lest any should stumble at this that the Promise here made Gen. 12. was not confirmed till Abraham was circumcised he is to remember that St. Paul expresly teaches the contrary Gal. 3. 17. as I have shewed And I will add the Judgment of a learned Writer upon the place who writes thus That the Gospel was preached to Abraham and the Covenant of Grace revealed to him we have asserted in such full terms in the Context as none can rationally doubt thereof and moreover in verse 17. we have the time of God's establishing this Covenant with him so exactly noted it was saith the Text 430 Years before the giving of the Law viz. on Mount Sinai now the Law was given in a very little time after the Children of Israel came out of Egypt and from the Beginning of the first Promise to Abraham which was Gen. 12. 3. unto that very Night in which the Children of Israel were brought out of their Egyptian Bondage is the Computation of these Years made as will be evident to him that shall diligently compare the Chronologie of those times with the express Testimony of Moses Exod. 12. 41. And it came to pass at the end of 430 Years even the self-same Day it came to pass that all the Host of the Lord went out of the Land of Egypt From the time of the first Promise to the end of Israel's sojourning in the Land of Egypt was 430 Years though their Abode in Egypt was not near so long And hence saith he we collect that in the Transaction of God with Abraham recorded Gen. 12. he did solemnly confirm his Covenant with him although Moses makes not express mention of the term Covenant until occasion be offered Gen. 15. 18. for the Promise there mentioned the Apostle-asserts to be the Covenant confirmed of God in Christ unto Abraham The Sum of all that has been said is this That the Covenant of Circumcision properly taken is not the Covenant of Grace or a gospel-Gospel-Covenant nor the Sign thereof Circumcision a Gospel-Ordinance as the Doctor maintains and affirms that Circumcision did seal to its Subjects the same Grace as Baptism does now which cannot stand with Reason because those who had been circumcised should not then have been baptized for Remission of Sins for if Circumcision did seal that Grace to its Subjects why should it be now conferred in Baptism they came to Baptism not as Righteous but as Sinners The Doctor 's long Paraphrase on Rom. 4. is rather destructive of than advantagious to Infant-Baptism For whilst therein he makes Faith yea such as enables Men to walk in the Steps of Abraham ' s Faith the absolute Condition of the Covenant c. he can never make Infants the Sons and Daughters of Abraham by Faith yet he endeavours to do this by telling us that the Faith and Consent of the Father or the Godfather or Congregation under which he was circumcised was believed of old by the Jews to be imputed to the Child as his own Faith and Consent 1 Maccab. 2. 46. They had very good Ground saith he in Scripture for this their Opinion because the Infidelity and Disobedience of the Parents in wilfully neglecting or despising Circumcision was imputed to the Children And to strengthen this Jewish Doctrine he brings Austin with his accommodat illis Mater Ecclesia aliorum pedes ut veniant aliorum cor ut credunt aliorum Linguam ut fateantur To all which very strange Doctrines we reply By the Doctor 's quoting 1 Maccab. 2. 46. it appears that the Cannonical Books would afford no Relief for these Jewish Fables And he that looks upon the place in Maccabees can find no ground to say that the Jews there did circumcise any Children upon the Faith of Parents or God-fathers for they did not stay for Consent of Parents but circumcised them valiantly or by Force as in the Margin which I take to be a bad Precedent to be brought into the Christian Church tho God knows they have been too forward in such violent Proceedings And no less strange and unsound is his Interpretation of Gen. 17. 14. where he would make the Sin of Parents to be imputed to the uncircumcised Infant In which he is not so well advised as some Papists and contrary to the Doctrine of Learned Protestants who both in this case acquit the Infant both from Sin and Punishment Cajetan tho a Papist speaks well Consentaneum est saith he It is fit that none should be punished but they which had committed the Fault but Infants can commit no Fault therefore the Punishment here design'd doth belong only to the grown Persons for they only are justly punished who only are justly blamed for the omission of Circumcision And Dr. Willit a Protestant speaks to the same sense It is no good reading saith he to say the uncircumcised Manchild but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Male for the Infant of eight Days old is of purpose omitted here though mentioned ver 12. Hence then is inferred that there was no such absolute necessity of Circumcision that Children wanting it should be damned And saith Mr. Diodate This is not to be understood of Children but of those who by reason of their Age were capable of voluntary Rebellion refusing or contemning the use of the Sacrament As for Augustin his Church accommodating Infants with others Feet to come to be baptized and with the Hearts of others to believe and the Tongues of others to confess it shews that in his Judgment Baptism ought not to be given but where 't is sought for and where there is Faith and Confession going before it But that one may do these things for another that is one believe and another to be baptized we will answer it as Jerom did another case Non credimus quia non legimus We cannot find it ought to be so neither in the Old Testament nor in the New and therefore we believe it not And let the Doctor consider whether upon such Presumptions as these he may not allow the Feet Heart and Mouth of others for the Dead that they also may be baptised from 2 Maccab. 12. 43 44. The Truth is should we admit the Dictates of the Doctor in this and many Parts of his Book it cannot be avoided but that many Innovations and Superstitions used by the Papists and others would obtrude upon us In page 6 7. the Doctor tells us That the Gentiles who were born of Gentiles in Abraham ' s House or bought with Mony as Servants were and Blacks are now among us were the spiritual Seed of Abraham and Children of the Covenant And thus also he makes the Medes Persians and Idumeans to be constituted in the Jewish Church by Regeneration as the Church Christian is and calls them the Spiritual Seed of Abraham because they were turned Jews and lived according to the Ceremonies of the Law. Which how uncertain these Dictates are may be seen when we consider that St. Paul
soever the Covenant of Circumcision made betwixt Abraham's Family and the rest of the World It is certain it could not separate them nor any Persons in the World from the Covenant of Grace there was nothing but Sin could do that otherwise it had been a dismal Separation indeed And can the Doctor once think that Let was now separated from the Covenant of Grace because he was not in the Covenant of Circumcision Sure he was a righteous Man for all this Yea and other Holy Patriarchs were yet living as Heber Salah Sem and so was Melchisedec if he were not one of them being Priest of the most high God. And as these and doubtless many more were good Men so it 's not to be questioned but they had their Holy Societies and Congregations Melchisedec being then the most eminent Type of the Son of God that ever was as he was King of Peace and Priest in which Offices he must needs be serviceable to many as is well observed by Mr. Cox on the Covenants p. 154. The Doctor is greatly out in making the Infants of Unbelievers to be in as ill case as the Vnbelievers themselves seeing Unbelievers must perish Mark. 16. 16. But it is not revealed yet to be the Will of God that so much as one dying Infant shall perish And as to the rest of Mankind Mr. Baxter says very well That as the Jews had by Promises and Prophecies and Types more means to know God than any other Nations so they were answerably obliged to more Knowledg and Faith than other Nations were that had not nor could have their means More Proof p. 95. And why may not this be true That the Effects of the Evangelical Promise to Abraham to be a Father of the Faithful in all Nations had very little Relation in a Gospel-way to the Age in which he lived nor indeed till the times of the Gospel or till Christ the Seed to whom the Promises were made did come And then indeed it was graciously verified When by the Commandment of the everlasting God even Christ who is here so called the Gospel was made known to all Nations for the Obedience of Faith Rom. 16. Nor shall the Doctor 's Allegations p. 7. of the great Numbers of divers Nations which turned Jews prejudice that which we have said seeing St. Peter affirms that the Mystery of the Gospel was hid from these Nations and Ages notwithstanding their Circumcision For it is not to be supposed that these who turned Jews were better skill'd in the Mystery of the new Covenant or Covenant of Grace than the Jews themselves who God knows were generally Strangers to the Steps of Abraham's Faith and therefore little better in our Saviour's Judgment for being Abraham's Children John 8. 37 39. Nay so ignorant were the believing Jews themselves of the true Seed of Abraham according to the Nature and Extent of the Covenant Gen. 12. 3. That when Peter preached to the Gentiles they contended with him as doing that which was not lawful for they yet understood not that the Grace of Repentance unto Life did belong to the Gentiles nor did Peter till a Miracle convinc'd him understand this Grace himself Acts 10. The great Accession therefore of other Nations to the Jews Religion is no Proof that they were in the Covenant of Grace or that Circumcision was a Gospel-Ordinance though there might be many among them that so feared God and wrought Righteousness as to be through his Mercy accepted of him and the like in other Nations even all Nations too Acts 10. 34 35. Yet these Accessions did contribute much to the Fulfilling God's Promise to Abraham in other Respects as to make the Name of the God of Abraham to be great in the Earth and also to advance the Name of Abraham the Friend of God. The Doctor tells us p. 3. That Faith was the Condition of the Abrahamical Covenant that it was made with Abraham as the Father of the Faithful and in him with all Believers But considering what we have proved before with respect to Abraham's peculiar Interest in the Covenant we may well enquire what Covenant and Faith the Doctor means seeing it could not be the gospel-Gospel-Grace and Faith which was the Condition of the Covenant of Circumcision as that Covenant belong'd to all that were circumcised Because St. Paul tells us whilst the Law was in force a part of which Law Circumcision was as we have proved the time of Faith was not yet come And that the Jews were shut up to the Faith which was afterward to be revealed Gal. 3. 23 25. And that the Law a part whereof was Circumcision was added because of Transgression till the Seed to wit Christ should come And shews likewise that there was no Law as yet given which could give Life The Covenant of Grace made with Adam Gen. 3. And the Promise to Abraham Gen. 12. And the Renewal of the Covenant of Grace to Noah between them both must of Necessity be here excepted And therefore Eternal Life could not be had by the Covenant and Law of Circumcision as made to Abraham's Posterity otherwise than as it served as a Type or Figure to direct them to look for the Messiah to be born of Abraham's Seed according to the Flesh And therefore the Promise so much celebrated Gal. 3. can by no lawful means be referr'd to the Covenant of Circumcision strictly taken and then all that the Doctor has said to make the Covenant of Circumcision a Gospel-Covenant and Circumcision a Gospel-Ordinance will come to nothing and consequently his whole Book because it is mainly built upon this Foundation And that the Promise mentioned by St. Paul Gal. 3. may and ought to be distinguished from the Covenant of Circumcision will appear from the Date of the Promise which was 430 Years before the Law Gal. 3. 17. but the Covenant of Circumcision wants 25 Years of this account This is plain to such as will consider that that great and blessed Promise that in the Seed of Abraham all the Families of the Earth shall be blessed Gen. 12. 3. was at least 25 Years before the Covenant of Circumcision Gen. 17. And this is granted by the Learned Willit who in his Hexapl. in Gen. p. 145. writes thus From this Promise Gen. 12. made to Abraham are we to count the 430 Years which St Paul saith were between the Promise and the Law Gal. 3 and hereunto agreeth the Computation of Moses Exod. 12. 40. that the Israelites dwelt in Egypt 430 Years not in Egypt only but in Egypt and Canaan as the Septuagint do interpret the place Now how this Promise had its Effect in the Ages before Christ's Incarnation or how all the Families of the Earth were blessed in this promised Seed then God only knoweth for though the World had a Promise of a Saviour from the Beginning Gen. 3. 15. yet that he should be born of the Seed of Abraham was not revealed till now And
quoting the Text thus In whom also they are circumcised with the Circumcision made without Hands in putting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ Having been buried with him in Baptism Does not the Doctor by this Addition to the Text assert the thing which he would deny or else denies what Paul asserts for St. Paul does make Circumcision a Shadow or Figure of the Circumcision of Christ made without Hands why else does he call the Work of Grace in the Heart by that Name of Circumcision as he also doth Rom. 2. 29 But the Doctor does refer this Circumcision to Baptism having been buried with him in Baptism but then if this be his meaning Circumcision must needs have something in it umbratical of Baptism which yet he denies and therein contradicts Mr. Philpot who affirms even Baptism to be the Circumcision made without Hands The Truth is this Text can never be made serviceable to Infant-Baptism as Mr. Philpot and the Doctor would have it seeing no more are here said to be baptized than had put off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh Nor as we have it Rom. 6. no more are here buried with Christ in Baptism than were dead with him And this alone might serve to shew that God expects not that Infants should be baptized seeing they can neither die to Sin nor rise to Newness of Life and to what purpose they should be buried before they be dead no good reason can be shewed Here we are told again that Circumcision was a real Consignation of the Covenant of Grace every way as real and substantial an Ordinance as Baptism is now It is only called a Seal in the special case of Abraham And if it was every way as real and substantial as Baptism is now to what end were the Circumcised baptized also in the Jewish Church as the Doctor says they were And why does Paul call it a beggarly Element And how could it be the Yoke of Bondage or the Obligation to it and a Seal of the Covenant of Grace too A Seal or Sign of the Covenant of Grace frees Men from the Yoke of Bondage and of this Evangelical Baptism is a real and substantial Consignation where the Subject is qualified for it Had Circumcision been such a real and sustantial Ordinance to consign the Covenant of Grace it would not have ceased if St. Paul's Argument hold Heb. 10. 1 2. But it is abolished as well as other Ceremonies of the Law which is a sign it did not make the Comers thereunto perfect any more than the other Legal Ceremonies Whereas had it consign'd the Covenant of Grace more could not be expected from a ritual to make the Subjects of it perfect And this Perfection have the Ordinances of the Gospel as we have shewed before but here the Ceremonies of the Law failed CHAP. III. Wherein the Doctor 's first Question is answered viz. Whether Infants are capable of Baptism THE Doctor counts it Rashness to deny Infants to be capable of Baptism and saith Nothing can reflect more Dishonour upon the Wisdom of God and the Practice of the Jewish Church And the Sum of what he brings to prove them capable of Baptism is to repeat what he has said before about the Identity of the Covenant of Circumcision and that which is made with us in the Gospel and concludes that because Infants were admitted to Circumcision therefore they are to be admitted to Baptism and affirms that Circumcision was as spiritual an Ordinance as Baptism yea that it was a Gospel-Ordinance If therefore I repeat the same things which I have said before the Reader will I hope hear with that for Answer then I say though we deny not but that the Covenant of Circumcision did comprehend all those Dignities which pertain'd to Abraham for the Greatness of his Faith to be the Father of many Nations yet every Man that reads and considers the Tenor of the Covenant as set down Gen. 17. may easily see these things belonged to none but him and therefore Circumcision could seal the Righteousness of Faith in those peculiar Promises whether we consider the numerousness of his Seed or that Christ should be born of his Seed and so the Nations blessed in his Seed but to Abraham only because none of these Promises were made to any but to him We have also shewed how and in what respects the Covenant of Circumcision could not be the Covenant of Grace because none but Abraham ' s Family was bound to keep it nor damned no nor blamed if they did not enter into it but the case is otherwise with the Gospel for now God commandeth by the Gospel all Men every where to repent and he that believeth not the Gospel when made known to him shall be damned Can it enter into the Doctor 's Heart to think that all the World was now left under Condemnation without Mercy except Abraham and his Family Surely it was not in the Days of Abraham as it was in the Days of Noah as if God had only found Abraham righteous before him in all the Earth No we have proved there were other righteous Men and some superiour to Abraham himself wherefore God's peculiar Kindness to Abraham did not argue that God had rejected and taken the Covenant of Grace from all the World besides but it is certainly a presumptuous way of arguing that because God made Infants of eight days old capable of Circumcision by his Command to circumcise them that therefore we ought to take them to be capable of Baptism tho we have no Command to baptize them and then fly to the Identity of the Covenants to make it good when there is no Identity at all to be found between them But to concess a little Let us now suppose for Argument sake that the Covenant of Circumcision was the Covenant of Grace as the Doctor would have it yet it will not follow that an Interest in the Covenant of Grace does infer an immediate Right always either to Circumcision or Baptism and this the Doctor must grant because Infants of five six or seven days old had an Interest in the Covenant made with Abraham and yet had no right to Circumcision till the eighth day Also the Infants of the other Patriarchs had an Interest in the Covenant of Grace yet had no right to Circumcision at all Nor could they nor the Patriarchs themselves be cut off from the Covenant of Grace tho they were not circumcised And all the Females of Abraham's Family had Interest in the Covenant of Grace but had no right to Circumcision and the reason was God did not appoint them to be circumcised And yet so foolish have some Nations been as to circumcise Females without any command from God and therefore it s less strange that Men now force on their Superstition of Infant Baptism without God's Command also But what if all the Infants in the World be under the Mercy of
TRUTH and PEACE OR The Last and most FRIENDLY DEBATE CONCERNING Infant-Baptism Being a brief Answer to a late Book intituled The Case of Infant-Baptism Written by a Doctor of the Church of England In which Answer is shewed I. That the Covenant of Circumcision strictly taken was not the Covenant of Grace for the Salvation of Mankind many being not bound to observe it II. That Circumcision was no Gospel-Ordinance as is affirmed by the Doctor but a part of the Yoke of Bondage III. That the Jews had a Tradition to baptize Infants is either a Fable or destructive to the Christian Baptism if grounded thereon IV. The Doctor 's five comprehensive Questions particularly answered V. From the whole it is made evident that the Restoration of Sacred Baptism in respect of the true Subject and due manner of Administration is the only true method to revive the Ancient Christian Religion in all Nations where it has been corrupted by humane Innovation Whereunto is annexed A brief Discourse of the Sign of the Cross in Baptism and of the use of the Ring and bowing at the Altar in the Solemnization of Marriages By THOMAS GRANTHAM The Custom of baptizing Infants was brought in without the Commandment of Christ Curcelleus Disserta of Orig. Sin n. 56. London Printed for the Author 1689. The PREFACE THAT Prophecy of St. Paul 2 Tim. 4. 4. That Men shall turn away their Ears from the Truth and shall be turned unto Fables had too much of its Verification in the early Times of Christianity and as in other respects so in the case of sacred Baptism both in respect of the Time and Order in which it should be performed 1. From a Fear that Sin committed after Baptism should hardly if at all be remitted many did delay their Duty being desirous to have the full remission of their Sins near their Death This scandalous delay of Baptism proved pernicious to the Church of Christ as well as to the Persons thus neglecting their Duty and seems to have been the occasion of altering the manner of the Administration of Baptism For many of these Delayere being surprised with Sickness and afraid to die without Baptism requested that it might be administred to them in their sick Beds which was endulged to them without any Warrant from Heaven which in such cases should always be enquired for Yet this Custom was so doubtful to them that did allow it that they required such Chinicks that in case they recovered their Sickness they should be had to the River and there be baptized Cyprian Epist ad Magnum 2. Others did as much outrum the Rule of this Duty in preposterous haste even to baptize Infants as soon as born and sometimes before and this Error sprang from this apprehension that God had tied the Solvation of all Flesh to Baptism that even Infants dying without it could not be saved Yea so powerful was this Error that its Assertors did Anathematize all that held the contrary The Council of Afric decreed That all that affirm young Children receive eternal Life albeit they be not by Baptism renewed they are accursed Sure a more unreasonable Decree was never made by Men. Now this Leaven of false Doctrine has so prevailed that scarce any but Infants came to be concerned in obeying Christ in Baptism nor could poor Infants obey him therein for Austin confesses they did not willingly receive Baptism but strove against it with great Crying So that neither Young nor Old in a manner were found in some Ages to put on Christ in Baptism seeing that cannot be done without the free Consent of an Heart enlightened by Faith Gal. 3. 26 27. Acts 2. 40. It is therefore the work and proper business of the Restorers of holy Baptism to do what they possibly may to remove this Stumbling-block out of the way I mean this Doctrine which would damn to Hellish Torments all Infants dying unbaptized Concerning which I have wrote several Treatises and could be content still to be an Advocate for all dying Infants as being through the Grace of God in our Lord Jesus Christ discharged of the condemning Power of Original Sin and having no Actual Sin the Infirmity of their Nature shall not damn them but the Mercy of God shall save them all And were Mens Judgments clear in this Point the Controversy about Infant-Baptism would naturally cease and all Men would see it the only safe way to refer Baptism to the time wherein through Repentance and Faith it might according to the Will of God interess them in the remission of their Sins and in the Priviledges of the Church of the Living God in order to Life eternal I shall therefore once more endeavour to take away this false Covering which is not of God's Spirit I mean the Doctrine of Infant-Damnation by proposing a few things to this Generation as an Introduction to my Reply to the Case of Infant-Baptism And 1. Seeing it cannot enter into the Heart of any Christian I hope that God does create Infants on purpose to damn them and to shew them no Mercy seeing he is very merciful to the chief of Sinners if we can find out a just cause for the damning of them it must be either 1. From themselves from their Parents from the Devil or from Christ's not loving them so as to redeem them from the Fall which they had in Adam But none of these things can be the cause of Infants Damnation 1. They cannot damn themselves by sinful Courses and it is certain our gracious God will damn none who do not first destroy themselves by their Wickedness This is evident by his unwillingness to destroy those who had destroyed themselves Hosea 13. 9. O Israel thou hast destroyed thy self but in me is thy Help How then can it enter into any Christian to think that God should have no pity for innocent Babes who never offended him Is he thus compassionate towards great Sinners and is there no Help in him for poor Infants 2. No Man can damn Infants because if any have power to damn his Infants all Men have it it 's no Man's peculiar Power whether good or bad to do this and if any say all Men have this Power he reflects upon the Goodness of God for giving such power to Men and contradicts the Word of God Jer. 31. Every one shall die for his own Iniquity the Son shall not bear the Iniquity of the Father This is only true in the case of eternal Death for Children even Infants often die for their Fathers Sin a temporal Death as in the old World in Sodom yea and in Jerusalem too Lam. 2. 11. Yet who can think that our just and merciful God should now after their swooning in the Streets cast them into Hellish Torments It was not the Iniquity of the Infants but of the grown Persons which cried for Vengeance 3. The Devil cannot damn Infants because they are out of the Reach of his Temptations They know
not to chuse them nor refuse them they know not their right hand from the left they know neither Good nor Evil whom the Devil cannot tempt them he cannot damn A learned Protestant tells us God will not damn any Person for that which they 〈◊〉 help This Sentence must needs be as true in the case of Infants as any 〈…〉 World. And indeed the Equity of that merciful Law Deut. 22. 25 26. may suffice to convince any Man that in the Judgment of the Almighty there is no Sin in Infants worthy of Damnation seeing what Sin soever is upon them it was impossible for them to avoid it They therefore shall not be damned for it When Christ puts the Question How can ye escape the Damnation of Hell He speaks to incorrigible Sinners that the Fear of Damnation should not overwhelm weak Persons but never did he speak a Word against poor Infants He never told them they were of the Devil Satan is not the Father of Infants Ergo they are not his Children 4. Christ loved and gave himself for all dying Infants therefore not one of them shall be damned Christ gave himself a Ransom for all He loved and dyed for the chief of Sinners Therefore he loved and died for the poor innocent Babes He bought them that deny him 2 Pet. 2. 1 2. How should he despise the helpless Infant Object If God be so good to all Infants why then is he not so good to let them be baptized I answer God is good to Infants in that he accepts them without Baptism And I appeal to any considering Man whether he was not as good to the Infants of the Righteous before Abraham as he was to the Infants of Abraham and whether God was not as good to an Infant in Israel of 7 days old as to an Infant of 8 days old And whether God be not as good to us in that he accepts us in the use of a very few Ceremonies as he was to Israel accepting them in the use of many Ceremonies And whether if he had pleased to accept of us upon Repentance and Faith without Baptism he had not been as good to us as now that together with Repentance and Faith he does require Baptism The Truth is Baptism is therefore good because it is commanded It is not good in it self no more was Circumcision nor indeed any Ceremony Now Repentance and Faith are good in themselves it 's absolutely necessary that those that sin be humbled for it and forsake it It 's absolutely necessary for the Creature to believe and to depend upon the Creator Now Baptism though it be not good in it self yet Heavens Authority enjoyning it and Divine Mysteries being contained in it and Priviledges conferred by it it is therefore good to those to whom it is appointed But where God requires is not but extends his Goodness without it it is a like Vanity in us to give it where he does not appoint it as it would have been in Abraham to give Circumâ—â—â—â—â—â— to every Male Child as soon as it was born or at 6 or 7 days old 〈◊〉 to his Females also because it was a sign of a great Covenant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to whom it did belong by Appointment And therefore I consider further that as those had no Loss of any Priviledg that was necessary for them in Israel who by the Law were not required to be circumcised as in the case of all Females So neither shall any lose God's Favour for not being baptized when he requires it not The Danger lieth on the other side For had Abraham out of a conceit of making Infants Male of 7 days old and all his Females also Sharers in the Covenant equally with those of 8 days old circumcised them he had hazarded both his own and their Loss of the Covenant In like manner whoever will presumptuously at least baptize any Person whom God does not require to be baptized is so far from bringing him into Covenant that he runs the hazzard of losing his own part in the Covenant Rev. 22. For I testify unto every Man. If any shall add unto these things God shall add to him the Plagues which are written in this Book But 4. All dying Infants are under the Blessing of the Covenant of Grace therefore no dying Infant shall be damned This how strange soever it may seem must be a Truth or else poor dying Infants are the worst of Creatures When therefore we say all dying Infants are in the Covenant of Grace we mean it as God hath vouchsafed to interess them in his Mercy by Christ That as Condemnation came upon them by Adam's Sin so Justification of Life has abounded towards them by the Obedience of Christ and he himself that best knew God's Design concerning them has declared without excepting so much as one of them that to them belongs the Kingdom of Heaven And what then is he that should except them as the manner of some is and in their cruel Judgment send them by Millions to Hell Torments Now either Infants even all of them are thus in or under the Blessing of the Covenant through the Mercy of God or they are not concern'd in any Covenant at all for the Covenant of pure Nature as made with Adam in Innocency concerns not Infants but as the Breach of it is imputed to Mankind but here they are lost The Covenant of Works concerns them not it cannot be said of them the Man that doth these things shall live in them And to say that Infants are under the Blessing of no Covenant is to rank them with the vilest of Men yea which the Devils themselves who are therefore most accursed because there is no Saviour no Mercy for them They are shut up in Chains under Darkness to the Judgment of the great day Now far be it from all Christians to have such Thoughts of God whose tender Mercies are over all his Works The very Devils had a State wherein they might have been happy but presumptuously fell from it Jude v. 6. But poor Babes before they had a being were exposed to Condemnation through the Offence of another Shall these Objects of Pitty perish eternally too without Remedy O God forbid let them be pressed with all the Inconveniences consequent to Original Sin yet either it will not be laid to the charge of Infants so as to be sufficient to condemn them or if it could yet the Mercy and absolute Goodness of God will secure them if he takes them away before they can glorify him with a free Obedience Dr. Taylor 5. No Man is able to prove that any Infant ever was or ever shall be damned to hellish Torments therefore none of them dying such shall be damned We should hold nothing as a Point of Faith but upon clear Proof and especially things of so high a Nature as this is Some Men talk of some Infants as if they were little better than Devils But could never yet bring a just
in Ceremonies I have intituted my Book as you see The last and most Friendly Debate concerning Infant-Baptism And glad should I be to see an end of the Controversy by an Agreement in the Truth or a brotherly Condescension in such things on either part as may be without Sin. That I have undertaken this Task was not the Fruit of my own Choice but indeed I was particularly desired by Letter from some Persons of Quality and Learning to give a brief and distinct Answer to the Contents of the Case of Infant-Baptism which they commend for the temper 〈◊〉 which it is framed and for that it is very nervous in Argument insomuch that till it was answered it was so satisfactory that more need not be said on their part And now I hope they will do me the Justice as to read me with Patience and to judg without Prejudice knowing that shortly we must all appear before the Judgment-Seat of Christ and receive from him the things done in the Body whether they be good or bad The Last and Most FRIENDLY DEBATE CONCERNING INFANT-BAPTISM CHAP. I. That the Covenant Gen. 17. strictly taken was not a Gospel-Covenant nor Circumcision a Gospel-Ordinance as is affirmed by the Doctor THE Learned Author of the Book now under Consideration may rationally expect some Reply from those whom he calls Anabaptists or else interpret their Silence to be either a sullen slighting of his Endeavours to convince them or that they are not able in their own Judgments to shew the Insufficiency of his Arguments and the rather because he has more obliged us to consider his Writing by his modest and friendly management of the Controversy than many of his Brethren who have bent their Stile against us We shall therefore God willing with no less Modesty and friendly Demeanour shew our Reasons why in our Judgment his Labours have not only come short of proving the baptizing of Infants to be warrantable by God's Word but has rather given us great cause to think that the Case of Infant-Baptism cannot be made good by all that Learning and Art can do it being wholly without Divine Authority And to make this good we will now consider the chief of his Strength in the several Pages of his Learned Treatise In pag. 1 2. he would have it believed that the State of the Church from Abraham to Moses and from Moses to Christ was parallel'd by the differing State of the Christian Church from Christ to Constantine and from Constantine onwards For saith he there is ground for this distinction in the reason of the thing as is evident to any Man who is capable of considering the difference betwixt the Church Christian before and after its Vnion with the Empire But here seems to be a very great mistake in the very entrance of his Book for it is certain that the Jewish Church from Abraham to Moses had very little of the Face of a Church-state till his time being as yet destitute of most of her Laws both for Constitution and Government Abraham himself owning a Priest superior to himself even after he was called of God and had received the Promise both of being that Person in whose Seed all Nations should be blessed and that to his Seed God would give the Land of Canaan as will appear to such as shall peruse these Scriptures Gen. 12. 1 2 3. 13. 15 16. 14. 18 19 20. Now this Covenant which God made with Abraham that in his Seed all Nations of the Earth should be blessed Gen. 12. which was indeed an Evangelical Promise or Covenant and in the Faith of which Abraham was justified near thirty Years before Circumcision had any being in the World cannot be called the Covenant of Circumcision Neither yet when Circumcision was instituted was the Seed of Abraham formed into a Church-state in contradistinction to all the World beside for still Melchisedec was Priest of the most High God and many righteous Men were then living who outlived Abraham himself and were truly Church-members yea and Governors of Churches too as well as Abraham and yet they were not at all concern'd in the Covenant of Circumcision And hence it 's evident they being under the Covenant of Grace the Covenant of Circumcision and the Covenant of Grace were then distinct and not the same Covenant so but that the one might and did subsist without the other This then may serve to shew the Doctor 's great Mistake in making the Church of Christ from Christ to Constantine parrallel to the Church from Abraham to Moses when in Truth a greater Disparity can hardly be shewed For though the Seed of Abraham till Moses was in a State of Peregrination as also was the Church of Christ till Constantine yet the Church Christian was then not only in her Purity but also both for Constitution and Government as compleat as ever she was since having received from Christ and his Apostles all the Rules of his holy Word even the whole Counsel of God necessary to her Church-state and therewith all the Gifts of the holy Spirit in most plentiful manner by which to stand perfect in all the Will of God. And on the other side the Seed of Abraham till the Times of Moses had neither Law Priest-hood nor Sacrifice in a settled Church-way only they were distinguished by the Covenant of Circumcision as a People from whom in time the Saviour of the World should proceed and that they should be separated from the Nations and settled in a plentiful Country with Laws and special Protection from the Almighty till Shiloh should come and when the Messiah was manifested to Israel the Covenant of Circumcision ceased and the glorious Gospel-Covenant was now plenarily to be made known to all Nations for the Obedience of Faith Rom. 16. And here we will take notice of that excellent Passage in Mr. Baxter The Jews saith he were not the whole of God's Kingdom or Church of Redeemed Ones in the World but that as the Covenant was made with all Mankind so amongst them God had other Servants besides the Jews though it was they that had the extraordinary Benediction of being his peculiar Sacred People Now as this was true all along so it was more particularly manifest in the times of Melchisedec and other holy Men that outlived Abraham What the Doctor means to compare Constantine with Moses is very doubtful Is it to make Christian Magistrates Legislators to the Church of Christ We know indeed Moses was a great Prophet and appointed of God to give Laws and Statutes to Israel but Constantine was not his Antitype but Christ only and whosoever will not hear him shall be cut off but not by the Imperial Sword as God knows since the uniting of the Church Christian to the Empire viz. the Civil and Ecclesiastical Power for the management of Church-matters there has been a very bloody Scene of Affairs in most Places where such a kind of Unity of the
a Legal Ceremony as we have proved and chiefly because the Covenant of Grace was not peculiar to Abraham and his but common to others though they were not circumcised To begin with the very Expressions of the Covenant Gen. 17. from ver 4 to 15. Whoso shall diligently read it will not find one Word of the Promise of Blessedness to all Nations But that Promise of the Messiah in whom all the Nations of the Earth should be blessed was made as we shewed near thirty Years before this Covenant of Circumcision was made But it was rather a Recital of God's Promise to Abraham Gen. 13. when Abraham and Lot parted asunder And indeed of all the eight times which God spake to Abraham we find the Promise of Blessing to all Nations in the Seed of Abraham only expressed in the first time Gen. 12. and in the last time that God spake to him Gen. 22. And yet it is also true that St. Paul does include Abraham's Fatherhood over the Faithful in that Covenant Gen. 17. 5. and 15. 5. And so Circumcision was to him a Seal of the Faith which Abraham had with respect to the Promises made at the former Appearings of God to him But then it is as true that of this Faith it could be no Seal to any other Person no not to Isaac himself because it was Abraham alone that should have this Honour to be the Father of the Faithful After this manner the ancient Christian Church seems to have understood the Covenant of Circumcision as appears in Chrysostom and Theophilact as translated by two learned Writers in these words Circumcision was called a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith because it was given to Abraham as a Seal and Testimony of the Righteousness which he had acquired by Faith Now this seems to be the Priviledg of Abraham alone and not to be transferred to others as if Circumcision in whomsoever it was were a Testimony of Divine Righteousness For as it was the Priviledg of Abraham that he should be the Father of all Faithful as well circumcised as uncircumcised being already the Father of all uncircumcised having Faith in Vncircumcision He received first the Sign of Circumcision that he might be the Father of the Circumcised Now because he had this Priviledg in respect of the Righteousness which he had acquired by Faith therefore the Sign of Circumcision was to him a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith. But to the rest of the Jews it was a Sign that they were Abraham ' s Seed but not a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith as also all the Jews also were not the Fathers of many Nations And says another learned Writer It is no ways difficult to conceive that Circumcision might have a different respect according to the differing Circumstances and Capacity of its Subjects yea that it had so in another Instance hath been shewed already It was a Seal of the Inheritance of Canaan to the Children of Israel and did ensure the Promise thereof to them and their Seed but it gave their Bond-Servants no such right or claim Even so it was to Abraham a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had c. but this arose from the peculiar and extraordinary Circumstances and Capacity that he was in For it is not possible to conceive that Circumcision should be a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to one that never had Faith nor the Relation of a Father to all Believers as Abraham had And it is equally absurd to say that Circumcision was a Seal to all its Subjects of the Righteousness of Faith which they had while uncircumcised as to affirm that it was a Seal of a paternal or fatherly Relation to all Believers unto every one that received it Again From St. Paul Gal. 6. 15. we may fairly argue thus If the Covenant of Circumcision had been the Covenant of Grace and Circumcision the Sign of the Covenant of Grace as the Doctor would have it then had all true Subjects of it as such been new Creatures in Christ Jesus But the true or right Subjects of the Covenant and Sign as such were not new Creatures in Christ Jesus c. This whole Argument is proved from the Text which saith In Christ Jesus neither Circumcision availeth any thing nor Vncircumcision but a new Creature Plainly thus the Jews were never the better as to a Gospel-Church-state for being the Seed of Abraham or circumcised nor the Gentiles never the worse as to a Gospel-state for being not the Seed of Abraham and uncircumcised For there was no other way for either to be brought under the Priviledges of the Church Evangelical and so to be in Christ Jesus but by Repentance Faith and Baptism or to be born again for if any Man be in Christ in a Gospel-Church-way he is a new Creature 2 Cor. 5. 17. Gal. 3. 26 to the end and 5. 24. I desire the Reader to peruse these Scriptures We have proved already that Circumcision was no Gospel-Ordinance yet we shall add It could not be a Gospel-Ordinance because Moses gave it as an Obligation to keep the Ceremonial Law or that intolerable Yoak of Bondage which none was able to bear For though Circumcision was before Moses yet it was given by him John 7. 22. for this purpose Gal. 5. 2 3 4. and it self was a part of the Yoke of Bondage Sacrifices were before Moses as well as Circumcision yet they were given also by Moses And hence when Paul opposed Circumcision it was objected that he taught Men to forsake Moses Acts 21. 21. And Circumcision is expresly called the Law of Moses by Christ himself John 7. 23. And therefore the Doctor was not well advised to affirm it to be a Gospel-Ordinance Again The Covenant of Circumcision and the Sign it self were not Evangelical because the Obligation to be circumcised was peculiar to Abraham and his Seed or Family in such a sense as none but they were obliged to be circumcised Men might and did walk with God and please God without being concerned in the Covenant of Circumcision as we have fully shewed But all Men are equally bound to obey the Gospel and all the Ordinances of it who have means to know them they do belong to all Families all Nations as much as to any Matth. 28. 19 20. Mark 16. 15 16. Rom. 16. 26. So did not the Covenant of Circumcision How unlike the Covenant of Circumcision was to the Covenant of Grace especially in Respect of Infants might have been perceived by the Doctor from his own Words p. 8. where he tells us God made Abraham thus separate the Children with their Parents from all the World and look upon them as a part of his chosen peculiar People by which they became relatively Holy and differed from the Children of Vnbelievers as much as their Parents did from Vnbelievers themselves Sure this is a cruel Sentence against poor innocent Babes But I answer What Separation
Jews had such a Ceremony as Baptism among them before John Baptist came And in this Enquiry we will prefer a Learned Protestant of the Church of England who writes thus As to their Argument who would have our Baptism to be derived from the Jewish Lotions as there is nothing of certainty in it so it is so far from being grounded on any Authority in Scripture that there are hardly any Footsteps to be found thereof in the Old Testament They deduce the Original of Baptism from the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to wash or cleanse But the Rabbins if I am not deceived use the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies Immersion thereby making it appear that they owe the Notion of the Word to the Greeks or rather to the Christians For what affinity is there between Lotion and Immersion But the thing is so uncertain that it cannot be said of the Rabbins that there were not several among them who differed very much about this matter For in the very place cited by the forementioned Learned Men Rabbi Eliezer expresly contradicts Rabbi Joshua who was the first that I know of who asserted this sort of Baptism among the Jews Now to whom shall I give credit To Eliezer who asserts what the Scripture confirms meaning that Proselytes were not baptized or to Joshua who affirms what is no where to be found in Scripture meaning this pretended Baptism is not to be found in Scripture But the Rabbins upheld Joshua's side and what wonder was it for it made for their business that is for the Honour of the Jewish Religion That the Christians should borrow their Ceremonies how imprudent then is the Author of the Book we are answering to give this Advantage to the Jews against the Christians But when I see Men of great Learning fetching the Foundation of Truth from the Rabbins I cannot but hesitate a little For whence was this Talmud sent to us that we should give so much credit thereto for the Talmud is called a Labyrinth of Errors and the Foundation of Jewish Fables This is then a Fault in the Church of England Doctors to fly hither for Refuge for Infant-Baptism It was brought to Perfection 500 years after Christ This shews the danger of trusting to it it being so lately confirmed Therefore it is unreasonable to rest upon the Testimony of it And that which moves me most Josephus who was also a Jew and contemporary with Rabbi Eliezer who also wrote in particular of the Rites Customs and Acts of the Jews is altogether silent in this matter He knew no baptising of Infants among the Jews So that it is an Argument to me next to a Demonstration that two such eminent Persons both Jews and living at the same time the one should positively deny the other make no mention of Baptism among the Jews Besides if Baptism in the modern sense were in use among the Jews in antient times why did the Pharisees ask John Baptist Why dost thou baptize if thou be not Christ nor Elias nor that Prophet Do they not plainly intimate that Baptism was not in use before and that it was a received Opinion among them that there should be no Baptism till either Christ or Elias or that Prophet came How then there should be so much affinity between Baptism and the Divings of the Jews that the one should be successive to the other by any Right or Pretence is altogether I confess beyond my Faith. It appears from this learned Man's Discourse that there is no Certainty that the Jews had any such Baptizing of Infants or others as the Doctor pretends However God having appointed no such thing in the Jewish Church leaves such a Practice if they had it without any Authority to govern Christians in their Administration of Baptism Nor do we who assert the Ordinance according to the Scripture need to run for Counsel to the Jews Talmud Gemara and Maimonides And indeed it looks too much like going to the Witch of Endur and to Baalzebub the God of Ekron for Knowledg as if there were not sufficient Instruction in the undoubted Word of God how or to whom to dispence the first Ordinance of the Gospel to a poor Convert And it is a sure sign that the Doctor and all that make such a noise about this Rabbinical Learning to justify them in the case of infant Baptism are conscious to themselves that they have no sure Footing in God's Word for it And yet so partial are our Talmudists that they will not follow its Directions for the manner of Baptism which as Dr. Hammond shews is commonly expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Immersion never by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Aspersion or Sprinkling for such as will not be true to the Rules given in the Holy Scripture how should they be true to any other Book One thing I marvel at p. 20. where the Doctor tells his Reader that the Anabaptists endeavour to shift off the force of many good Arguments by saying Circumcision under the Old Testament was a Type of Baptism under the New. For this I take to be a great Mistake of the Doctor I never heard of any whom he calls Annabaptists who hold Circumcision to be a Type of Baptism at all But I have met with divers of the Church of England who have affirmed it to be a Type of Baptism so that all that the Doctor says upon this Mistake about which he spent some Pages is nothing to the purpose For we own no other Antitype of Circumcision but the Circumcision of the Heart called the Circumcision of Christ made without Hands But had he minded well his own Book he might have seen Mr. Philpot asserting the thing which he would charge upon us where he saith The Apostles did attemperate all their doings to the Shadows and Figures of the Old Testament Therefore it is certain they did attemperate Baptism to Circumcision and baptize Children because they were under the Figure of Baptism for the People of Israel passed through the Red-Sea c. Where I think he makes both Circumcision and passing through the Sea to be Shadows and Types of Baptism which is yet more evident because a little before he tells us that Paul calls Baptism the Circumcision made without Hands Which though it be not true seeing all Men know and Mr. Philpot cannot deny but Baptism is made by Hands yet it shews that he looked upon Baptism to be the Antitype of Circumcision But I shall not fight with dead Men otherwise I might shew his Mistake in saying that the Apostles did attemperate all their Doings to the Shadows and Figures of the Old Testament but this we have shewed before to be an unsound Speech The Doctor seems to deal unfairly with Col. 2. 11 12. Circumcision saith he hath nothing in it symbolical of Baptism and denies it to be an umbratical but areal Consignation of the Covenant of Grace
the new Covenant as it respects the Abolition of the condemning Power of Original Sin and Gift of eternal Life as I think whatever the Doctor says at some turns yet he will grant me this at least for the substance of it for all that die in Infancy yet he will not say that all Infants in the World in Abraham's time who were Males ought to be circumcised or that all Infants in the World since Christ's time are to be baptized And therefore suppose the Covenant of Grace before in and since the Law to be the same yet it 's clear that an immediate Right to the Mercy of the Covenant in the sense before explained does not infer an immediate right to partake of Ordinances but some other particular Qualifications and God's Direction must give immediate right to participate of them or else we act and do we know not what Let us then calmly consider what were the necessary Qualifications for Circumcision and what are the necessary Qualifications for Baptism and then we shall soon be able to answer this Question Whether Infants are capable of Baptism Infants Qualifications for Circumcision were these They must be the Seed of Abraham according to the Flesh or born in his House or bought with Money or the Children of Proselytes and they must be Males and they must be eight days old else they could not lawfully be circumcised I say it was not all Infants as such that might lawfully be circumcised but Infants under such Circumstances or Qualifications Wherefore in the next place let us consider the indispensible Qualifications for Baptism And here I shall chiefly make use of that Text Col. 2. 11 12. so much insisted on by the Doctor with its parallel place Rom. 6. 1 2 3. From these Texts it plainly appears that Baptism is a mystical Burial and therefore every one of the faln Race of Mankind which are lawfully baptized are buried with Christ in Baptism So then there is an indispensible Necessity that all who are to be thus buried be first dead for it is directly against these Scriptures and against all Reason and Religion to bury any Person before they be dead The Question therefore is what Death is here meant It cannot be a corporal Death for then none but dead Bodies should be baptized which is absurd Nor can it be a Death in Sin for if that did qualify for Baptism then all unregenerate Persons were fit Subjects for Baptism but that also is absurd It must therefore be a Death to Sin and to the Rudiments of the World. And thus does St. Paul himself expound it How shall we that are dead to Sin live any longer therein Rom. 6. 11. Wherefore reckon your selves to be dead indeed unto Sin but alive unto God. Col. 2. 20. Dead with Christ from the Rudiments of the World. This is that Death which is so absolutely necessary to the Baptismal Covenant that the Doctor knows it to be granted by the Church of England that Repentance whereby we forsake Sin which is the same thing which St. Paul calls a Death to Sin is required of all that are to be baptized Another indispensible Qualification is every Subject of Baptism ought first to be a Child of God by Faith in Christ Jesus or to be a new Creature Hence it is said of the whole Church Militant Ye are all the Sons of God by Faith in Christ Jesus for as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ Gal. 3. And as every Member of this Church is said to be buried with Christ in Baptism so they are said therein to be risen with him through Faith. And to this also the Church of England gives Testimony that Faith is required of all that are to be baptized even such Faith as whereby the Promises of God made in that Sacrament are stedfastly to be believed And that it 's necessary the Party baptized be a new Creature they boldly affirm when they have sprinkled the Infant when perhaps fast asleep that he is born of the Spirit c. And that to be born again is a necessary Qualification for Baptism The Word of God is clear Tit. 3. where Baptism is called the Washing of Regeneration And St. Peter calls it the Answer of a good Conscience And unto this Doctrine all the ancient Writers of Christianity agree with full consent And for Brevities sake as also because Augustine is thought to be as eminent as any of the Fathers that were before him and more eminent then any that did succeed him I will content my self with his Testimony who saith Per fidem renascimur in Baptismate by Faith we are born again in Baptism Serm. 53. And again Primo fides Catholica Christiano necessaria est per ipsum renascimur in baptismate Salutem aeternam impetramus first of all the Catholick Faith is necessary for all Christians by the which in Baptism we are born again to obtain eternal Salvation And that Infants have not Faith he testifies in these Words Si illis minati essent ipsum Baptismum 〈◊〉 susciperent cui videmus cos cum magnis stetibus reluctari From these Premises I think we may safely conclude that Infants are not capable of Baptism for what Man with any Truth or Fairness of Discourse is ever able to bring Infants under these Qualifications or to shew that Baptism may lawfully be administred to Persons of whom we can have no Knowledg nor Evidence from themselves that there is any thing of these Prerequisites to Holy Baptism but as far as they are able Augustine being witness they do oppose and withstand it If Infants were illuminate they would gladly receive Baptism which we see them strive against with great crying Now all that Augustine the Church of England or the Doctor can say in this case amounts but to this That Infants do perform this Repentance and Faith by their Godfathers c. which is so poor an Answer so dellitute of Divine Warrant that it is to be lamented that ever wise Men should satisfy themselves with such a Speech as no Man can know to be true but by all Experience is found to be false insomuch that no Man could ever yet I suppose give Thanks to God for that Faith and Repentance which their Godfathers performed for them nor do the Godfathers themselves know that they do the Infant any good in or by any Supply the Infant does receive from them in respect of Repentance or Faith. But p. 24. the Doctor proceeds thus If the relative Nature of Circumcision considered as a Sacrament was the same under the Law that Baptism is under the Gospel it must needs follow that Children under the Gospel are as capable of this supposing no new Command to exclude them as under the Law they were of that But by the Doctor 's favour we do not exclude Children from Baptism but bring them to it as soon as lawfully we can but we must not make more haste
Ends of Baptism They have Remission so far as they need it and Eternal Life upon other Terms even the free Mercy of God in Christ Rom. 5. 18. And the good will of God towards them Mat. 18. 14. And if Infants are uncapable of these as they are the Ends of Baptism so they will be uncapable of all other Things which are annexed to Baptism as the Ends of that Ordinance As we will propose two viz. the washing of Regeneration and incorporating into Christ Infants are capable of neither of these as they are the Ends of Baptism For Baptism is but demonstrative or a sign of the New Birth because God will have those that come to be baptized therein to testify that they have and therein symbolically do put off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh which Work had its Effect from the Word and Spirit of God. And 2. to be incorporated with Christ as it is an End of Baptism does necessarily presuppose a being taken out of the Tree that is wild by Nature or out of our degenerate Estate and planted contrary to that Nature by a willing resignation of Soul and Body to Christ in that solemn ministration of Baptism And how incapable Infants are of this all Men must needs see To be short if it could be proved by the Word of God or found true by Experience that Infants are capable of any Good or that the Will of God was wrought by baptizing them I could yield to the Doctor but the Truth is they are capable of none of the Ends of Baptism as God hath annexed them to Baptism and therefore his Argument must come to nothing And how easy were it to turn this Argument against him in the Case of the Lord's Supper but that may be more sitting in another place But the Doctor says p. 28. That Infants are capable of all the Ends of Baptism as Baptism is instituted for a Sign from God towards us to assure us of his gracious Favour and to consign unto us the Benefits of the Covenant of Grace Now if this Doctrine be true then either Baptism is a sure Sign of all these Things to all Infants or to some few of them only The former the Doctor will not allow and yet he cannot but know when Christ said Teach all Nations baptizing them he makes no difference between one Person and another all are equally to be taught and baptized equally upon the same Terms And if the Doctor will have some Infants only to have an Interest in the Benefits of the Covenant of Grace and therefore but some only have right to Baptism which consigns the Covenant of Grace we shall desire him to prove this well and therewithal to let as know how he knows one sort of these Infants from another He says indeed That Infants may be Members of a Church their Childhood notwithstanding as well as of a Family c. But to be of a Family is equally natural to all Infants so that if this Argument prove any thing it proves all Infants Church-Members as much as any Nor saith he does Childhood hinder or incapacitate them for being adopted the Children of God more than the Children of any other Person But God is not like Man to adopt or receive into favour some poor Infants and let all the rest perish without favour We affirm that God has in Mercy taken care of all Infants as we have proved But this does not teach us to do that to some of them which he never commanded and to reject the rest as if God had no Mercy for them These Notions are so partial and so uncertain that no solid Comfort can be taken from them And let my Infant whom I confess I have not baptized but only devoted him to God's Mercy and Protection by Prayer and the Doctor 's Infant whom he has crossed and sprinkled be laid together I am perswaded the Doctor would tremble to say this Infant is an adopted Child of God and in his Favour that Infant is rejected and out of God's Favour And truly I cannot but think such Discourses as these proceed not from the bottom of the Heart but Men please themselves to dream waking of I know not what Favour Almighty God has for their Infants above what he has for others The Doctor 's next way is to make use of Similitudes as thus Should a Prince adopt a Beggar 's Child and incorporate him into the Royal Family and settle a part of his Dominions upon him and to solemnize and confirm all this should cut off a bit of his Flesh or command him to be washed with Water who would count this an insignificant Ceremony or Solemnity or say that the Child was not capable of the Sign when he was capable of the chief thing signified thereby Surely such flourishes as this may soon deceive those that rest upon them For 1. here is no qualification in this Child nor any required of it in this case but every Beggar 's Child is as capable of this Favour as this Child and consequently this makes no more for the Infant of an English Man than of an Indian God may be as kind to the one as to the other 2. Here 's the King's Act of Grace peculiar to this Child and to no other 3. Here 's the King's express Command to cut off a bit of the Child's Flesh or to wash it with Water And thus the whole of the Matter is begg'd but not any proof for Infant Baptism ministred from hence for we grant that the Things here supposed to be done do sufficiently capacitate the Beggar 's Child for the Mercy and Favour of the Prince but then it as much incapacitates other Children to whom the King has extended no such pity and concerning whom he has given no such order for should the Doctor now without any Order from the King fetch all the Beggars Children in the City and Country and pass all these Solemnities upon them that they all may be received into the Royal Family c. I suppose he would have but little thanks for his labour even so to cross sprinkle or dip all the Infants in the World and either all or none have right to it and to adopt them thus to be of the Family of Heaven without Heaven's Authority to make them capable of it and God's Direction in the Business of the Solemnity will not please God. We therefore content our selves to commit our Infants to his Mercy and Protection in the way of humble Prayer for his Blessing and for this we have his own Son our Lord to go before us who thus does suffer little Children to come unto him without rejecting so much as one of them The Doctor 's next Similitude proceeds thus Suppose a Prince should send for an attainted Traitor's Child and say You know the Blood of this Child is attainted by his Father's Treason by Law he has forfeited all right to his Father's Estate My Bowels of
pass from a State of Nature wherein he was a Child of Wrath to a State of Adoption of Grace wherein he becomes a Child of God p. 64. But is the Doctor sure that Infants are now Children of Wrath that is liable to Condemnation Sure whatever their state was in the first Adam yet they are acquitted from Damnation by the Mercy of God in the second Adam for the Lamb which was slain from the the Foundation of the World has taken away the Sin of the World from innocent Babes so that they are not the Objects of God's Wrath but they are Objects of his Grace and Mercy see Jonah 4. 11. Who would think that so wise a Man should believe that the Adoption of Grace is regulated by Water-Baptism or that it must needs wait on him when he sprinkles an Infant for saith he By that Solemnity they may pass from a State of Nature c. Now we teach and believe thus that the Adoption of Grace goes before Water Baptism And so taught the Apostle Paul Gal. 3. 26 27. We are all the Sons of God by Faith in Christ Jesus And then it follows As many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ But I think the Doctor comes very near the Papists opus operatum in what he here asserts concerning Infant-Baptism His fourth Benefit That Infants have Baptism for a Sign and Seal that their Sins are pardoned and to confer the Right of Inheritance unto everlasting-Life That Baptism washes Infants clean from Original Sin and seals the Pardon of it and the Assurance of God's Mercy unto them and being cleansed by the Washing of Regeneration from the Guilt of that natural Vitiosity which they derived from Adam and which made them obnoxious to the Displeasure of God they become reconcil'd to him and acquire as certain a right to Eternal Life upon their Justification as any Believer in the World. Now had the Doctor proved all this daintily out of the Book of God I should have thought him the finest Man that ever wrote about Infant Baptism but when he puts me off with Origen Irenaeus c. I am displeased and must only take him for a very Bold Man but no certain Oracle However he is pleased to add which was very needful for him in this place That he cannot deny but Infants may be saved without Baptism by the extraordinary and uncovenanted Mercies of God. Well here is some comfort for unbaptized Infants But who can think that the Covenant of Grace should not reach poor Infants in the case of Salvation without Baptism but if any of them that are not baptized be saved it must be by extraordinary and uncovenanted Mercy These are new and strange Doctrines and so let them be The Covenant of Grace was made with whole Adam Gen. 3. 15. And therefore as Infants without their own consent or any act of their own and without any exterior Solemnity contracted the Guilt of Adam's Sin and so are liable to all the Punishment which can with Justice descend upon his Posterity who are personally innocent so Infants shall be restored without any Solemnity or Act of their own or any other Men for them by the SECOND ADAM by the Redemption of Jesus Christ by his Righteousness and Merits applied either immediately or how or when he pleaseth to appoint Dr. Taylor His fifth Benefit That Infants are by Baptism admitted into Covenant and ingrafted into Christ's Body to acquire a present Right to all Promises of the Gospel and particularly unto the Promises of the Spirit which is so ready to assist initiated Persons This the Primitive Christians he durst not say Infants found true by Experience c. He quotes no Scripture for all this but Heb. 6. 4. which how well it agrees to Infants let the Reader consider I am perswaded the Doctor was so sensible of the Unapplicableness of these things to Infants that he durst not name them but Persons all along but seeing he must mean Infants the very recital of his Sayings is the Confutation of them For can he give so much as one Instance of an Infant that received the Holy Spirit upon its being baptized And why then does he presume to speak what neither he nor any Man else can ever prove to be true Nay he tells us in this very page for he is too wise a Man I hope to face out a Fable he confesses that the Holy Ghost cannot be actually conferred ûpon Infants in Baptism by reason of their natural Incapacity And yet being loth to let the Cudgles fall it 's notorious how faintly he goes on in this and the next Page 66 67. at last concludes in a kind of an Angry Huff saying No Person of common Ingenuity who hath any sense of Honour or any tollerable Degree of Conscience within him can without Shame and Horror break these sacred Bands asunder by which he was bound to God in Infancy But good Sir consider we do not spurn against the good Intentions of our Parents in designing us to the Service of God tho we justly disallow the irregular Methods which they fell into in so doing Your Predecessors had their Consecration in Infancy by Spittle Salt Candles Exufflations c. You do not think that they were bound to ratify these Follies when they came to Years And truly so neither can we ratify your Sprinklings Crossings Gossips c. in your Consecrations though so far as you mean well we may not despise but commond and also do now that part of God's Will which our Parents mistake would have prevented A due Regard to Vzzah's case and David's Reformation thereupon obliges us to this But now we are to hear from the Doctor what Profit Infant-Baptism brings to the Church of God. The first he says it prevents those Scandals and shameful Delays of Baptism which otherwise grown Persons would be apt to make c. To this I must needs say If any thing without the Word of God would induce me to baptize Children this Consideration of the Doctor would as soon prevail as any thing for God knows this Duty is shamefully neglected by many whose Duty it is to hasten to it But we must not do Evil that Good may come We may not do what God does not command because Men will not do what he does command And tho it be true that Men will need as many Exhortations to be baptized and perhaps more than to come to the Lord's Supper yet all this must not discourage us nor force us to innovate Methods of our own and leave what God has prescribed If the faithful Minister labour in vain some times yet his Work is with the Lord Isai 49. 4. But I cannot as the Doctor does applaud the Wisdom of those who to prevent Mens Delay of Baptism ran into another Extream by which the Church however she may be more numerous yet by this means the Grace of Baptism is destroyed or made unnecessary to Baptism because
Church with the Empire or Worldly Government has been found and for the most part those who held to the Truth in the greatest Purity and Power of it became a Prey to that Church who obtained that Grandeur and Advantage of which England has of late as well as formerly been a terrible Instance Another remarkable difference betwixt the Church Christian from Christ to Constantine and that of the Seed of Abraham from his Days to Moses was this The latter so far as it may be called a Church in that time was National and dependant on the Family of Abraham none being permitted to dwell in the same Family unless circumcised But the Church Christian from Christ to Constantine was not National nor dependant on any Family as such but consisted only of such in any Family as feared Ged and wrought Righteousness Acts 10. 34 35. And this being considered will shew that the Church from Abraham to Moses was not so Spiritual and Evangelical as the Doctor would have it but were rather natural Branches of Abraham's Family and the greatest part of them grosly ignorant of the Evangelical Covenant made with Abraham before he was circumcised which plainly appeared not only in that they understood little of Moses as he foreshewed the Coming of Christ but also when Christ the true Seed to whom the Promise was made came to accomplish it they knew him not nor the Voice of their own Prophets The Doctor brings Gal. 3. 17. Rom. 4. 13. to prove that the Jewish Church was founded upon an Evangelical Covenant for substance the same with that which since is made betwixt God and us through Christ And he gives a Paraphrase upon Rom 4. from ver 9 to 15. Gal. 3. from v. 5 to 10. to prove that Faith was the Condition of the Abrahamical Covenant which being understood of the Covenant or Promise Gen. 12. of the blessing all Nations in the Seed of Abraham and the Obligation or Condition of believing that Promise to extend only to such as had Means and Ability to believe it is not denied by us nor can it signify any thing to the Doctor 's purpose for sure he cannot bring Infants under this Condition which is the thing he drives at But for a more full Answer Let us consider where the stress of the matter lies between the Doctor and us He would have this Evangelical Covenant to be the Covenant of Circumcision Gen. 17. We say 'T is the Covenant or Promise Gen. 12. Now in the Doctor 's Text Abraham is promised that Nations shall come out of him and that he shall be a Father of many Nations but not a word of the Blessing which concerns all the Nations of the Earth Now in our Text we have it full In thee shall all Families of the Earth be blessed But the best way is to let St. Paul resolve this Doubt even as he is quoted by the Doctor Rom. 4. The Promise that he should be Heir of the World was not given to Abraham or to his Seed through the Law. And what Law was Abraham under but the Law or Covenant of Circumcision The Apostle adds But through the Righteousness of Faith and yet more plainly Rom. 4. 10. How was it then reckoned when he was in Circumcision or in Vncircumcision Not in Circumcision but in Vncircumcision St. Paul most clearly refers to the Promise made Gen. 12. near thirty years before Abraham was circumcis'd Now whether Circumcision be of the Law or whether it was a Gospel-Ordinance is the business to be considered The Doctor does expresly affirm that Circumcision was a Gospel-Ordinance p. 24. And we say directly contrary that it was a Legal or Jewish Ceremony To prove that Circumcision was no Gospel-Ordinance we argue thus That which could profit no Man except he kept the whole Law was no Gospel Ordinance c. The Apostle proves the minor Rom 2. 25. Circumcision verily prositeth if thou keep the Law but if thou be a Breaker of the Law thy Circumcision is made Vncircumcision And we argue further from Gal. 5. 2. If Circumcision bound Men to keep the whole Law then it was no Gospel-Ordinance c. The Assumption is proved by the Text I testify again to every Man that is circumcised that he is a Debtor to do the whole Law. Circumcision therefore could never be a Gospel-Ordinance for as the Gospel frees us from the condemning Power and from the Servitude of the Law so every Gospel-Ordinance holds forth that blessed Freedom to all faithful Men in both Respects And hence it is clear that howsoever Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to Abraham it could not be so as a Gospel-Ordinance for he was a Breaker of the Law after this any more than his Offering his Son Isaac upon the Altar Jam. 2. 21 22. In which he was justified by Faith. And so was Abel in his Sacrifice Gen. 4. Heb. 11. Yea these were evident Seals and Pledges of their Faith as much as Circumcision was to Abraham yet none of those can hence be proved to be Gospel-Ordinances For indeed at the rate of the Doctor 's arguing all the Sacrifices propitiatory performed by faithful Men in the time of the Law may be proved to be Gospel-Ordinances as well as Circumcision And by his Consequence all that took part in these Sacrifices have a right to participate in all Gospel-Ordinances which hold forth Christ and him crucified as well as in Baptism And because the Doctor builds much upon this Topic we will further try the Strength of it That which was always in Comparison of the Gospel a weak and beggarly Element was never a Gospel-Ordinance But such was Circumcision The Major is clear because 't is the Property of all Gospel-Ordinances to represent those that are under them perfect in Christ Jesus Gal. 1. 28. So that the Gospel-Ordinances are neither weak nor beggarly but as they are a part of the Gospel it self are said to be the Power of God unto Salvation The Minor is true because the Ceremonies of the Law made nothing perfect for if they had then they had not ceased Heb. 7. 18 19. and 10. 1. And it is evident St. Paul calls the whole Ceremonial Law a part whereof was Circumcision beggarly Elements Gal. 4. 9. And they are all equally ceased And seeing upon this Ground the Doctor boldly affirms the Covenant of Circumcision to be an Evangelical Covenant because Circumcision did initiate thereinto p. 5. My next Undertaking shall be to prove that the Covenant of Circumcision strictly taken was no Gospel-Covenant though called so very frequently by the Doctor as p. 3 and 4. all which he would make good because St. Paul calls Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith and because it signified the Circumcision of the Heart Deut. 10. 16. and 30. 6. The contrary will appear from the very Recital of the Covenant it self as set down Gen. 17. from the Nature of Circumcision being