Presumption no Proof OR Mr. PETTO's ARGUMENTS FOR INFANT BAPTISM Considered and Answered AND Infants Interest in the Covenant of Grace without Baptism asserted and maintained Whereunto is prefixed An ANSWER to two QUESTIONS propounded by Mr. Firmin about Infants Church-membership and Baptism By THOMAS GRANTHAM The Earth also is defiled under the Inhabitants thereof because they have transgressed the Laws changed the Ordinance broken the everlasting Covenant Isa 24. 5. Now I praise you Brethren that you remember me in all things and keep the Ordinances as I delivered them to you 1 Cor. 11. 2. London Printed in the Year 1687. To the READER IT appears by Mr. Pett's Epistle to the Reader that he took hold of a very slight occasion to write against the Baptized Believers it was because one without acquainting him with it came over to their Communion I could wish he had been more patient under so small a trial and thereby saved me this labour which whether it will end here I know not that may be as he pleases I hold it no convenient time for Dissenters to write one against another Friendly Conferences might do much better But I have found Men of Mr. Pett's Principles very averse to that when it has been offered I have not answered each particular Page in Mr. Pett's Book for that one and the same thing is very often repeated I have chiefly dealt with his two main Arguments on which his whole Discourse depends What he says about the mode of Sprinkling I have not meddled with nor is it needful For we see that generally such as are seriously convinced of their Duty in the case of Baptism will not if they might receive it but in the way of Immersion They are presently apprehensive that no way can be so safe for them as to follow Christ himself who it's certain was baptised so For it is granted by the Learned that Mark 1. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be truly read And was dipped of John into Jordan This account of our Saviour's Baptism is sufficient to decide this Controversy about the manner of Baptism if the highest and most perfect Example that ever was be of any force at all What I have offered on behalf of Infants Interest in the Covenant of Grace may perhaps seem too full of Charity in the Judgment of Mr. Petto and some others But if that offend thee do but consider from whom this Doctrine of Infants Damnation has proceeded it 's either of God or Man. I have searched the Scriptures but could never find his Word that is Truth it self declare such a dreadful Sentence against any one Infant much less that the greatest part of dying Infants are damn'd Could Men be satisfied of the certainty of the Salvation of their dying Infants the Controversy about baptising them would come to an End for as far as I could ever learn it came into the World upon this Mistake that they could not be sav'd without it And tho Mr. Petto seems to dislike Cyprian's Judgment herein yet what does he say less himself in p. 1. where he insinuates that those who deny the Baptism of Infants exclude millions out of the great Charter of Heaven But this may perhaps be found their Fault who exclude all but the Infants of such as they count Believers when the reckoning comes to be truly stated I never saw Mr. Firmin 's Book till I had answered Mr. Petto And at the request of some as also for that his Questions may seem to be serious and considerable I thought it needful to give a serious and Christian Answer to them which I hope I have done And as I must commend Christians in their Enquiry what Evidence of God's Love we have concerning Infants and therein be an Enquirer as much as any having Children of my own so I think it needful to caution my self and others that we set not up our own Devices for such Evidences lest our Hope be thereby lessened seeing our imposing that upon Infants which God has not required at our hands is no sign of his Love to them at all Tho. Grantham The PREFACE Containing Brief Answers to two Questions propounded by Mr. Giles Firmin in his Book called The Plea of the Children of believing Parents BEcause Mr. Firmin's Questions bear date four years before Mr. Petto's Arguments I will give them Precedence in my answering them Their Books are much of one quality save that Mr. Firmin's abounds with more unhandsom Reflections upon many in which kind of dealing it were easy to give Retaliation but that is not commendable What he writes against Mr. Danvers I leave to him to vindicate himself as he has done against others and that very well either by justifying his Authorities or rectifying such Over-fights as might easily befal the most accurate Writer in such a multitude of Quotations and which I am persuaded would much satisfy Mr. Firmin himself would he impartially read the Controversies Mr. Firmin being a wiser Man than to engage closely in the Question about the Divine Authority for Infant-Baptism maintains his Fight at a great distance save that he plays a little with some Arguments rather of other Mens devising than his own He at last comprehends the whole strength of his Discourse in two Questions and ONLY desires some Answer to them from those whom he is pleased constantly to call Anabaptists I know no such Creature yet I know that he means those Christians who according to God's Word Heb. 6. 1 2. make Baptism the third not the first Principle of Christ's Doctrine In which order the first and best of Gospel-Churches received it even that which was founded by Christ himself in the exercise of his Ministry and which is therefore the Mother of all Churches Christian in which Church consisting of believing Jews their Children had as clear an Interest in the Covenant of Grace as any can pretend to and as great Priviledges in the Church Christian as was or is needful for any and yet whoever reads the Plantation and Progress of that Church or the Epistle which was written to them on the occasion of some Decays which afterward befel them shall never find so much as one Infant baptised in that Church nor indeed in any other during the Apostles Days which Consideration alone is enough to cause a modest Enquirer to question the Legality of Infant-Baptism Mr. Firmin has got Infant-Baptism into a very little Corner it belongs only to Children of believing Parents in an Independent or Presbyterian Sense so that a great Part of the World called Christendom will have no Right to it And he makes it very insignificant to a great number of these two for pag. 33. he does not make God to be INDEED their God till with his Call he gives them Faith to answer his Call. And this is the reason I suppose why they deny these so pretendedly holy Infants whom they sprinkle any Priviledg in their Church at the Lord's Table till
they covenant again which is commonly 20 30 or 40 years after they have sprinkled them For which strange Practice they have not the least Tittle in God's Word to warrant it and where then they can find a Rule for this Practice I know not I have been told that Mr. Firmin's Questions are taken by some to be unanswerable Let us therefore view them in his Words verbatim The first is thus Mr. Firmin's Quest I. Since God was so gracious to make a Covenant with Abraham and his Seed and it did then consist with his Wisdom to constitute his Church of Parents and Children while the Parents did believe in the Messiah to come Why may it not consist with his Grace to continue that Covenant and with his Wisdom still to constitute his Gospel-Church of Parents and Children the Jews now believing in Christ come Answer You must allow that the Covenant of Grace was not restrained to Abraham and his Seed but did belong to many at that time both Parents and Children many holy Patriarchs being then living and some outlived Abraham himself and yet none of these were concerned in the Covenant of Circumcision as made with Abraham Gen. 17. but only in the Covenant of Grace as made with Adam and Noah which had now continued more than 2000 years during all which time no Infant was concerned either in Circumcision or Baptism and yet were as much of the Church as was needful for their Salvation And hence a Man may very well answer your Question by asking you another Thus Since God was so gracious to make a Covenant with Adam and Noah and their Seed and it did then consist with his Wisdom to constitute his Church of Parents to practise his Ordinances and of their Children to partake of the Grace of eternal Life without being concerned in the Practice of Ordinances in their Infancy for more than 2000 years before Christ came Why may it not confist with his Grace to continue that Covenant of Grace made with Adam Noah and Abraham himself 24 years before he was circumcised and with his Wisdom still to constitute his Gospel-Church of Parents to practise his Ordinances and of their Children to partake of the Grace of eternal Life without being concerned in the Practice of his Ordinances in their Infancy since Christ is come especially considering that Christ himself did not appoint those very Infants who were brought to him to have his Ordinances imposed upon them If Mr. Firmin be not satisfied with this Reply then let me tell him it becomes no Man no not Mr. Firmin himself to propound such an unlearned Question which is guilty of no more reason than this Since God was so gracious and it did consist with his Wisdom to give Abraham a Command to offer up his beloved Son as a Sign of Christ to come why may it not consist with his Grace and Wisdom for us of our own Heads without any Command from God to offer up every one his dearest Child in remembrance that Christ is come Sir What may or may not consist with the Wisdom of God in relation to his Church-constitution and our serving him in matters of Religion must not be concluded from the likeness which we fancy to be between his former Institutions and our own or others Inventions but from such Directions as he has given us by the Messiah which was to teach us all things John 4. both concerning our selves and concerning our Infants And we do therefore know that it was not consistent with the Wisdom of God to constitute his Gospel-Church so as to impose Gospel-Ordinances upon Infants although he did impose Legal Ordinances upon them Because Christ who is the Wisdom of God hath revealed no such thing to his Apostles nor they to us And like as ye know it to be inconsistent with the Wisdom of God to bring little Children so into the Church as to partake of the Lord's Table because God hath required Faith and Humiliation in every one that comes to that holy Manducation So we do know it to be inconsistent with the Wisdom of God to bring Infants so into his Church as to partake of holy Baptism because Repentance whereby Sin is forsaken and Faith to believe God's Promises is required by him of those that he requires to be baptized You see then that we do not deny Infants to be of the Church in such sort as to obtain Salvation with them that shall be saved although we deny them to be in the Church in your sence But let us hear your second Question Mr. Firmin's Quest II. If God hath repealed his Covenant with the believing Jews Seed turned their Children out of the Church and deny them Baptism tho the Jews truly believe in Christ come what hath God left in the room of these that carry any shew of his Blessing or good Will towards their Children during their Infant-state Answer The Words Covenant and Church as used by Mr. Firmin are ambiguous I do not find that Abraham nor Isaac neither were out of the Church till they were circumcised It 's evident Abraham's Seed was in Covenant before they were eight days old even as it was a peculiar visible Church-Covenant else all that were uncircumcised for forty years in the Wilderness were out of the Church and Covenant Mr. Firmin himself believes that Infants are in the Covenant and in the Church also before they be sprinkled by him For this is the Minor of one of his Arguments p. 103. But Children of believing Parents are Church members and this before you sprinkle them Now Sir if your Doctrine be true then it is not our waiting for a fit time to baptize our Children which turns them out of the Church nor does God for our so doing turn them out of the Church any whit more than your waiting a fit time and you make it perhaps twenty thirty or forty years for your bringing your Children to the Lord's Table turns them out of the Church Indeed if they live to years and chuse sinful ways they then turn themselves out of that Relation they had to God and his People in their Infancy by virtue of God's gracious Covenant and they thus turning his Mercy into Jndgment shall perish whether yours or ours The Case is equal I need say no more to a wise Man. Yet I add That the believing Jews and their Infants also were now made free from the Jewish Church-state Gal. 5. 1. But neither they nor their Infants were deprived of any place in the Church which was needful for them in their respective capacities yet the Parents had many Duties upon them which the Infants had not and of these the Baptism of Repentance was one they had also Priviledges which the Infants had not of which the Lord's Table was one Yet the little Children had these Priviledges which the Children of Unbelievers had not First to be devoted to God by the Prayers of the Church warranted therein by the
Men every where to repent and wills that the Gospel which contains this and many other precious Promises should be preached to every Creature And if Baptism may be a Seal of this Doctrine even there where there wants a Principle of Faith as you tell us it may then we may go and baptise every Creature and not higgle as you do about some Infants only but should we do thus God's Word would trip up our Heels as it does yours for tho he has proclaim'd Peace to the World by the Gospel yet he makes Faith necessary to the Pledg of its Reception He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved If thou believest with all thine Heart thou mayst be baptised When they believed they were baptised not one Person admitted without and then what is Mr. Petto that will adventure to give Baptism even there where there is not Faith no nor so much as a Principle of it How shall Baptism be the Answer of a good Conscience without a Principle of Faith And what good will it do you without Faith He quotes Isa 44. 3. I will pour Water upon him that is thirsty I will pour my Spirit upon thy Seed c. Well but not in Infancy when was this done to any of your Infants Or has not God made good this Promise in the Gospel Men must be thirsty before this Water be poured out upon them You bring Isa 59. 21. which might have shewed you that these Promises belong not to Infants seeing they cannot understand either the Word or Spirit which yet is here promised to be in the mouth of the Church and her Seed for ever or if you please in the mouth of Christ and his Seeds Seed for ever But Infants are so called saith Augustin à non fando because they cannot speak You bring Psal 25. 13. and 112. 2. where 't is said The Seed of good Men shall inherit the Earth and be mighty upon Earth and be blessed But I think these are unfitly applied to Infants in Infancy and yet if they concern'd them here 's no Proof that they are visibly in the Faith during Infancy But what shall become of the Infants of ill Men by Mr. Petto's Doctrine they are put by him in a Condition contrary to that of the Infants of good Men as if the Infants Blessing or Cursing must be measured out as the Parents are Believers or otherwise Let us see his Scriptures Psal 37. 28. The Seed of the wicked shall be cut off But why must this be applied to Infants Sure he has Mercy for them so as not to turn them into Hell. For he hath told us if those Children of wicked Men which live to years do but turn from the wicked Ways of their Fathers they shall not dy and so equal are God's Ways that if the Son of a righteous Man follow the Ways of wicked Men he shall die as to temporal Judgments I grant the Infants do sometimes suffer for the Sin of their Parents but our Discourse is about their Salvation You bring Rom. 11. again and thence you infer that the Infant-seed of the Jews was broken off for the Parents Unbelief But if this Breaking-off be understood of an Exclusion of Infants to Hells Torments it is a most false Opinion as I shall fully shew anon That Abraham by virtue of his Faith which he had being uncircumcised is a Father of the faithful both Jew and Gentile is very true But that any of them are his Children so as to be Members of the Church militant to do and suffer for Christ without actual Faith is not true nor does Rom. 4. 10 11 12. prove the contrary let us hear your Text How then was it reckoned when he was in Circumcision or in Vncircumcision not in Circumcision but in Vncircumcision And he re-received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith which he had being yet uncircumcised that he might be the Father of 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 only but also walk in the Steps of that Faith of our Father Abraham which he had being yet uncircumcised May the God of Heaven give you a good understanding of this Place and then all your struggling for Infant-Baptism would soon vanish For there is nothing more evident than this that none but such as so believe as to walk in the Steps of that Faith which Abraham himself had which was true actual Faith are the Children of Abraham in a visible Church-state to worship God either in Baptism or other Ordinances From pag. 48. You proceed to answer many Objections and in all you say this seems to be your great Stick That Infant-Interest in the Covenant Gen. 17. is not cut off by any thing so objected as you have set them down and unless this be shewed all Objections signify nothing to you 1. To which I answer Infants had as good Right to the Covenant of Grace before Circumcision and have the same Right now which they ever had to that blessed Covenant of this more by and by 2. No Person 's Right to Circumcision did arise out of the Covenant of Grace but did only issue from the Command of God otherwise all good Men then living must needs be circumcised for they were in the Covenant of Grace as well as Abraham 3. As Circumcision did not give Abraham's Seed an Interest in the Covenant of Grace so the Abrogation of Circumcision did not take that Interest from them Nor did the omission of it when in being cut Infants off from the Covenant of Grace It only cut them off from the Land of Canaan and the external Priviledges of the Jewish Churchstate For the delay of the Circumcision of Moses's Child did not cut it off from the Covenant of Grace nor did the omission of it fourty Years in the Wilderness cut them Infants off from the Covenant of Grace who died in that time howbeit before they possessed the Land of Canaan they must be circumcised which evidently shews that the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Circumcision are to be distinguished And therefore though Infants have now no Part in the Covenant of Circumcision yet they lose nothing by it because though it was very useful till Christ came for the Ends for which it was ordained respecting the Church-state of the Jews and the Birth of our Saviour of that Seed according to the Flesh yet the Removal of it was a great Mercy whether we respect the Severity of the Service it self or the Obligation to which it bound all that were circumcised Neither does any Man's Right to the Covenant of Grace arise from the Covenant of Circumcision neither does his Right to Baptism arise from the Covenant of Grace without a Divine Command appointing to whom and how it should be performed Now the Gospel being preached for the Obedience
Hope Object VIII What shall we make of Ephes 2. 3 12. And were by Nature Children of Wrath even as others That at that time you were without Christ without Hope If there be no Ground to doubt the Salvation of their Infants is there not some Hope Answ I grant that all Adam's Posterity with himself were Children of Wrath and take that Wrath in as large a sense as you please it hurts not my Cause at all Seeing it is evident that Christ abolished that Wrath and Death and brought Life and Immortality to Light by the Gospel which he preached to whole Adam Gen. 3. 15. and then took whole Adam into Grace and Favour so that till they or any of them become the Serpents Seed they stand in a State of Favour and Grace which shall deliver them from Wrath and Death And it is most certain no Infant is the Serpents Seed it being out of his Power to beget them to be his Off-spring seeing they are out of the reach of his Temptations during Infancy Howbeit this Place Ephes 2. is best interpreted of the Adult or grown Persons for these of whom it was said they were without Hope c. it is said they were dead in Trespasses and Sins and walked according to the Course of this World according to the Prince of the Power of the Air which now worketh in the Hearts of the Children of Disobedience such as had their Conversation in the Lusts of their Flesh fulfilling the Desires of the Flesh and of the Mind And S O were by Nature the Children of Wrath. But what is all this to the innocent Babes of the Gentiles they were not thus the Children of Wrath no nor out of the Covenant of Grace as made with Adam having never abused the Grace of that Covenant So that there was Hope or Ground of Hope concerning the dying Infants of the Gentiles whether their Parents understood it or not but no Hope concerning themselves considered in their wicked Courses Neither could the Hope of these Gentiles when they believed concerning their Infants stand upon the same Grounds on which their own Hope was founded seeing these were saved through Faith and built up an Habitation of God through the Spirit Only this is very true they now understood the Riches of God's Grace to Mankind and that God had pitty for them when they were dead in Trespasses and Sins And therefore they could not rationally doubt of his good Will towards their dying Infants For still his Unwillingness to destroy the actual Sinner is Argument enough that he will never destroy the innocent Child eternally What Hope there is of all Infants entring into Heaven however it may be hid from the Pagans is evident enough from our Saviour's Speech Except ye be converted and become as little Children ye shall in no wise enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Now suppose I take the Infant of a Jew or Pagan for my Pattern and labour that my Conversation may answer to such a Precedent in point of Innocency Humility and Simplicity will not this as well accord the Intent of our Saviour's Words as if I took the Child of a Christian for my Pattern certes it would And indeed our Saviour here speaks as much for our Comfort concerning all little Childrens Capacity to enter into Heaven as for any one of them as also when the Apostle exhorts us as touching Malice to be as Children Does he not hereby justify the whole in that State of Infancy to be devoid of that Evil And why even of our selves do we not judg what is right Could any Man from the Beginning to this Day bring the least Charge against one Infant more than another Unless God by Miracle shew some special Power upon them no Difference can be seen in them in point of Innocency Object IX But have you not forgotten that you told us you do not doubt but the Promises made to the Seed of the Righteous and the Promises of shewing Mercy to them that love God remain unrevoked Answ I have not forgotten that but still believe that there are many more Blessings pertaining to the Seed of the Righteous according to the Texts by you alledged than to others And that they may be better considered I will set that down in Words which you write in Figures Psal 102. 28. The Children of thy Servants shall continue and their Seed shall be established before thee This had doubtless been the Portion of the Sons of God in the Days of Noah had they not sinned with the rest of Mankind Psal 103. 17. The Mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting to them that fear him and his Righteousness to Childrens Children to them that keep his Covenant and remember his Commandments to do them Prov. 20. 7. The just walketh in his Integrity his Children are blessed after him Now what do these Places prove sure nothing less than that no Infants shall be saved but the Infants of Believers c. and if not how do they suit your Case They prove indeed that God will bless the Posterity of his faithful Servants if they keep his Covenant and remember his Commandments to do them I think David well expounds this Place in Psal 37. 25. And yet I grant though you prove it not that there are very many other Blessings even in Infancy does attend the Seed of the Righteous They being a Seed of many Prayers and devoted to God from the Womb as far as their pious Parents has Authority to do it whilst God knows others are destitute of these Blessings being crossed and exorcised among the Paedobaptists and offered to Molech among the Jews and the like among the Heathens And yet for all this I can see no Ground to think that the righteous God will punish with Hellish Torments those dying Infants for the Wrong which their Parents have done them It being inconceivable how it can stand with his Attributes either of Mercy or Justice both which must have Effect upon them His Justice hath its Effect on Infants in Diseases Sickness and Death Now either his Mercy must have Effect upon dying Infants in the next World or not at all if not in that World how shall that Saying be true His tender Mercies are over all his Works Will he never shew tender Mercy to Infants who only lived to cry and die in this World and must they now die eternally in Hell Is this your tender Mercy to Infants O ye cruel Paedobaptists Object X. If the Blessing of Abraham came upon the Gentiles through Faith Gal. 3. 14. how does it reach to the Infants of the Gentiles which do not believe Answ I told you that the Blessing in respect of Eternal Life was not peculiar to Abraham and his Seed but was made as well to Adam and his Seed and so common to Mankind and may well be called the common Salvation being derived from Christ promised Gen. 3. 15. before Abraham was who is
denied But when I behold the miserable Shifts you are put to to prove Infants Disciples according to Christ's Commission Matth. 28. 19. I do with the greatest Admiration bewail your Unhappiness and cannot tell how to imagine that any wise Men among you does really believe your selves in what you say on that account And sure I am the Papists have as strong a pretence from Hoc est Corpus meum for their Transubstantiation as you have from Matheteusaté for Infant-Discipleship And to speak freely they are both incredible things all Sense and Experience militates equally against both Opinions If they be Truths it must be because they are both Miracles but then they want the Character of true Miracles for they are no ways demonstrable that there is any Miracle at all in either of them we are only told that they are so i. e. that the Bread in the Eucharist is Real Flesh That the Child in your Rantism is born again of Water and Spirit made a Disciple of Christ c. but no mortal Man knows any of these things to be true And what is it that we may not believe if we must believe such things as these Prayer for the Dead Purgatory fire c. will come upon us armed with our own Arguments if we admit the former And to conclude as to your first Argument Give me leave to say if your Hearers can receive your Dictates and ill-prov'd Affirmations I know not but they may believe you in whatsoever you will be pleased to tell them What you say of the Antiquity of Infant-Baptism I shall here consider in few words for since you insist only upon Cyprian's Testimony whose Grounds for Infant-Baptism you confess to be unsound I need say little here that which was built upon bad Principles then by him and stands upon as unsound ones now by you does gain nothing by either of you But will you know that it is plainly granted by some of the most Learned of your way That there is neither Precept nor Practice in Scripture for Infant-Baptism Here it wants the best Antiquity nor any just Evidence for it for about two hundred Years after Christ. Yet it came in upon a gross Mistake of the Scripture that in what Mr. Baxter and Dr. Hammond has said for it there is nothing that looks like an Argument Dr. Barlow This is enough at present PART II. Wherein is considered Mr. Petto's second Argument which he delivers in these Words If some Infants be visibly or externally in the Covenant which God made with Abraham then by the Will of Christ they are to be baptized But some Infants are visibly or externally in the Covenant which God made with Abraham Therefore by the Will of Christ they are to be baptized BEfore I answer this Argument I shall consider a few things And 1. That as Mr. Petto grants God made the Covenant of Grace with Abraham twenty four years before he gave him the Covenant of Circumcision see Gen. 12. 1 2 3 4. with 17. 24. so that the Covenant of Grace had no external Sign as it was made with Abraham Gen. 12. But when God was pleased to add to this Covenant the Promise of the Land of Canaan c. then it was that he gave him the Law of Circumcision and these additional Parts I take to be most properly if not only that which is the Covenant of Circumcision 2. It is to be understood that Abraham was not the only Person in the World which was under the Covenant of Grace at this time when God made Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. 'T is observed by some that Salah lived after the Covenant of Circumcision was made about 50 years Arphaxad lived thirteen years after and that Heber lived till Jacob was about twenty years old which was long after Abraham died Now these with Melchisedeck if he were not one of these with many others amongst whom was just Lot were not only true Worshippers of God according to the Covenant of Grace but some of them superiour to Abraham himself for Melchisedeck blessed Abraham being the King of Salem and Priest of the most high God. 3. And as neither these nor their Posterity were liable to any loss of the Covenant of Grace by their not being circumcised after the manner of Abraham so neither Job nor other worthy Men that were not of the Seed of Abraham according to the Flesh had any obligation to Circumcision from whence it must needs follow that God intended not the sign of Circumcision to belong to Persons as they were in the Covenant of Grace but that it was appropriate for some great Ends respecting a special preservation to the Family of Abraham as of the Kindred from whom Christ should proceed and with whom he would presence himself in a Land of Promise by a distinct way of Worship from all Nations who at that time were falling very fast into Idolatry 4. And besides this it is certain that this Sign of Circumcision was by God's Appointment to be affixed to some to whom the Covenant of Grace might seem to have the least extent or at least they did forfeit all Interest in it this was the case of Ishmael and Esau who proved very wicked and it is to be questioned whether the Bondmen or Slaves in Israel had that Ceremony as a Badge of the Covenant of Grace Men may talk high of these things and prove little or whether Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to any Person in the World save to Abraham And in what sence it was so to him who had so many things peculiar to him is not easy to be demonstrated 5. Our Practice in Religious Institutes is not to be gathered from such uncertain Conjectures but to stand upon the clear Direction of the Instituter or the Practice of such as God hath thought fit to make Precedents to us and it is certain we are not at all concerned in the Law of Circumcision and for us to take our Rules thence for the Subjects of Baptism is very childish and reflects Dishonour upon Christ and his Apostles who never sent us to learn Infant-Baptism from Infant-Circumcision nor indeed have they taught it at all These things premised I answer to the Argument by these ensuing Distinctions 1. If by Covenant Mr. P. means the Covenant of Circumcision as he does for he quotes Gen. 7. 9 10 11. to prove his Assumption and by some Infants he means the Infants of Christians as such as that is his meaning then I deny his Minor. 2. Or if by Covenant he mean that Covenant of Grace Gen. 12. distinct from the Covenant of Circumcision and by some Infants being in this Covenant externally he means Infants are concerned in the outward Profession or Practice of Worship still I deny the Minor for God by that Covenant of Grace Gen. 12. never required the Performance of such Duties of Infants 3. If by Covenant he mean the gracious Pardon of