would give the same Answer to the like persons Who are they he speaks to Were they not a company of corrupt men A generation of Vipers that boasted of being Abraham's children and yet did the Works of their Father the Devil The Pharisee was a Self Iusticiary And the Sadduce deny'd the Resurrection of the Dead Should such plead their Parental Right we would bid them Repent But what is this to the outing children of their Right These were adult and had by their wickedness forfeited their right Did not the Prophets while their Church state stood use the same Methods with them Antipaed But you have not yet answered my Objection about the Obligation Circumcision laid upon men to the keeping the whole Law you only prov'd that that Law was not a Covenant of Works Paed. You do well to put me in mind of it The Apostle there speaks of the erroneous opinion of the Jews who sought for a Righteousness by the Works of the Law making the Law to themselves a Covenant of Works Circumcision being an Initiating Seal was to them according to their abuse of the Law an obligation to keep the whole But in it self Circumcision did oblige only to such Obedience as God requires and accepts in his Covenant of Grace according to that dispensation of it that was then on foot and therefore when a more large and manly state of the Church was to succeed he took away that of Circumcision and in its room commanded Baptism Col. 2. v. 10. And ye are compleat in him which is the head of all Principality and Power v. 11. In whom also ye are circumcised with the Circumcision made without hands in putting off the Body of the sins of the flesh by the Circumcision of Christ v. 12. Buried with him in Baptism c. Whereby we are compleat in Christ without Circumcision for it contains all that was signify'd by Circumcision the Circumcision of the heart and the putting off the Body of Sin As their Signification was the same so one succeeded but not typifyed the other Antipaed Circumcision was only in Abraham's family and other Believers in the time of the old Testament had it not Enjoyn'd to them which must for that Reason seal somewhat peculiar to Abraham's Family viz. The Promise of the Land of Canaan and the descent of the Messiah from that Family Paed. If it designed either of the things you mention Then all that received it must partake of the Promise but so could not Abraham's Servants who were neither of Abraham's Lineage nor had a promise of the Canaanitish Inheritance Otherwise as Proselytes Converts or Believers they were capable of the spiritual Significancy All therefore that entred into Abraham's family which then was most properly and eminently the Church of God for other good men that were scattered here and there and were not gathered into one body tho they belonged to the Covenant yet we are left in the dark as to what God requir'd of them and therefore are the less able to judge concerning them and all that were admitted into that House were to be Circumcised nor was Circumcision given them as a Mark of Distinction as you distinguish Beasts by sliting and cutting That is a gross conceit but they were to be acquainted with the meaning of that sign and the contents of the Covenant What a Religious person was Eliezer Abraham's Servant What a noble Testimony does God give to Abraham as to his care in instructing his family after God that is To relinquish Idolatry and false-Worship and make a Profession of the true God Antipaed But Circumcision took in only the Males Baptism both Males and Females Paed. You think you have a mighty Plea in this but it is just nothing 1. Do you not consider that in the various Editions of the Covenant of Grace God hath made gradual Alterations without any change of the Substance Tho Infants were still included in the Covenant from Adam to Abraham as parts of their Parents yet when God brought in the Male Children under the Seal of the Covenant this was an additional Mercy but no change of the Covenant Now were the Female children hereby excluded from the Covenant it self Pray give me the true meaning of Exod. 12.48 For no Vncircumcised Person shall eat thereof By this Rule no Woman shall eat of the Passover Antipaed Surely Women were not debarred Paed. But they were some way or other Circumcised then For the Rule is Positive and Universal What other Answer can you give than this That the Females were partakers of the Circumcision of the Males 2. Do you not consider that God seeing it fit to alter his Covenant for the better when he saw fit to alter the Seal of Circumcision which was a painful Ordinance and not applicable to Females and to Substitute another for the same general end It is but suitable to his usual Method to bring in Females expresly which were Implicitly under the Seal before especially when Baptism is so easily applicable both to Males and to Females Antipaed But it is a doubt to me whether God intended Baptism to be a Seal of the Covenant of Grace Paed. Your Doubting implyes you would willingly deny it if you durst Will you doubt also Whether the Lords-Supper be a Seal of the Covenant of Grace succeeding the Passover pray tell me first Was not Circumcision expresly call'd a sign or a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith And was it not so because it was a Token of the Covenant both on Man's part and God's The contempt of which God reckoned a Contempt and rejection of his Covenant Gen. 17.14 And the Vncircumcised Manchild whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised that Soul shall be cut off from his people he hath broken my Covenant Antipaed Be it so What then Paed. If Baptism be appointed to the same Ends and uses in the New Testament 't is as much the Seal of the Covenant as Circumcision was before But it is evident Baptism has the same Office in the Institution For as Prosolytes and Abraham's seed Entred into the Covenant of the Old Testament by Circumcision so hath Christ appointed that Consenters should be initiated into the new by Baptism as soon as teaching made them capable of giving Consent Mat. 28.19 Go ye therefore and teach all Nations Baptizing them c. and men are said to accept of or reject the New Testament proffer according to their Submission to or Refusal of Baptism Antipaed This indeed seems to be so Else Baptism would not have been so Expresly commanded and so generally propounded to all Paed. The Apostle expresly saith so 1 Cor. 12.13 For by one Spirit are we all Baptized into one body whether we be Jews or Gentiles c. But for your further Satisfaction Tell me 2dly Doth not the very make and frame of Baptism show it to be a sign and Seal as well as Circumcision Why else is Water used but as a Token What is
the Application of it but as a Sealing on God's part and ours And what less doth the Apostle say Rom. 6.3 4. Know ye not that so many of us as were Baptized into Jesus Christ were Baptized into his Death Therefore we are buried with him by Baptism into Death that like as Christ was raysed up from the death by the Glory of the Father even so we also should walk in Newness of Life And pray to what other end do you use it Is it not a sign of your solemn covenanting with God 3. Tell me Why are the Sacraments of the Old Testament and the New so often compared together in the New Testament but to let us know they are for the same Uses and that we lose Nothing by the change of these Ordinances they being so much the same in design and End that the Apostle mutually gives the name of the one to the other Thus Effectual Spiritual Baptism is call'd spiritual Circumcision Col. 2. v. 11. In whom also ye are circumcised with the Circumcision made without hands c. v. 12. Buried with him in Baptism c. And the very Outward signs have interchangeably one anothers names 1 Cor. 5.7 For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us So Chap. 2. And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the Sea Antipaed But if the end of Circumcision and Baptism were the same It would seem strange that God should not keep the Old Seal of the Covenant still Paed. Suppose no other Reason could be given but God's Pleasure What is this to us What if there were no other Reason but this that Circumcision was Bloody and Painful This might sufficiently Answer your Objection But other Reasons might be suppus'd When the Circumcised Jews Rejected Christ Circumcision could not be a Distinguishing Badge betwixt Christians Jews and Heathens What if God had a mind to remove the Fond and Excessive Opinion of the Jews and the Confidence they had in Circumcision by this Change Those of them that embraced Christianity were for introducing Circumcision against whom the Apostle Paul Disputes What if God did it to notify his Mind about the Admission of Females by Baptism Now when the Partition-Wall 'twixt Jews and Gentiles was to be taken down it could not have been by Circumâ—ision but by an Ordinance proper to both Sexes Antipaed Still it sticks with me That Infants having no Faith cannot be in the Câ—venant of Grace or under the Seal of it And if we might suppose them to have Faith or to be Regenerated by Baptism then it follows That Infants are either in Covenant without Faith or those that had true Faith and were Regenerated may wholly fall from Grace For daily Experience tells us that many Baptized in Infancy become Ungodly Paedo You have started a difficult case and such as all Men do not Answer alike It is a great Question what is the State of Infants as to Grace Some say roundly that Baptisme confers Regeneration Others will not say so much but that only Baptism confers Relative Grace as Pardon Adoption c. and that the Parents Real Faith is enough to Entitle the Children to this and that Infants have a sufficiency of Grace suitable to their Infant-state as That they are under the Covenant of Grace Have Original Sin pardoned And in case they dye in Infancy the Spirit of God can and will furnish them with such a measure of the Sanctification of Nature as will fit them for Heaven Not that they assert That this Sanctification is an Effect of Baptism to all the Infants of Believers but only to such as dye in Infancy And that Relative Grace which is the proper Effect of Baptism Infants may lose it when they out-grow their Infantile State And yet all this without falling from Faith or Converting Grace But let the Difficulty of Infant 's Grace be what it will this is no Objection or Plea against Infant Baptism Antipaed That is strange But how will you make that appear Paed. Vey clearly Do you Answer this Question Was it not a Covenant of Grace that was made to Abraham and were not his Infant-Seed under the Seal of it Ant. The Proof of that cannot well be denyd Paed. Was not Faith and Grace as necessary to Justification and Salvation then as now Antipaed That cannot be deny'd Paed. Then must you grant that want of Faith might be as well objected against the Circumcision of Infants as against their Baptizing If Infants could not be supposed to have such a measure of Grace then as might be sufficient for their Salvation you must deny their Salvation and say Their Circumsion was not a Sign much less a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith If they had such a sufficiency It cannot be deny'd but our Children are as capable of the same sufficiency of Grace and Salvation Antipaed What Advantage have Children by Baptism Paed. Their Advantage is great every way You have a Breviate of them given by the Apostle Rom. 9.4 5. Who are Israelites to whom pertaineth the Adoption and the Glory and the Covenants and the Giving of the Law and the Service of God and the Promises Whose are the Fathers and of whom as concerning the Flesh Christ came c. He here speaking of the Jewish Branches that were broken off and in whose Room the Gentiles were to be Engraffed Indeed some Priviledges there mentioned are Judaical-peculiarities as that of them according to the Flesh Christ came This Priviledge was so theirs that it cannot be communicated to others Of them were the Fathers If by that no more be meant than than there was a constant Succession of Good Men it is a Benefit common to us with them For the Church is the Seminary of Grace They had by this Covenant-Relation the Offer of the Gospel and its Grace before others and were not cast out of their Priviledges till they wilfully cast themselves out Ishmael was not turned out of Abraham's Family till he was a Scorner and Persecutor Nor Esau refused the Blessing till he Sold the Birthright and was Profane And as to them belong the Promises so the Promises may be pleaded by them and by their Parents in their behalf And this has been of mighty use to Godly Persons in all Ages not onely that they were Baptized but that they were Baptized in Infancy And this is no Inconsiderable Argument to me that the Ordinance of Infant-Baptism is from God For tho as one Judiciously Remarks it may in some cases be granted Ford 's Practical Vse of Inf. Baptism Ep. Ded. p. 5. that an Ordinance Administred with some considerable Circumstantial Irregularities may Sanctify Yet that these Irregularities themselves should be the Channels of Sanctifying Grace is not easily imaginable Now this is the case of Infant-Baptism Many Holy Men of many Ages have found their hearts warm'd and quicken'd in the Exercise of Faith Repentance Love Thankfulness Restrain'd from Sin Excited to Duty by
house for asmuch as he also is the Son of Abraham Acts 11.14 Who shall tell thee words whereby thou and all thy house shall be Sav'd 16.15 And when she was baptized and her houshold c. 31. And they said believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved and thy house Antipaed How weak is your Proof for Baptizing Infants from such Scriptures How can you prove that these houses had children Paed. Not so fast I am not here arguing the Probability that these houses had children That they had not you can as little prove as I that they had But that for which I produce these Texts is this That the mentioning of House or Family speaks plainly a Priviledge which that House or Family had by its Master's Conversion Like that which Abraham's Family had when God enjoyned the Seal of the Covenant to him which reached to his Consenting Servants and his Children And Family is mention'd upon no other ground but as Children were reckon'd with their Parents before so it is still under the New Testament For if Salvation offer'd by Christ and Baptizing as the Seal of that Salvation had been intended only a Personal Priviledge to Lydia or the Jailor c. the Addition of that Mercy to that House or Family had been needless and no Priviledge would have been supposed to have accru'd to their Houses or Family as such Nor can you turn off that to Zaccheus Salvation is come to thy House by saying Christ who was Salvation was going to his House for Christ tho he be often call'd a Saviour yet is never call'd Salvation Besides that agrees not with the Reason that is given for asmuch as he also is a Son of Abraham but the Reason evidently relates to the Word House Salvation is come to thy House because thou being a Believer and so a Son of Abraham this Salvation belongs to thee and to thy Family according to the Promise which God made to Abraham I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee Antip. I have one Objection more which if you can Answer you will do much towards my Satisfaction I observe that there are such Antecedent Qualifications required to Baptism that it cannot be suppos'd that Infants should be capable of Baptism in that they cannot be so Qualifyed Mark 16.16 He that believeth and is Baptized shall be Saved c. Gal. 3.27 For as many of you as have been Baptized into Christ have put on Christ Paed. I know these Scriptures pass for Invincible Arguments with some who Argue thence That Infants do not Believe and therefore ought not to be Baptiz'd They do not put on Christ and therefore ought not to be Baptiz'd But I do not Question but I shall make you quit your Argument presently if you will give me but a direct Answer to these Questions 1. Do you think these Scriptures speak of Infants or of Adult grown Persons Antipae I think these Scriptures speak of all that were to be Baptized and that none were to be Baptized but such as by Faith could put on Christ Paed. 2ly What do you think of Dying Infants shall they be Saved or Damned Antipae Why do you trouble me with that Question If I say they are Damn'd you will call me Uncharitable Paed. But seeing you Argue against Infant-Baptism from these Scriptures you cannot be offended if I make these Inferences from them 1 You say Infants do not believe And therefore cannot be Baptized Will it not be as clear an Inference Children cannot Believe Therefore they must be Damned 2. I Inferr if Children be not Damn'd then in some sense or other Infants do Believe and put on Christ and may be Baptized and Saved Or 3. I Inferr That if it be Uncharitable to imagine that Children are Damn'd for want of Actual Faith or Repentance then surely these Scriptures do not speak of the case of Infants but onely of the case of Adult Persons to whom onely the Gospel was first to be Preached and of whom Actual Faith and Repentance were required before either themselves or Infants could be capable of Baptism Now I leave it to your self to chuse which of these you please If you make choice of the first Inference you destroy your Opinion in the judgment of all good Men who will abhor such Blasphemy against God and such Uncharitableness to all Infants If you take the Second Inference you yield up the whole Cause If you fly for Refuge to the Third Inference Then you grant as much as we desire that the New Testament taking it for granted as a known General Truth gave no particular Commands or Directions about the Reception of Children into Covenant that being needless but only gave directions about Receiving Adult Jews or Gentiles into the Church upon their Conversion Aporet This is hard choice but I confess I see no other Remedy But I would rather fix upon the last Inference than upon the first For methinks it goes against Humane Nature to think or speak so harshly of poor Infants and surely no Parents whose Bowels yern after their Children can be fond of such an Opinion I pray call over the particulars discoursed that we may have a short sum of all Paed. I have proceeded by these steps 1. I have proved that God has taken care of the Salvation of Infants as well as of the Adult 2. I have proved God's way and method to Salvation is to bring them into the Covenant of Grace 3. I have proved that Children were all along in Covenant with their Parents 4. That as soon as God added Seals to the Covenant he Commanded Children to be brought under the Initiating Seal of it 5. That this was not a Priviledge peculiar to the Children of the Jews only But that the Infants of Proselited Gentiles were Admitted to the Seal 6. That the Covenant made with Abraham was a Covenant of Grace 7. That the Edition of that Covenant in the New Testament was the same for Substance 8. That when God saw it fit to take away Circumcision he Instituted to his Covenant as a Seal to it the Ordinance of Baptism 9. In the Preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles for their Conversion it was never Question'd but known of all that their Children were to come into Covenant with their Converted Parents 10. That therefore it was needless to give particular directions about Infants 11. That the Great Business of the first Planters of the Gospel being to Convert Jews and Gentiles all that was usually said about Baptism related to the Adult 12. And I have also proved that where there was occasion the New Testament hath sufficiently declared the Infants Right to the Promise and Covenant as derived from their Believing Parents 13. I have besides this Answered all your Objections And now tell me whether this be not for all the Talk about Precept and President a giving you both Precept and President plainly for this That Children were under