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
and so Infer a positive Command is determin'd by a Masculine Article I am not for Excluding Women more than you but I urge this to show you the Absurdity there is in denying Consequences and how Untenable that Doctrine is as well as many more without them Aporet If you will not Antipaedobaptista exclude your Wife from the Communion Table you must so far as I am able to judge admit of good Consequences and if so it is like you may hear of good Reason to Include your Children in the Covenant and that doubtless would be a Comfortable Doctrine Antipae It would so but I despair to see it proved I am assur'd to the contary You have neither Precept nor President in the New Testament for Baptising Infants and the Consequences you make from Christs blessing little Children and the Apostles baptising whole Families are at best but probabilities and conjectures too weak to support your cause We read of none baptized but Believers and Penitents and we think such an Institution as Baptism should have been delivered in plain Words Paed. You express'd an high Confidence in your arguing but I am not surprized at it I have known those that could not say so much for your cause as I suppose you can even poor silly Women boasting of their ability to confute any adversary with this single Weapon Where is Precept or President But have a little Patience and you shall see I will so prove the thing in Question that I will turn the Argument of Precept and President against you You have in a few Words express'd your whole Strength excepting some small matters you have to say about the Practice of the Primitive times which I shall take notice of afterwards At present I will speak to your Precept and President But whereas you insist upon it again that there should be plain Scripture proof for an Institution I must put you in mind here that there are two things in this Question 1st The Institution of the Ordinance of Baptism 2dly A Declaration of God's mind concerning the Subjects of Baptism That God hath in plain Words instituted the Ordinance of Water-Baptism you will not deny tho' some others do We are thus far agreed then as to the Institution Whether the Subjects of Baptism be not as clearly and plainly declared and that Infants be such due Subjects of that Ordinance is now to be spoken too and I shall urge nothing which you shall have Reason to reject as ungenuine or dark Consequence Antipaed I will patiently attend your Reasonings Paed. First then I will propound this plain Question to you Do you think that God who hath been so merciful to Mankind as to provide a Saviour for them hath only provided for the Salvation of the Adult and made no provision for the Salvation of Infants that shall dye in Infancy Antipaed I dare not think but that God hath made provision for dying Infants It seems to me to be a blasphemous Reflection upon the God of Mercy to suppose him to damn all dying Infants were to suppose him unmerciful and cruel But I think we need not judge so hardly of God or Them Doubtless God hath provided for them in his Decree of Election and all the Elect shall be brought to Salvation Paed. 'T is true the Elect shall obtain and be saved But now let me aske you a second Question Doth God ever save any of the Elect but in the way and Method of the Covenant of Grace Antipaed I think it must be so for all men are either under the Covenant of Works or the Covenant of Grace they are either sav'd by Grace or left under the Curse of the Law Paed. 'T is very true For they that are out of Gods Covenant are Aliens to the Common-wealth of Israel and Strangers from the Covenants of Promise afar off without Christ and Hope But this occasions another Question How are Infants brought into Covenant whether with their Parents upon their Parents Faith or upon some Qualification of their own Antipaed I percieve what you aim at in this Question If I say Infants are brought into Covenant by some Qualifications of their own then you will say it must be a saving Qualification Faith or Repentance and this Children that have not the exercise of their Reason cannot have Or if they had such Qualifications before to give them a Covenant Interest they may have the same Qualifications now If I say it is upon their Parents Faith you will reply there is now the same way of coming into the Covenant for them still I will therefore suspend my Answer till I hear what you assert in this matter Paed. I shall do it plainly God's way of Covenanting with men has always been to take the Children into Covenant with their Parents upon their Parents Faith But to be more particular as soon as ever God added Seals to his Covenant he gave Command that Children should come under the Initiatiating Seal of it which was Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith And God's own promise gives the Reason of it I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed after thee which Abraham understood to be his Infant Seed and Circumcised them accordingly Antipaed This will not advantage you For we are not under the same Covenant For that Covenant was a Covenant of Works or at least a mix'd Covenant Paed. I am sorry you should take things upon Trust especially when the Tendency of them may be so dangerous as surely this must be for if this be true it will bereave us of the comfortable Promises of the Old Testament and shake the foundation of the New I told you the Apostle prov'd Justification Articulus stantis cadentis Ecclesiae from Consequences out of the Old Testament but take whether of these you will That this Covenant is either a Covenant of Works or a mix'd Covenant and I shall show you the Inconvenience that attends both If this were wholy a Covenant of Works then damnation must be the portion of all that were under it For none can perform the condition of it in a faln state Pardon for the breach of it was not promised and therefore could not be expected Does not this Sound very harsh If a mix'd Covenant because Temporal Blessings were comprehended in it if that I say be your Reason pray clear me Mat. 6.33 from that Imputation viz. But seek ye first the Kingdom of God and his Righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you Besides this will follow As you put them under a mix'd Covenant so you must condemn them to a midling condition and they all their days must hang betwixt Hope and Fear and never come to any sort of assurance which would not Immediatly be dash'd with the bitter Mixture of the Law And living thus and dying they must have an apartment of their own This Doctrin will lay the floor of a Limbus Patrum For I cannot Imagine
whither those that have neither Law nor Gospel must go but to a place where neither a broken Law nor a saving Gospel will carry them But this will not touch these that can decline all absurdily by denying of Consequences Antipaed 'T is an easy thing to charge a Doctrin with Inconsistency but can you prove that Covenant of Grace pure and unmix'd Paed. That I can For 1. The foundation of it was laid in Grace viz. God's Love to Abraham 2. It was made in Christ Gal. 3. v. 16. Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made he saith not and to Seeds as of many but as of one and to thy Seed which is Christ v. 17. And this I say that the Covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ the Law which was four hundred and thirty years after cannot disanull that it should make the promise of none Effect v. 18. For if the Inheritance be of the Law it is no more of promise but God gave it to Abraham by promise v. 29. And if ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed and heires according to the Promise 3. It is repeated as such in the New Testament Heb. 8.10 For this is the Covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days saith the Lord I will put my Laws into their mind and write them in their hearts and I will be to them a God and they shall be to me a people 4. It was made upon Gospel Terms Rom. 4. v. 3. For what saith the Scripture Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for Righteousness v. 4. Now to him that worketh is the Reward reckoned not of Grace but of debt v. 5. But to him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifyeth the ungodly his Faith is reckoned for Righteousness Antipaed The Apostle tells us that Circumcision binds to the observation of the whole Law that is the Law given on Sinai The Decalogue for I will not go about to Question the Gospel signification of much of the Ceremonial Law especially in the Sacrifices Paed. The Law saith the Apostle which was 430 years after cannot disanul the Covenant that was before confirmed of God by Christ Gal. 3.17 Whatever then was the design of God in giving the Law it was not any way to contradict or destroy the Gospel For the Law is not against the Promise v. 21. Is the Law then against the Promises of God God forbid It must then be added or put to the Gospel in Subserviency to it and for the discovery of Sin For it by shewing our weakness and Insufficiency puts us upon looking out for some other way of Salvation and thus it is as a School-master to teach us and lead us to Christ V. 19. Wherefore then served the Law It was added because of Transgressions till the seed should come to whom the promise was made and it was ordained by Angels in the hand of a Mediator v. 24. Wherefore the Law was our School-master to bring us unto Christ that we might be justified by Faith Antipaed But there are many things spoke of that Law that seem to make it a Law of Works and oppose it to the Gospel Poed To the better understanding of this you must distinguish betwixt God's design in giving the Law which was as I told you to convince and humble proud Man and shew him the necessity of a Saviour and the abuse of the Law through the mistake of the Carnal and Formal Jews who expected Justification from the Works of the Law which they perswaded themselves they were able to fulfill You are to understand Paul in this latter sense when he pronounces so severely against that Law Now that you may not think that this distinction is made to serve a Turn or for an Evasion The same Apostle is our Voucher 1 Tim. 1.8 But we know that the Law is good if a Man use it lawfully Where he distinguishes betwixt the Lawful use and the Erroneous abuse of the Law Antipaed Well If I yield it to be a Covenant of Grace How will you improve it for Infant-Baptism Paed. If you yield it you give up the Cause for if it be one and the same Covenant as there can be no more Covenants of Grace but one then it must be as to the substance of it the same Tho there be a difference as to degrees of Grace and Knowledge and some particular Ordinances yet is there no alteration as to the main Blessings and Priviledges This appears in the Parable of the Vineyard Where we see the Gentiles signify'd by those in the High-ways upon the Jews rejection of Christ were Invited to the same Marriage Supper the same Church State and Kingdom of Heaven which before had been offered to them the Jews The Vineyard that was taken from the Husbandmen the Jews was given to others that had not been Employ'd in it the Gentiles For tho there be another Succession of men yet it is into the very same Vineyard The Chief Priests understood it in this sense and therefore wisht it might not fall out so Luke 20.16 He shall come and destroy these Husbandmen and shall give the Vineyard to others and when they heard it they said God forbid This sameness of the Covenant is further Illustrated by the Apostle under the Similitude of breaking Branches off an Olive-Tree and Engraffing others in their Room The Tree The Fatness and Nourishment is the same that is the Covenant and its Priviledges tho New Branches be Engraffed in the place of the Old Ones Rom. 11. v. 15. For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the World what shall receiving of them be but Life from the dead v. 16. For if the First-fruit be holy the Lump is also holy and if the Root be holy so are the Branches v. 17. And if some of the Branches be broken off and thou being a Wild Olive-Tree wert Graften in amongst them and with them partakest of the Root and Fatness of the Olive-Tree c. And that which will help you to understand the whole Chapter is That such as the Breaking off is such must the Engraffing be I will but mention one Text more to confirm this and that is Eph. 2.14 For he is our Peace who hath made both one and hath broken down the Middle-Wall of Partition between us Where the Jewish Church is compared to a separate Tenement but by the calling of the Gentiles the wall that parted them is broken down and they are made one houshold fellow-citizens and Enjoy the same Priviledges What can be more Evident Antipaed But doth not the Baptist that was to prepare the way of the Lord tell the Jews they ought not to plead the Covenant of Abraham but if they would be receiv'd to Baptism they must repent Mat. 3.8 9. Bring forth therefore fruits meet for Repentance And think not to say within your selves we have Abraham to our Father c. Paed. We
the consideration of Infant-Baptism under that Circumstance and the Covenant of Ancestours the Foundation of that Administration How refreshing is it to hear a Dying Child plead Parental Covenant Right What Comfort and Satisfaction is it to a Religious Parent to be assured of the Divine Care over his Child that he has so Solemnly Dedicated to God How much did God consult the Peace of his People when he took their Children into Covenant with them Antipaed But it seems evident from Christ's Commission Mat. 28. Go Teach all Nations c. That the Apostles were sent to Baptize the Adult and such as were capable of Instruction in order to prepare them for Baptism and there is not a Word of Baptizing Infants Paed. That there is not a Word of Infants by Name is granted But you have been often told that the Command of Disciplining Nations for that is the signification of the Word there used doth Include Infants as well as the Adult And you cannot give us a sufficient Answer to Act. 15.10 Now therefore why tempt ye God to put a Yoke upon the Neck of Disciples c. where Infants that were under the Circumcision were called Disciples as well as their Fathers I shall not prosecute this But in Answer to the strength of this Argument I will lay before you a Truth which if you had consider'd as you might it would have hindred you from making this Objection 'T is this That Commission hath a direct Respect to the Conversion of the Gentile Nations who were Strangers to the Covenant and therefore the Command would not run in any other Terms then thus Go and Convert them by Preaching and then Baptize them and yet this plainly implyes That when they are Converted their Infants according to God's known and undoubted method were to be Baptized with them Antipae This is all but Conjecture Paed. I perceive a small thing will divert you when you have not a mind to see the Truth But that you may discover the weight of this Observation pray do you answer me this Questian Supposing it had been God's Pleasure in the time of the Old Testament to be so Merciful to a Heathen Nation as to send any Special Prophets or Priests to Convert that Nation might we not suppose the Commission would run thus Go Teach that Nation Circumcising them in the Name c. Or if God had continu'd Circumcision under the New Testament Would the Commission run otherwise than Go and Disciple all Nations Circumcising them Antipaed Upon such Supposition I am convinced it would have been so For at that time it was generally known that Infants were to come into Covenant with their Fathers But now that Circumcision is taken away and a New Ordinance of Baptism appointed I am not yet fully satisfy'd that Go and Teach all Nations does mean First Convert these Nations and then as they are Converted Baptize them and their Infants Paed. Was it not a Truth generally believ'd and never question'd from the time of Abraham till Christ's Coming in the Flesh That Infants were taken into Covenant with their Parents Antipaed It was so Paed. Is it then unreasonable to think that the New Testament in the Command of Baptizing did take this for granted as being Generally and Sufficiently known And that there was no need of giving Particular Directions for Infants Antipaed This is still but Supposition Paed. But I will prove it to you from Plain Scriptures in the New Testament that this was taken for granted and Baptism was urg'd upon a supposition of their Infants also Included Antipaed I pray proceed Paed. The first Scripture I shall urge is that Acts 2.39 For the promise is unto you and to your Children and to all that are farr off even as many as the Lord our God shall call Here we may Expect the true meaning of Christ's Commission as being the first occasion the Apostles had of making an offer of the Gospel Well then here I would have you to observe That Peter gives a direct Answer to the Jews that were pricked at their hearts and hereupon made this Enquiry What shall we do to be Sav'd He tells them they must Repent and be Baptized This was the necessary Advice and all of it that concern'd their Pardon and Salvation about which they were Sollicitous What he speaks further about the receving of the Holy Ghost was but an additional Encouragement The Reason of the Advice is that of v. 39. Antipaed But that relates to the Last clause of the Verse which Immediately preceeds Ye shall recive the Holy Ghost For the Promise is to you Paed. A Drowning man will catch at a Straw to save himself tho in vain you cannot but see this is a poor Shift Answer your self to these Questions 1. Do you think the Apostle intended this the Promise of receving the Holy Ghost is to you and your Children and to the Gentles that are afarr of Have all converted Gentiles a promise to receive such Gifts of the Holy Ghost as the Apostle there speaks of 2. Do you believe that the Apostle giving such an Advice of Repenting and being Baptized which only answered their great fear of perishing should give this as a reason of the additional Encouragement and not as a Reason of the main of the Advice They were Expecting an answer of their fear What shall we do to be saved Here it was that they were concern'd and not about the Gifts of the Holy Ghost and as he answered to that Repent c. so his Reason relates to that as if he should say The Promise of Pardon and acceptance is first To you Jews and your Children and next to the Gentiles upon the Terms of Repentance and Submission to the Covenant of Grace 3. Do you not think that there is some thing in the Phrase you and your Children more then barely to signify if you Israelites Repent you shall be sav'd and so shall repenting Gentiles Their Children were Israelites as well as themselves and if he had not intended an Entail of Priviledge from Parent to Chlid it had been enough to have said The Promise is to you Israelites and to the Gentiles But the Promise which God made to Abraham I will be a God to thee and thy Seed after thee was so well understood to be Inclusive of Infants upon the Parents accepting the Covenant that the Jews understood it well enough to be a Comfort to them on their Children's behalf upon whom they had laid in their Unbeliefe the Blood of Christ as well as upon themselves Antipaed Be it so that this Promise reached to the Descendants of Abraham yet this Text Limits the Promise to Conversion as many as the Lord our God shall call Paed. Who would have Expected that a man of understanding should have made such an Exception I pray to what part of the discourse doth the Limitation belong There are two Sentences the Promise is to you and to your Children and
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
Covenant with Abraham and under the Seal of it I have also given you plain Declarations from the New Testament That Children were to come into Covenant with their Parents And now I will put one Question to you Antipaedobaptista Children have been in Covenant and under the Seal of it all along If you think they are not in Covenant still shew me where when and how God hath put them out And here I might be as Peremptory with you as you were with me Give me either Precept or President that will prove that God hath taken this Priviledge from them Aporet One would think that the Dispute were at an end when it hath proceeded so far as to prove That Children were always in the Covenant and under the Seal of it so soon as any Seals were Instituted Except Antipaedobaptista can prove from plain Scripture in the New Testament that God hath repealed his Grant and Priviledge formerly given to Infants If he affirm that God hath done so the Proof must ly on his side Antipaed God disolved the Jewish Church-State at the Resurrection of Christ and set up a New Church-state in the New Testament Paed. What do you mean by Church-State Do you mean God's taking down their particular Ordinances of Worship as Sacrifices and consequently their Temple and the Services of it Or do you mean God took down these Promises by the Messiah to the faithful and their Seed upon which the Church was founded and constituted Or do you mean that God destroyed the Nation and Individual Church of the Jews and broke them off for their Unbelief If you mean the first or the last you say Nothing that can prove their Church-State altered The Question is Whether now that God hath taken away the Jewish Circumcision and their particular Mode of Worship and hath also destroyed the Nation and unchurched these Unbelievers Whether God hath set up a New Church upon a foundation quite distinct from that upon which the Church of the Jews was Established viz. a different Promise and a different way of Salvation and Justification than that which was given to Abraham Antipaed You know the New Testament is said to be a better Covenant and to be Established upon better promises Paed. And you know That tho' we grant that the New Testament Edition is in many Respects better yet I have proved to you before that for Substance it was the same Aporet To save Labour and needless Talk Pray for my Satisfaction Prove That God hath not repeal'd the Essential Church-State of the Jews nor Infants Priviledge Paed. It s more than I am oblig'd to do by the Rules of Disputation But for Truths sake and your satisfaction I will do it And for that end will recommend to your Consideration these few things 1. No Edition of the Covenant and there were at least two Editions of the Covenant before Abraham's time repealed any Covenant priviledge formerly granted but confirmed and Enlarged such Priviledges The New Testament Edition being every way better it cannot be suppos'd that God would take away from Infants their Covenant Priviledge except he had given them something better in the Room of it 2. Whatever God saw fit to take from the Old Testament-Church he hath plainly declared the Repeal of it in the New Testament where he dischargeth Circumcision Sacrifices and difference of Meat and Days And it was necessary that God should do so or else we could not have known the mind of God in these matters But now tell me Is not the Priviledge of Children Entring into Covenant with their Parents a greater Priviledge and matter of greater Importance than a Ceremony And would it not have been highly necessary that if Cod should have purposed to take it away he should have plainly declared his mind about it 3. The Apostle Gal. 3.15.17 Brethren I speak after the manner of men though it be but a Man's Covenant yet if it be confirmed no man disanulleth or addeth thereunto 17. And this I say that the Covenant that was before confirmed of God in Christ the Law which was 430 years after cannot disanul that it should make the Promise of none Effect I say the Apostle here doth expresly Affirm that God's Covenant of Grace particularly that made to Abraham as a Covenant or Testament is as to all Essential's unalterable and that the Law which was 430 years after could not disanul it And by the same Reason the New Testament could not disanul the Covenant to Abraham neither as to promise nor priviledge I need not repeat what I have already proved That the New Testament was not the taking down one house and setting up another but building upon the old foundation and planting the Gentiles where the Jews were broken off The Olive Tree is the same and the Seed but one Gal. 3.16 Not and to Seeds as of many but as of one c. 4. If this Church-state and Covenant had been altered then should not Abraham and we have been justifyed after the same manner which the Apostle affirms Gal. 4.3 upon the Supposition that the Church-state of both was the same Else it might have been answered That they might have been justifyed one way and we another 5. Let it be observ'd that the New Testament insists upon this Principle frequently as a thing denyed by none That Abraham is the Father of the Faithful and That the Gentiles were Children raised up to Abraham That they were Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to the Promise That this Blessing of Abraham is come upon the Gentiles That tho' the natural Seed of Abraham be now rejected upon Unbelief yet the Converted Gentiles were the Spiritual Seed And if this had not been Intended by God when he gave the Promise the Promise to Abraham had been broken upon the Rejection of the Jews This the Apostle Expresly argues Rom. 9.6 Not as though the Word of God hath taken none Effect For they are not all Israel which are of Israel Antipaed The Apostle there tells us That the Children of the flesh are not the Children of God and that all are not Israel that are of Israel Neither were they the Children of God because they were of the Seed of Abraham and therefore it would seem that there is no such priviledge to Infants by Birth Paed. The Apostle is there speaking of the rejection of the Jews for their Unbelief and asserts no more than this that in that case when they put themselves out of Covenant it was no breach of Promise in God to reject them tho' they were the Natural Seed of Abraham But what is all this against the Priviledge of Infants of Believing Parents The Promise was still made to Believers and their Seed and in that sense the Promise was made to Abraham and his own Imediate Natural Seed as the Seed of a Believer and so successively to that Seed when grown up when they continued in the Faith and to their Infant Seed and so on