised in it 3. That this Covenant indispensably requires a personal Acceptation of and Closure with it by all between God and whom it hath been or is established As for grown Persons their first Admission into it doth indispensably require it as for Infants whether naturally descended from Abraham or from his Seed such a personal Acceptation of and a Closure with it always hath been and is indispensably required upon their coming to Years of Discretion and thereby they did and do become Abraham's Spiritual Seed and as such convey Covenant-Interest to their Seed And from these three things we may infer these two Colloraries 1. That all Abraham's natural Posterity immediately or mediately descending from him did as grown up to Years of Discretion hold their Interest in the Covenant and Right to the Good promised not as his Natural Seed but as his Spiritual Seed And the like must be said of Believers Seed I mean of such who have their Covenat-Interest continued to them 2. That however the Covenant might have a more general Respect
he hath said 1. As for that Objection he raiseth from what we are taught concerning the Doctrine of Baptism in the Liturgy of the Church of England not being concerned in it I shall say nothing to it But for his 2 Object I shall briefly touch upon that and hasten to a close 'T is raised from the Pleas we make for Infant-Baptism from the Covenant made with Abraham and his Seed in their Generations And as a Reply to what he saith in Answer to this Objection or these Objections he pretends to answer Two Objections the One raised from Acts 2.38 the Other from Gen. 17.7 But they may be reduced into One. I shall referr him and all others to what I have written to shew the Sureness of the Foundation laid in this Covenant entred with Abraham for the Practice of Infant-Baptism a Summary of which may be seen in the fore-going Pages and shall only take notice of what he saith of a Covenant of Election unto which both Abraham before he was called and also many Children both of Believers and of Unbelievers did belong But as to that I say That a Covenant of Election is a meer Chimaera there is no such thing revealed in the Scriptures That there is an Election of Grace the Apostle is express but of a Covenant-Election we find not the least mention throughout the Scriptures and possibly our Author means no more than what we affirm Which if it be so I shall let the Unscripturalness of his Expression pass but shall affirm That none whether Old or Young ever were are or shall be so far as is revealed unto us saved meerly by virtue of their Election I shall not determine what Reserves God hath kept secret in his own Breast concerning the Salvation of Infants descending from wicked Parents whether Heathens or nominal Christians Secret things belong unto God Neither doth the Case of such Infants at all concern the present Controversy But this I say According to what is revealed in the Scriptures None ever were are or shall be saved by virtue meerly of their Election but all that are saved so far as God hath revealed unto us must be and are saved by Virtue and according to the Tenour of the Covenant of Grace viz. This Covenant established with Abraham as the Father of the Faithful and his Seed in their Generations Hence I shall aver how cruel soever I may be judged to be by Mr. Grantham That no Unbeliever can according to any Divine Revelation have any assured Hope either of their own or of their Childrens Salvation who die in their Infancy But this is a Controversy excentrical to my present Design neither do I desire to engage in it This I am satisfied in That all the Seed of Believers at least that do own their Childrens Covenant-Interest and do not out of contempt to the Ordinance of God neglect their Baptism are infallibly saved if they die in Infancy as for others let the Day declare it As for him that will undertake to reprove God in case he do not save all Infants I shall only say as God himself doth in a like Case Let him answer it But to have done As for what our Author enlargeth upon that Supposition That that Covenant entred with Abraham was the Old Covenant it is utterly insignificant seeing I have so fully proved That that Covenant is not the Old Covenant nor had any Relation to it but indeed is the Covenant of Grace that Covenant-Believers are still under and therefore I have no Reason to take any notice of it As for what he saith in Answer to that Question Whether Baptism came in the Room or stead of Circumcision It is enough for us that Baptism is the Token or Seal of the Covenant which our Author acknowledges and answerably doth correspond with and come in the stead of Circumcision in the General Notion of it viz. as the Token of the Covenant Hence whatever other Differences may be assigned they concern not this Controversy I have only this to desire of this good Man That he will be perswaded that he hath not as yet looked half the way into this Controversy And shall add that if any will yet agitate this Controversy I earnestly beg of them to do it so as to approve themselves unto him that searcheth their Hearts and is ready to judg the Quick and the Dead and shew themselves to be Men. FINIS The Author hath published these Treatises also about this Subject viz. 1. INfant Baptism from Heaven and not of Men or a moderate Discourse concerning the Baptism of the Infant-Seed of Believers 2. Infant-Baptism from Heaven and not of Men the 2d Part Or an Answer to Mr. Danvers's Treatise of Baptism Wherein Infants Right to Baptism is further confirmed 3. An Essay to revive the Primitive Doctrine and Practice of Infant-Baptism in the Resolution of Four Questions 1. What are the Reasons of God's appointing the Token of his Covenant to be applied to the Infant-Seed of his People 2. What is the Good or Benefit they receive thereby 3. What is the Duty of Parents towards their Children as bearing the Token of the Covenant 4. What is the Improvement that Children as grown up to Years of Maturity may and ought to make of the Token as applied to them in their Infancy 4. Infant-Baptism plainly proved A Discourse wherein certain Select Arguments for Infant-Baptism formerly syllogistically handled are now abbreviated and reduced to a plain Method for the Benefit of the Unlearned With a large Epistle to the Pious and Learned among the Antipaedobaptists especially the Authors of the late Confession of their Faith 5. A brief Discourse concerning Man's natural proneness to and tenaciousness of Errors Whereunto are added some Arguments to prove That that Covenant entred with Abraham Gen. 17.7 is the Covenant of Grace All sold by Jonathan Robinson at the Golden-Lion in St. Paul 's Church-Yard Together with several other Treatises in Defence of Infant-Baptism by Mr. Baxter Mr. Wills Mr. Barret c. A POSTSCRIPT Being a further Defence of INFANT-BAPTISM against Mr. Keach WHEN the foregoing Sheets were just wrought off the Press a little Tract came to my hand put forth by Mr. Benjamin Keach one of the Epistolers to Mr. Cary's Book which I have perused and although I find not my self in the way wherein I have proceeded farther proof of Infant-Baptism much concerned neither do I fear but that any who shall truly weigh what I have written will see what he hath said is sufficiently obviated and therefore I might well and at first view of his Book have thought to have let it pass without taking any notice of it Yet because it is possible something that he hath suggested or rather repeated from others may somewhat obstruct Persons of weaker Capacities in their compliance with that Practice I have pleaded for I have upon second thoughts judged it meet to consider what he hath written so far as I conceive
hand that that take it of Circumcision in particular might be and was a Gospel-Ordinance which yet would not profit Men except they kept the whole Law seeing it might and did profit them who did so keep the Law Thus the Apostle affirms it did profit them that kept the Law What is here said of Circumcision may be alike said of Baptism It profits not those that keep not the Law in the latter Sense before-mentioned but as for those that do so keep the Law it doth profit them No Ordinance will profit any Men in case of their failing in that Obedience indispensably required in the Covenant they are under which is no Argument at all that it is no Gospel-Ordinance Gospel-Ordinances will not profit Men as of themselves in case they are Hypocrites and do not walk up to that Profession they make which is all that the Apostle intends in that place 2. His second Argument is this If Circumcision bound Men to keep the whole Law then it was no Gospel-Ordinance c. Before I return an Answer to this Argument I shall premise that by Law in Gal. 5.3 which he cites to prove his Assumption we are as I suppose is granted on all hands to understand the Mosaical Law the Law given by Moses at Mount Sinai and that in the utmost Latitude and Extent of it Now this Law may be considered two ways 1. As given by God to the People of Israel 2. As after misinterpreted and misunderstood by them 1. As given by God it had only a Subserviency to the Covenant of Grace and answerably as in it there was a Revival of the Law given to Adam in Innocency so there were various Sacrifices and Ceremonial Observations anew instituted that so the People seeing the Exactness and Severity of the Law and finding their own Inability so to perform it as to live therein they might be engaged to flee unto Christ and take hold of the Covenant of Grace confirmed as the Apostle speaks Gal. 3.17 in him whereunto they were guided by the Sacrifices and those other Ceremonial Observations Hence the Law is said to have been a School-Master to bring them unto Christ Gal. 3.24 whether we read as in our Translation or only a School-Master unto Christ it is all one seeing a School-Master it was Now take the Law as thus given by God himself and Keeping in the latter Sense before-mentioned I grant his Assumption but deny the Consequence in the Major Proposition and affirm That tho Circumcision did bind Men to keep the whole Law during its continuance in the Church yet it might be and was a Gospel-Ordinance and supposing the Apostle only intends this Term Law in this Sense yet he might justly argue against Circumcision as laying them under this Obligation to keep the Law because there was now a change and alteration in the Law The whole Ceremonial Law was abrogated and laid aside and for them to put themselves under an Obligation to keep a Law that was now abrogated was sinful and would have deprived them of any Benefit by Christ tho they obliged themselves to keep it in that Sense in which the Jews under the first Testament were bound to keep it and their keeping of it was acceptable to God and profitable to themselves 2. Take the Law as misinterpreted and misunderstood by the Jews viz. as tho it had been a Law through their meer keeping of which they should be saved without the Mediation of Christ as it is evident they did so understand it then I deny the Assumption and affirm that Circumcision never bound any Man so to keep the Law and then the Apostle in arguing against Circumcision deals with the Galatians according to that false Notion of the Law they had imbibed from their false Teachers and tells them that in case they were circumcised that is as obliging themselves to the Law in the Sense now mentioned they would be Debtors to do the whole Law not only uprightly and sincerely but to do absolutely all things written therein seeing neither their Sacrifices nor Ceremonial Observations appointed in that Law would yield them any Relief in case of their failing to do all things written in the whole Law and their returning and adhering to the Law in this sense would deprive them of any Benefit by Christ And thus I judg we are to understand the Apostle in that place So that take the Apostle's Sense which way we will the Argument is of no force Take the Sense the former way then the Consequence is unsound if we take his Sense the latter way the Antecedent is false And a greater Absurdity can hardly be vented by Men than to say That God ever designed Circumcision as an Obligation unto the Jews thus to keep the Law or any part of it But 3. His third Argument is this That which was always in comparison of the Gospel a weak and beggarly Element was never a Gospel-Ordinance but Circumcision was such Ergo c. Answ Here I shall positively deny the Consequence in the Major Proposition and affirm That that might be in the Apostle's Sense said to be a weak and beggarly Element which yet during the First-Testament-Administration might be a Gospel-Ordinance Will Mr. G. say That the Jews had no Gospel-Ordinances Yet all their Ordinances come within the compass of these weak and beggarly Elements Take it of the Passover surely that was a Gospel-Ordinance and yet one of these weak and beggarly Elements But to hasten As a close of this and to make way to what follows I shall offer this one Argument to prove That Circumcision was a Gospel-Ordinance it is this If Circumcision was the Token of the Covenant of Grace and as such a Representation and Seal to those to whom it was applied of those great Gospel-Blessings Righteousness Interest in God and Sanctification then it was a Gospel-Ordinance but the former is true therefore the latter I am aware Mr. G. will deny the Assumption but I prove it thus If that Covenant Gen. 17.7 be the Covenant of Grace and Circumcision was the Token of that Covenant and as such a Representation and Seal to those to whom it was applied of those forementioned Gospel-Blessings then it was a Gospel-Ordinance The Minor or Assumption in both Arguments consists in two Branches both which I know will be denied But it is the former Branch that at present falls under our Consideration and supposing that be sufficiently proved the latter will hardly meet with any opposition Now that being already demonstrated I shall at present add no more only consider what Mr. G. hath said to prove the contrary That that Covenant is not the Covenant of Grace but the Old Covenant or that Covenant said by the Apostle to be done away and this he saith will appear three ways 1. From the recital of the Covenant it self 2. From the Nature of Circumcision and chiefly because the Covenant of Grace was not peculiar to Abraham and
true Messias promised to their Fathers Hence it is no way absurd nor the least prejudice to the Cause of Infant-Baptism to grant that none of the Infant-Seed of believing Jews till the absolute abrogation and laying aside of Circumcision was published and fully made known to the Church were baptized But now after the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ when Circumcision was wholly laid aside we still find when Parents were Baptized their Housholds peculiarly including their Children were Baptized with them But it may be our Author will say he doth not argue meerly from the Scriptures not mentioning the Baptism of Infants but from that taken in Conjunction with John's Preaching Repentance and Christ's making Disciples by teaching them and the Apostles requiring Faith of those that they Baptized But to that I Answer Both John Baptist our Lord and the Apostles having to do with grown Persons they did and it was necessary they should preach Repentance teach and instruct them before they baptized them and upon their professing their Faith and Repentance administer that Ordinance to them But what is that to Infants They might have and had by virtue of their Parents Faith an Interest in the Covenant and upon that account had a right to Baptism which when Circumcision was laid aside and Baptism instituted was applied to them But 2. He would prove his Assertion from the Commission given by our Lord Christ to his Apostles But to that having so fully proved that the Commission doth not exclude but on the other hand include Infants supposing their Interest in the Covenant and yet the fitness and meetness of our Lord Christ's expressing the Commission as he hath done that it is wholly superfluous to add any thing more See my Plain Proof of Infant-Baptism p. 73. as also my Answer to Mr. Danvers Chap. 2. p. 25. and therefore shall proceed Our Author offers two Reasons why Baptism is by Dipping Washing or burying the Body all over in Water only to Believers upon a profession of their Faith and Repentance 1. That it is the Positive Law and Soveraign Will and Pleasure of God In Answer to which As to the Manner of Administring Baptism which his two Reasons seem to have a peculiar respect unto having spoken to that already I shall add no more but take his Reasons as respecting the Subjects of Baptism and as to this First I say in a direct Opposition to what he saith That it is not the positive Will or Pleasure of God that Believers only should be baptized but it is alike his positive Will and Pleasure that their Infants should be baptized with them This I have fully proved which I refer him unto and proceed to his Second Reason and that is taken from two Ends of Baptism To which I say that there are other Ends of Baptism with reference to which it is the Will and Pleasure of God that it should be applied to Infants To instance only in these two 1. That by it they may be by a solemn Right or Ordinance of his own Institution dedicated given up and engaged unto God in Christ 2. That in and by it the Benefits and Blessings of the Covenant may be represented and signified and the Promises wherein they are contained ratified and confirmed both to Parents and Children which when they come to Years of Maturity they are to improve as to encourage so to engage themselves personally to close in with the Covenant and give up themselves to God in Christ according to the Tenour of it and thereupon strengthen and confirm their Faith in a believing Application of the Promises to themselves Hence what he saith of all Worship which he saith is not commanded by our Lord Jesus Christ in his Holy Word is vain Worship c. It concerns not us seeing we affirm it is according to the Will of God revealed in his Word That Infants should be baptized But 3. He argues from certain Absurdities which as he supposes will follow upon our Practice Of which I must say in the General that they are all mere Mistakes and Scare-Crows the Effects of a clouded Fancy As 1. That we go to Moses for an Institution of Baptism When as we go not to Moses but to the Covenant of Grace established with our Father Abraham and his Seed in their Generations and confirmed of God in Christ 430 Years before the Law was given by Moses For his Second viz. 2. That our Practice lays a Foundation for a National Church 'T is still a gross Mistake 'T is well known that there are in England and New-England who plead for and live in the Practice of Congregational Churches and yet maintain the Doctrine and Practice of infant-Infant-Baptism and that in a perfect consistency with their Principles and Practice For the Third viz. 3. That it affirmeth the Children of Believers were by Virtue of their Parents Faith in the Covenant of Grace united or ingrafted into Christ contrary to Eph. 2. But that our Practice should contradict the Apostle in that Eph. 2. where all are said to be Children of Wrath which are the Words I suppose he hath reference to supposing our Principles rightly understood is unimaginable Yea it is because we believe them to be Children of Wrath as well as others that we so earnestly contend for their Covenant-Interest and the Dueness of their Baptism up on the Account thereof They may be and are Children of Wrath by Nature as having sinned in Adam and being shapen in Iniquity and conceived in Sin and yet upon their Birth into the World be as the Seed of Believing Parents taken with their Parents into the Covenant of Grace and hereupon have a Right to be implanted into Christ's Mystical Body whereby they are secured during their pure Infant-State from the Effects of that Wrath they were by Nature the Children of And who can assign any shew of Reason why it may not be so They are not the Children of Wrath and in the Covenant of Grace at one and the same instant of Time their State as Children of Wrath precedes their State as in Covenant with God 4. As for the Fourth Absurdity it 's deceiving of Souls I shall only say That if any such thing doth happen 't is from the ignorance or neglect of Parents or those that should instruct them We only affirm That their Covenant-State secures them from the Effects of Wrath during their pure Infancy The Covenant indispensably requiring their personal Faith and Repentance when they come to Years capacifying them to Believe and Repent And what Deceit is here put upon any For his Last Absurdity that still is but his own Fancy proceeding from his Ignorance of the true Doctrine of Infants Covenant-Interest and Baptism Will he but peruse what I have written in my Essay p. 143. c. he may see this Absurdity fully removed out of his Way But Lastly This Our Brother for so I shall own him comes to answer some Objections against what
confusedly jumbled several things together which I suppose he will not find so jumbled together in any Pleader for infant-Infant-Baptism In brief our Argument is this If the Infant-Seed of Believers are in common with their Parents the true and proper Subjects of the Covenant of Grace then they are the true and proper Subjects of the Token of that Covenant which now is Baptism but the former is true therefore the latter Now let us see what our Author has said to this Argument and it may be observed that he doth not at least expresly deny that Covenant to be the Covenant of Grace yea implicitly he grants it so to be wherein he leaves if not the most of those who especially of late have pleaded the same Cause with himself I suppose he hath seen the unsuccessfulness of their Attempts and therefore was not willing perdere oleum in proving what he knew could never be proved But he offers four things to invalidate our Argument 1. He saith and is very positive That this Covenant was not made with Abraham and his Carnal he should have said Natural Seed according to the Flesh But that it was made with him and his Spiritual Seed and such who had the Faith of Abraham And he seems greatly to wonder that all Men should not be convinced by those three Scriptures compared together Gal. 3.16 29.9 Rom. 7.8 that is to see how confidently he expresseth himself pag. 100. one would think the Apostle might be believed in his expounding that Text meaning that in Gen. 17.7 Pag. 106. when he had feigned an Objection that some might make which he thus frameth Say what you will the Promise and Covenant of Grace was to Abraham and his Natural Off-spring He returns this Answer Why Do you not believe the Apostle who tells you the quite contrary So once again after he had cited those fore-mentioned Scriptures he adds Could the Apostle in plainer terms have detected the Error of these Men he means those who say that Covenant was made with Abraham and his See according to the Flesh Strange Confidence But who so blind as they that shut their Eyes But in Reply unto this I shall only say Or Author lies under a double Mistake the former is about what we affirm the latter about the mind and meaning of the Apostle in those places 1. The Mistake he lies under about what we affirm is this he supposes we say that that Covenant was made with Abraham and all his Natural Off-spring whether immediately or mediately descended from him meerly as they were his Natural-Off-spring whereas both my self and many others both formerly and of late do affirm that that Covenant was actually entred only with Abraham and his Natural Seed immediately proceeding from his own Loins and that all his Natural Seed mediately descended from him held their Interest in the Covenant either as his Spiritual Seed or as their Infant-Seed and that Abraham's Natural Seed immediatly descending from his own Loins were taken into this Covenant with Abraham himself is made evident past all rational Contradiction See my Infant-Baptism from Heaven first Part Pag. 2. and so on neither doth the Apostle in any of the places mentioned in the least contradict this 2. Our Author mistakes about the mind and meaning of the Apostle in this Scripture he supposes that he excludes both Abraham's Natural Seed whether immediate or mediate as also the Infant-Seed of all Believers from this Covenant and the Promises of it which never entred into the Thoughts of the Apostle to do As for that in Rom. 9.7 8. see my Infant-Baptism Part 1. Chap. 7. throughout where I have proved that the Apostle is so far from excluding Abraham or any Believer's Natural Seed from this Covenant or any Promises of it that as to Abraham's immediate Natural Seed he necessarily supposes their Interest in it And for Gal. 3.16 29. I shall only say that in case that Covenant was entred with Abraham and his Natural Seed immediately descending from him and all his Spiritual Seed in their Generations including their Infants with them which I have demonstrated that it was the Apostle is so far from excluding them that it 's past all rational Contradiction he doth include them the Promise is made unto Christ that is Christ Mystical as our Author himself acknowledges but the Promise was made to Abraham and his Seed in their Generation including Infants with their Parents therefore will we believe the Apostle Infants with their Parents are included in that term Christ it is Christ Mystical including himself as Head Abraham and his Seed in their Generations that the Covenant was entred with For the Lord to say unto Abraham I will be a God unto thee and unto thy Seed in their Generations is all one as the Apostle Expounds it as to say I will be a God unto Christ so that Abraham and his Seed in their Generations still including himself as Head constituted and make up Mystical Christ Now then those two Mistakes of our Author being rectified his first Consideration vanishes and makes not the least head of Opposition against our Arguments But 2. he puts a Supposition that we could prove all the Children of Believers to be in that Covenant made with Abraham yet our Author thinks it doth not from hence follow that they may be baptized unless we can show the Lord Christ has injoyned them so to be But to this I would say Would he really grant this the main of our Controversy were at an end And will he grant this as will he yield unto Truth he must do then I shall refer him to these three Arguments I have laid down to prove That they not only may but ought to be baptized See my Infant-Baptism Part 1. Ch. 9. Till which Arguments are answered which Mr. Keach may do at his Leisure if he pleases it is utterly superfluous to add any more We shall not deny what he hath said viz. That it 's not enough to say Children are in the Covenant therefore they ought to be baptized yet let me say this would carry a fair probability in it but this I say If our Lord Christ hath assured us that it is his Will that being in Covenant they ought to be baptized as those Arguments fully prove he hath Then that is enough to warrant our Baptizing of them Hence as to our Author's two other Considerations they only designing the Confirmation of this Assertion I shall say nothing especially having touched upon what he saith in them in my Answers to Mr. Grantham and therefore shall come to a Close not finding my self concerned in his Answers to the other Scriture-Proofs and Arguments Pedo-Baptists produce for the baptizing of Infants I shall only further desire both Mr. Keach and those others whose Books I have now considered seriously and impartially to weigh what I have said in Answer to what they affirm concerning Circumcision its being only a Seal unto Abraham of the Righteousness of Faith and not so to any of his Seed in my Infant-Baptism from Heaven Pag. 228 unto 236. and shall only add my hearty Desire our Opponents will truly and impartially weigh what hath been offered unto them and determine as they will answer it at the great Day of Accounts which we all profess our selves Expectants of and in case any of them will return any Answer to what I have written upon this Subject I desire they would do it with what speed conveniently they may My Age now tells me my appearing before our Lord Christ cannot be very far off and I would gladly either be convinced of my Error suppose I have erred Infallibility I pretend not unto which yet at present I am above any suspicion that I have done or may have opportunity to shew them the Insufficiency of the Answers returned by them FINIS ERRATA PAge 23. line 10. read some P. 31. l. 10. after made add must be fixed P. 33. l. 19. read institutes
declared to the Churches had been superfluous 't is enough that the whole Counsel of God is contained in one or another part of the Scriptures and we are sure they contain this part of his Counsel that Infants ought to be baptized But 2. I say that the Apostle did declare something yea much of this part of his Counsel For 1. He declares That if either Parents are Believers then their Children are Holy that is Holy foederally 2. Paul declared That the Infant-Seed of Believers do appertain to the Mystical Body of Christ He expresly declares that that Promise Gen. 17.7 was made unto Christ Gal. 3.16 that is Christ Mystical and that Promise extended unto Infants it being made to Abraham's Seed in their Generations as is before proved and this the Apostle perfectly understood 3. He declares this as part of the Counsel of God that all that appertain to this Mystical Body ought to be admitted or incorporated there into by Baptism This is doubt not but Mr. Keach will readily grant 6. He argues thus Whatsoever is necessary to Faith or Practice is left in the written Word or made known to us in the Holy Scriptures but Infant-Baptism is not contained therein therefore Infant-Baptism is not of God Answ This Argument hath been already sufficiently anticipated I shall only say at present That Infant-Baptism is contained in the Scriptures and must say the Reason why our Adversaries see it not is their too evidently shutting their Eyes against that Light held forth unto them Hence all our Author's Quotations are impertinent soeing we ground our Practice upon the Scriptures Let our Author satisfactorily Answer what we have said and then let him triumph But 6. He argues thus If no Man or Woman at any Time or Times were by the Almighty God Jesus Christ nor his Apostles neither commended for baptizing any one Child or Children nor reproved for neglecting to baptize such then Infant-Baptism is not of nor from God Answ This Argument our Author seems to have borrowed from Mr. Ives and he might have seen it sufficiently baffled long since See my Infant-Baptism from Heaven First Part p. 300 to 310. I shall only add as it is formed by Mr. Keach That the Consequence in the Major Proposition needs proof Why should we impose upon the Spirit of God Is it not enough that he hath revealed our Duty What necessity is there that he should leave upon Record a Commendation of any for the Practice of it or a Discommendation for the Neglect of it And therefore for our Author to say as he doth pag. 69. is exceeding weak He should have proved that it is universally true with respect to all Gospel-Duties at least Ordinances and that it must necessarily be so let him produce a Commendation given to any Woman for participating in the Lord's Supper or Discommendation for the Neglect of it But not to stay upon such Trifles 7. Our Author argues from a supposed Reflection That the Doctrine and Practice of Infant-Baptism make upon the Honour Care and Faithfulness of Jesus Christ our Blessed Mediator and Glorious Law-giver he supposes they render him less faithful than Moses and the New Testament in one of its great Ordinances nay Sacraments to lie more dark and obscure in God's Word than any Law or Ordinance in the Old Testament did and therefore cannot be of God Answ But to this I say Our Lord Christ hath perfectly revealed his Will relating to this practice and it must be said it is from the Darkness and Ignorance if not wilful Blindness of our Opponents that they do not or rather will not see it and consequently doth not at all reflect on the Honour Care or Faithfulness of Christ it rather reflects upon themselves and this I shall add to speak with utmost holy fear and trembling in such tremendous Matters that it had vastly more reflected upon the Honour Care and Faithfulness of our Lord Christ had he not declared his Will to us that Infants should not be Baptized supposing that had been his Will then his revealing it no plainer than he hath done when it is his Will that they should be Baptized doth But for this see my Answer to Mr. Danvers pag. 56 57. But to come to our Author's last Argument which is this That Ordinance God has made no Promise to Persons in their Obedience thereto nor denounced any Threatning or Punishment on such who slight neglect and contemn it is no Ordinance of God but God has made no Promise to Persons that Baptize their Children nor denounced no Threatning nor Punishment therefore Infant-Baptism is no Ordinance of God Answ As previous to an Answer to this Argument it may be inquired what Mr. Keach means here by an Ordinance of God if he means any Act or Part of Worship that is contra-distinguished from all other Acts or part of Worship as preaching the Word is an Ordinance contra-distinguished from the Celebration of the Sacraments then I shall readily grant his Conclusion and do affirm That Baptism as applied to Infants is not distinct Ordinance from Baptism as applied to grown Persons no more than Baptism as applied to Women is a distinct Ordinance from Baptism as applied to Men or as it is applied to young Men is a distinct Ordinance from Baptism as applied to old Men 't is not any Consideration or Circumstance relating to the Subjects of an Ordinance that makes that an Ordinance distinct from the same Ordinance as the Subjects of it fall under other Considerations or Circumstances Circumstances relating to the Subjects of Ordinances diversifies not Ordinances And therefore if Mr. Keach understand this Term Ordinance in this sence let him make the utmost he can of his Argument we are not concerned in it But 2dly If he mean by Ordinance any Duty injoyned by God respective to his Ordinances take it of Baptism in particular then I deny the Consequence in his Major Proposition and affirm That that may be a Duty unto the Performance of which no particular explicite or express Promise is made or against the Neglecters or Contemners of which no particular or explicite Threatning is denounced 't is enough that God hath revealed our Duty and promised Rewards in the general to the Obedient and denounced Threatnings and Punishments on the Disobedient and how many Duties might be mentioned that have no particular explicit or express Promise made to the Performance of them nor any such Threatning or Punishment denounced against those that neglect or contemn them But to hasten having tho briefly yet I hope satisfactorily shewed the Invalidity yea Vanity of these Reasonings of Mr. Keach to prove that the Adult are only the proper Subjects of Baptism I shall now briefly consider what he hath said to invalidate our Argument for infant-Infant-Baptism taken from the Covenant entred with Abraham Gen. 17.7 which he rightly saith is the main and great Argument which we bring for our Practice Indeed he in reciting our Argument hath