And Lastly I find variety of other Scriptures fully assuring me that I do rightly understand his Mind and Will as thus revealed in his first establishing this Covenant with Abraham the Father of the Faithful and his Seed in their Generations And from the whole I would now ask Where are those far-fetch'd Consequences that our Opposers talk of that we are forced to make use of for the Proof of Infant-Baptism Let but Abraham's Covenant be rightly understood taking in all other Scriptures confirming the Practice we plead for and here will be found no other Consequences than what are necessary to a right Use and Improvement of any Command or Promise whatsoever contained in the Scriptures And what should hinder then but that this Controversy at last should come to a Period I have only further to touch in brief upon a Sheet of Paper lately come forth in opposition to the Practice of Infant-Baptism by an Anonymous Author the desire of some that I should return an Answer unto which hath occasioned the foregoing Pages Who the Author is I have as yet no intimation I shall only say That if he be one that hath assumed the Work of a Teacher among the Men of his Perswasion he hath done prudently in concealing his Name but if he be a private Member of any of their Congregations as I suppose he may be he might have made himself known For who will expect from any more than they have received or might justly be expected to have attained to He seems to be and I hope is one of those for whom I have heartily wished that they had a greater share in those Abilities that some of that Perswasion have attained to But be he who he will he attempts to prove these two things 1. That Baptism ought to be administred universally by Dipping or Plunging the whole Body under Water 2. That grown Persons professing their Faith and Repentance are the only true Subjects of Baptism As to the first I shall say but little did not he or any other of his Perswasion make that manner of Baptizing simple and absolutely necessary to the Truth and Validity of that Ordinance and annul it when otherwise administred they should meet with little opposition from me I doubt not but Baptism as so administred is true Baptism and was at least sometime so administred in Primitive Times and a considerable Time after but that our Lord Christ doth indispensably require it to be so administred universally that I deny and doubt not but that Baptism administred either by pouring Water on or washing the Face with Water yea or sprinkling Water upon the Face supposing the right Form of Baptism to be observed is true Baptism and valid to all its Ends and Purposes and need not be repeated and I judg that our Lord Christ expresseth Baptism by a Word that will admit of a different manner of administring it But for this I shall refer this good Man and all others that desire Satisfaction to my Answer to Mr. Danvers pag. 143 to the end All that he hath added to what others have said is an Observation he hath made that in the Dutch Testament John the Baptist is called John the Dooper But of how little Consideration that is is obvious unto all The utmost that can be made of it is only this That one Man or at least very few that translated the Bible into Dutch judged it best so to render the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what signifieth the Judgment of One or a few Men Suppose our English Translators had rendred it John the Washer as they might have done would this Man have taken their Translation as a certain Determination of this Controversy But I shall refer the Reader to the Place mentioned as also to Mr. Walker's Treatise of this Subject the best that I judg is extant And if any be yet unsatisfied they have the liberty from me to act according to the Light they have received provided they do not plead the Manner of Administring that Ordinance against the dueness of Infant-Baptism The Manner of administring that Ordinance concerns not the Subjects of it Whence it is most unreasonable and absurd to plead the Manner of Administring Baptism against our Practice Let the Subjects be determined and let every one act according to his own Light in the Manner of Administring that Ordinance But to proceed The other Thing that he attempts to prove is That only grown Persons professing Faith and Repentance are the true Subjects of Baptism And as for this I shall not say much Those that will impartially peruse and weigh what I have already said they imitating the Noble Bereans Acts 17. will as I judg see it wholly needless Indeed for such as Mr. Grantham who cannot see Blessedness promised to the Nations in that Covenant Gen. 17.7 I shall despair of their discerning the Mind and Will of our Lord Christ contended about though appearing in the clearest Noon-Light of Divine Revelations But for those who have Eyes to see Truth when brought to Light I shall not be so uncharitable to suppose that what this Honest Man hath said will raise the least Hesitations in their Minds about the Interest of the Infant-Seed of Believers in the Covenant or their Right to Baptism on the account of that their Interest But yet let us take a brief view of what he hath said to prove his Assertion And he attempts to prove it three ways 1. From Scripture 2. By Reason grounded upon Scripture 3. From certain Absurdities which he supposes will follow upon our Practice 1. For Scripture And thus he would prove his Assertion two ways 1. From the Scriptures recording the Baptism of grown Persons without making mention of the Baptism of their Infants And he Instances in those that were baptized by John Baptist the Disciples of Christ and Philip. To which I will say only two Things 1. Supposing that some of them had Infants How doth our Author know but that they were baptized though the Scripture records it not We find no record of the Apostles Baptism and yet undoubtedly they were baptized But 2. Suppose that they had Infants and they were not Baptized that doth not at all prejudice the Cause of Paedobaptism For let it be considered that all these excepting the Eunuch who undoubtedly then had no Infants at least with him whose Baptism we have now respect unto their Infants as well as themselves had been before circumcised and the Parents might and it was necessary they should be baptized but their Children might not neither was it necessary that they should having already the Token of the Covenant applied to them which as yet was not laid aside But it may be said So had their Parents But to that I say 'T was necessary that their Parents should be Baptized as an Obligation to and whereby they did in a special manner visibly own and acknowledg That that very Person viz. Jesus Christ was the
true Messias promised to their Fathers Hence it is no way absurd nor the least prejudice to the Cause of Infant-Baptism to grant that none of the Infant-Seed of believing Jews till the absolute abrogation and laying aside of Circumcision was published and fully made known to the Church were baptized But now after the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ when Circumcision was wholly laid aside we still find when Parents were Baptized their Housholds peculiarly including their Children were Baptized with them But it may be our Author will say he doth not argue meerly from the Scriptures not mentioning the Baptism of Infants but from that taken in Conjunction with John's Preaching Repentance and Christ's making Disciples by teaching them and the Apostles requiring Faith of those that they Baptized But to that I Answer Both John Baptist our Lord and the Apostles having to do with grown Persons they did and it was necessary they should preach Repentance teach and instruct them before they baptized them and upon their professing their Faith and Repentance administer that Ordinance to them But what is that to Infants They might have and had by virtue of their Parents Faith an Interest in the Covenant and upon that account had a right to Baptism which when Circumcision was laid aside and Baptism instituted was applied to them But 2. He would prove his Assertion from the Commission given by our Lord Christ to his Apostles But to that having so fully proved that the Commission doth not exclude but on the other hand include Infants supposing their Interest in the Covenant and yet the fitness and meetness of our Lord Christ's expressing the Commission as he hath done that it is wholly superfluous to add any thing more See my Plain Proof of infant-Infant-Baptism p. 73. as also my Answer to Mr. Danvers Chap. 2. p. 25. and therefore shall proceed Our Author offers two Reasons why Baptism is by Dipping Washing or burying the Body all over in Water only to Believers upon a profession of their Faith and Repentance 1. That it is the Positive Law and Soveraign Will and Pleasure of God In Answer to which As to the Manner of Administring Baptism which his two Reasons seem to have a peculiar respect unto having spoken to that already I shall add no more but take his Reasons as respecting the Subjects of Baptism and as to this First I say in a direct Opposition to what he saith That it is not the positive Will or Pleasure of God that Believers only should be baptized but it is alike his positive Will and Pleasure that their Infants should be baptized with them This I have fully proved which I refer him unto and proceed to his Second Reason and that is taken from two Ends of Baptism To which I say that there are other Ends of Baptism with reference to which it is the Will and Pleasure of God that it should be applied to Infants To instance only in these two 1. That by it they may be by a solemn Right or Ordinance of his own Institution dedicated given up and engaged unto God in Christ 2. That in and by it the Benefits and Blessings of the Covenant may be represented and signified and the Promises wherein they are contained ratified and confirmed both to Parents and Children which when they come to Years of Maturity they are to improve as to encourage so to engage themselves personally to close in with the Covenant and give up themselves to God in Christ according to the Tenour of it and thereupon strengthen and confirm their Faith in a believing Application of the Promises to themselves Hence what he saith of all Worship which he saith is not commanded by our Lord Jesus Christ in his Holy Word is vain Worship c. It concerns not us seeing we affirm it is according to the Will of God revealed in his Word That Infants should be baptized But 3. He argues from certain Absurdities which as he supposes will follow upon our Practice Of which I must say in the General that they are all mere Mistakes and Scare-Crows the Effects of a clouded Fancy As 1. That we go to Moses for an Institution of Baptism When as we go not to Moses but to the Covenant of Grace established with our Father Abraham and his Seed in their Generations and confirmed of God in Christ 430 Years before the Law was given by Moses For his Second viz. 2. That our Practice lays a Foundation for a National Church 'T is still a gross Mistake 'T is well known that there are in England and New-England who plead for and live in the Practice of Congregational Churches and yet maintain the Doctrine and Practice of Infant-Baptism and that in a perfect consistency with their Principles and Practice For the Third viz. 3. That it affirmeth the Children of Believers were by Virtue of their Parents Faith in the Covenant of Grace united or ingrafted into Christ contrary to Eph. 2. But that our Practice should contradict the Apostle in that Eph. 2. where all are said to be Children of Wrath which are the Words I suppose he hath reference to supposing our Principles rightly understood is unimaginable Yea it is because we believe them to be Children of Wrath as well as others that we so earnestly contend for their Covenant-Interest and the Dueness of their Baptism up on the Account thereof They may be and are Children of Wrath by Nature as having sinned in Adam and being shapen in Iniquity and conceived in Sin and yet upon their Birth into the World be as the Seed of Believing Parents taken with their Parents into the Covenant of Grace and hereupon have a Right to be implanted into Christ's Mystical Body whereby they are secured during their pure Infant-State from the Effects of that Wrath they were by Nature the Children of And who can assign any shew of Reason why it may not be so They are not the Children of Wrath and in the Covenant of Grace at one and the same instant of Time their State as Children of Wrath precedes their State as in Covenant with God 4. As for the Fourth Absurdity it 's deceiving of Souls I shall only say That if any such thing doth happen 't is from the ignorance or neglect of Parents or those that should instruct them We only affirm That their Covenant-State secures them from the Effects of Wrath during their pure Infancy The Covenant indispensably requiring their personal Faith and Repentance when they come to Years capacifying them to Believe and Repent And what Deceit is here put upon any For his Last Absurdity that still is but his own Fancy proceeding from his Ignorance of the true Doctrine of Infants Covenant-Interest and Baptism Will he but peruse what I have written in my Essay p. 143. c. he may see this Absurdity fully removed out of his Way But Lastly This Our Brother for so I shall own him comes to answer some Objections against what
he hath said 1. As for that Objection he raiseth from what we are taught concerning the Doctrine of Baptism in the Liturgy of the Church of England not being concerned in it I shall say nothing to it But for his 2 Object I shall briefly touch upon that and hasten to a close 'T is raised from the Pleas we make for Infant-Baptism from the Covenant made with Abraham and his Seed in their Generations And as a Reply to what he saith in Answer to this Objection or these Objections he pretends to answer Two Objections the One raised from Acts 2.38 the Other from Gen. 17.7 But they may be reduced into One. I shall referr him and all others to what I have written to shew the Sureness of the Foundation laid in this Covenant entred with Abraham for the Practice of Infant-Baptism a Summary of which may be seen in the fore-going Pages and shall only take notice of what he saith of a Covenant of Election unto which both Abraham before he was called and also many Children both of Believers and of Unbelievers did belong But as to that I say That a Covenant of Election is a meer Chimaera there is no such thing revealed in the Scriptures That there is an Election of Grace the Apostle is express but of a Covenant-Election we find not the least mention throughout the Scriptures and possibly our Author means no more than what we affirm Which if it be so I shall let the Unscripturalness of his Expression pass but shall affirm That none whether Old or Young ever were are or shall be so far as is revealed unto us saved meerly by virtue of their Election I shall not determine what Reserves God hath kept secret in his own Breast concerning the Salvation of Infants descending from wicked Parents whether Heathens or nominal Christians Secret things belong unto God Neither doth the Case of such Infants at all concern the present Controversy But this I say According to what is revealed in the Scriptures None ever were are or shall be saved by virtue meerly of their Election but all that are saved so far as God hath revealed unto us must be and are saved by Virtue and according to the Tenour of the Covenant of Grace viz. This Covenant established with Abraham as the Father of the Faithful and his Seed in their Generations Hence I shall aver how cruel soever I may be judged to be by Mr. Grantham That no Unbeliever can according to any Divine Revelation have any assured Hope either of their own or of their Childrens Salvation who die in their Infancy But this is a Controversy excentrical to my present Design neither do I desire to engage in it This I am satisfied in That all the Seed of Believers at least that do own their Childrens Covenant-Interest and do not out of contempt to the Ordinance of God neglect their Baptism are infallibly saved if they die in Infancy as for others let the Day declare it As for him that will undertake to reprove God in case he do not save all Infants I shall only say as God himself doth in a like Case Let him answer it But to have done As for what our Author enlargeth upon that Supposition That that Covenant entred with Abraham was the Old Covenant it is utterly insignificant seeing I have so fully proved That that Covenant is not the Old Covenant nor had any Relation to it but indeed is the Covenant of Grace that Covenant-Believers are still under and therefore I have no Reason to take any notice of it As for what he saith in Answer to that Question Whether Baptism came in the Room or stead of Circumcision It is enough for us that Baptism is the Token or Seal of the Covenant which our Author acknowledges and answerably doth correspond with and come in the stead of Circumcision in the General Notion of it viz. as the Token of the Covenant Hence whatever other Differences may be assigned they concern not this Controversy I have only this to desire of this good Man That he will be perswaded that he hath not as yet looked half the way into this Controversy And shall add that if any will yet agitate this Controversy I earnestly beg of them to do it so as to approve themselves unto him that searcheth their Hearts and is ready to judg the Quick and the Dead and shew themselves to be Men. FINIS The Author hath published these Treatises also about this Subject viz. 1. INfant Baptism from Heaven and not of Men or a moderate Discourse concerning the Baptism of the Infant-Seed of Believers 2. Infant-Baptism from Heaven and not of Men the 2d Part Or an Answer to Mr. Danvers's Treatise of Baptism Wherein Infants Right to Baptism is further confirmed 3. An Essay to revive the Primitive Doctrine and Practice of infant-Infant-Baptism in the Resolution of Four Questions 1. What are the Reasons of God's appointing the Token of his Covenant to be applied to the Infant-Seed of his People 2. What is the Good or Benefit they receive thereby 3. What is the Duty of Parents towards their Children as bearing the Token of the Covenant 4. What is the Improvement that Children as grown up to Years of Maturity may and ought to make of the Token as applied to them in their Infancy 4. Infant-Baptism plainly proved A Discourse wherein certain Select Arguments for Infant-Baptism formerly syllogistically handled are now abbreviated and reduced to a plain Method for the Benefit of the Unlearned With a large Epistle to the Pious and Learned among the Antipaedobaptists especially the Authors of the late Confession of their Faith 5. A brief Discourse concerning Man's natural proneness to and tenaciousness of Errors Whereunto are added some Arguments to prove That that Covenant entred with Abraham Gen. 17.7 is the Covenant of Grace All sold by Jonathan Robinson at the Golden-Lion in St. Paul 's Church-Yard Together with several other Treatises in Defence of Infant-Baptism by Mr. Baxter Mr. Wills Mr. Barret c. A POSTSCRIPT Being a further Defence of INFANT-BAPTISM against Mr. Keach WHEN the foregoing Sheets were just wrought off the Press a little Tract came to my hand put forth by Mr. Benjamin Keach one of the Epistolers to Mr. Cary's Book which I have perused and although I find not my self in the way wherein I have proceeded farther proof of Infant-Baptism much concerned neither do I fear but that any who shall truly weigh what I have written will see what he hath said is sufficiently obviated and therefore I might well and at first view of his Book have thought to have let it pass without taking any notice of it Yet because it is possible something that he hath suggested or rather repeated from others may somewhat obstruct Persons of weaker Capacities in their compliance with that Practice I have pleaded for I have upon second thoughts judged it meet to consider what he hath written so far as I conceive
declared to the Churches had been superfluous 't is enough that the whole Counsel of God is contained in one or another part of the Scriptures and we are sure they contain this part of his Counsel that Infants ought to be baptized But 2. I say that the Apostle did declare something yea much of this part of his Counsel For 1. He declares That if either Parents are Believers then their Children are Holy that is Holy foederally 2. Paul declared That the Infant-Seed of Believers do appertain to the Mystical Body of Christ He expresly declares that that Promise Gen. 17.7 was made unto Christ Gal. 3.16 that is Christ Mystical and that Promise extended unto Infants it being made to Abraham's Seed in their Generations as is before proved and this the Apostle perfectly understood 3. He declares this as part of the Counsel of God that all that appertain to this Mystical Body ought to be admitted or incorporated there into by Baptism This is doubt not but Mr. Keach will readily grant 6. He argues thus Whatsoever is necessary to Faith or Practice is left in the written Word or made known to us in the Holy Scriptures but infant-Infant-Baptism is not contained therein therefore infant-Infant-Baptism is not of God Answ This Argument hath been already sufficiently anticipated I shall only say at present That infant-Infant-Baptism is contained in the Scriptures and must say the Reason why our Adversaries see it not is their too evidently shutting their Eyes against that Light held forth unto them Hence all our Author's Quotations are impertinent soeing we ground our Practice upon the Scriptures Let our Author satisfactorily Answer what we have said and then let him triumph But 6. He argues thus If no Man or Woman at any Time or Times were by the Almighty God Jesus Christ nor his Apostles neither commended for baptizing any one Child or Children nor reproved for neglecting to baptize such then Infant-Baptism is not of nor from God Answ This Argument our Author seems to have borrowed from Mr. Ives and he might have seen it sufficiently baffled long since See my Infant-Baptism from Heaven First Part p. 300 to 310. I shall only add as it is formed by Mr. Keach That the Consequence in the Major Proposition needs proof Why should we impose upon the Spirit of God Is it not enough that he hath revealed our Duty What necessity is there that he should leave upon Record a Commendation of any for the Practice of it or a Discommendation for the Neglect of it And therefore for our Author to say as he doth pag. 69. is exceeding weak He should have proved that it is universally true with respect to all Gospel-Duties at least Ordinances and that it must necessarily be so let him produce a Commendation given to any Woman for participating in the Lord's Supper or Discommendation for the Neglect of it But not to stay upon such Trifles 7. Our Author argues from a supposed Reflection That the Doctrine and Practice of Infant-Baptism make upon the Honour Care and Faithfulness of Jesus Christ our Blessed Mediator and Glorious Law-giver he supposes they render him less faithful than Moses and the New Testament in one of its great Ordinances nay Sacraments to lie more dark and obscure in God's Word than any Law or Ordinance in the Old Testament did and therefore cannot be of God Answ But to this I say Our Lord Christ hath perfectly revealed his Will relating to this practice and it must be said it is from the Darkness and Ignorance if not wilful Blindness of our Opponents that they do not or rather will not see it and consequently doth not at all reflect on the Honour Care or Faithfulness of Christ it rather reflects upon themselves and this I shall add to speak with utmost holy fear and trembling in such tremendous Matters that it had vastly more reflected upon the Honour Care and Faithfulness of our Lord Christ had he not declared his Will to us that Infants should not be Baptized supposing that had been his Will then his revealing it no plainer than he hath done when it is his Will that they should be Baptized doth But for this see my Answer to Mr. Danvers pag. 56 57. But to come to our Author's last Argument which is this That Ordinance God has made no Promise to Persons in their Obedience thereto nor denounced any Threatning or Punishment on such who slight neglect and contemn it is no Ordinance of God but God has made no Promise to Persons that Baptize their Children nor denounced no Threatning nor Punishment therefore Infant-Baptism is no Ordinance of God Answ As previous to an Answer to this Argument it may be inquired what Mr. Keach means here by an Ordinance of God if he means any Act or Part of Worship that is contra-distinguished from all other Acts or part of Worship as preaching the Word is an Ordinance contra-distinguished from the Celebration of the Sacraments then I shall readily grant his Conclusion and do affirm That Baptism as applied to Infants is not distinct Ordinance from Baptism as applied to grown Persons no more than Baptism as applied to Women is a distinct Ordinance from Baptism as applied to Men or as it is applied to young Men is a distinct Ordinance from Baptism as applied to old Men 't is not any Consideration or Circumstance relating to the Subjects of an Ordinance that makes that an Ordinance distinct from the same Ordinance as the Subjects of it fall under other Considerations or Circumstances Circumstances relating to the Subjects of Ordinances diversifies not Ordinances And therefore if Mr. Keach understand this Term Ordinance in this sence let him make the utmost he can of his Argument we are not concerned in it But 2dly If he mean by Ordinance any Duty injoyned by God respective to his Ordinances take it of Baptism in particular then I deny the Consequence in his Major Proposition and affirm That that may be a Duty unto the Performance of which no particular explicite or express Promise is made or against the Neglecters or Contemners of which no particular or explicite Threatning is denounced 't is enough that God hath revealed our Duty and promised Rewards in the general to the Obedient and denounced Threatnings and Punishments on the Disobedient and how many Duties might be mentioned that have no particular explicit or express Promise made to the Performance of them nor any such Threatning or Punishment denounced against those that neglect or contemn them But to hasten having tho briefly yet I hope satisfactorily shewed the Invalidity yea Vanity of these Reasonings of Mr. Keach to prove that the Adult are only the proper Subjects of Baptism I shall now briefly consider what he hath said to invalidate our Argument for Infant-Baptism taken from the Covenant entred with Abraham Gen. 17.7 which he rightly saith is the main and great Argument which we bring for our Practice Indeed he in reciting our Argument hath