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-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
the Ordinance But I design Brevity and answerably shall refer both our Author and all others to what I have said in my Answer to Mr. Danvers and also to Mr. Walker's Treatise of this Subject afore referred unto and come to the main Controversy between us and our Brethren and that concerns the Subjects of Baptism And I call this the main Controversy because neither my self nor so far as I know do any Pedo-baptists deny the Validity of Baptism by Immersion neither shall I deny that Baptism was sometime so administred in Primitive Times that it was always so is altogether uncertain yea there is a very great probability that it was not See our new Annotations that Mr. Keach often cites upon John 3.23 Therefore I say the main Controversy is about the Subjects of Baptism and the Question is Whether only Adult Believers are the Subjects of this Holy Sacrament or Whether their Infant-Seed are not the joint Subjects of it with themselves The former is affirmed by our Brethren we affirm the latter Our Author attempts to prove the former Two ways 1. More laxly 2. More Strictly and Syllogistically And what he saith in a more lax or loose Way he afterwards reassumes and forms into Arguments And therefore I shall pass that by and the rather because I have already fully obviated all that he saith in my Answer to Mr. Danvers who argues from the very same Topicks that our Author doth which he might have and I suppose hath seen tho' for Reasons that may be guessed at by others but are best known to himself he hath taken no notice of and come to his Arguments the four first of which are but a repetition of what he had in a more lax or loose way formed up into Syllogisms so that I might justly pass them also by but yet briefly to touch upon them The First is this If there be no Word of Institution nor any thing in the Commission of Christ for the baptizing of Infants but of Believers only then not Infants but Believers only ought to be baptized but the former is true therefore the latter Answ I find Mr. Keach himself takes as he ought to do Authority from Christ equivalent to a Word of Institution or the express mention of Infants in the Commission And that being granted I deny his Minor Proposition and affirm That we have full Authority from Christ to baptized Infants This I have so fully and demonstratively proved already some account of what I have said in proof of it may be seen in the foregoing Sheets that it is superfluous to add any thing more I have proved that they are joint Subjects of the Covenant with their Parents and as such the proper Subjects of Baptism If Mr. Keach will satisfactorily answer the Arguments I have offered he will do both the Church of God and my self no little Service As for what he adds in confirmation of his Minor Proposition it is meer trifling in brief it is this 'T is evident and owned by the Learned That those who are enjoined to be baptized in the Commission are first to be taught or made Disciples To which I shall say Suppose we have sufficient Authority from Christ to baptize Infants how evident soever it be that those who are enjoined to be baptized are first to be taught and made Disciples we have sufficient Warrant for their Baptism that Authority of our Lord Christ is our Warrant 2. We say that Infants are Included in the Commission All that are to be baptized their Baptism is enjoined in the Commission But Infants are to be baptized Ergo c. As for those Learned Men he speaks of if he means that they own That all those universally who are enjoined to be baptized must be taught or made Disciples he must certainly intend the Learned of his own Perswasion which now few they are is sufficiently known neither is it of any great concern what they own or disown in this Controversy As for others what they own concerns only the Adult which makes nothing against the baptizing of Infants whose right to Baptism comes in another way viz. from their Covenant-Interest as having the Promises made unto them as the Seed of Believing-Parents And as for what our Author says in Answer to that Objection of some Paedo-Baptists viz. That Children are part of the Nations commanded by Christ to be baptized I shall pass it by not being concerned at all in it and proceed 2. He Argues from the Scriptures requiring Faith and Repentance as Prerequisites of all them that are to be baptized Answ I shall only say this requires better Proof than what our Author hath here given which I shall expect ad Graecas Calendas He only cites Acts 2.36 37. and Acts 8. I suppose he hath respect to the 37th Verse and an Answer to a Question in the Rubrik but to how little purpose is obvious unto all That Faith and Repentance are required as Prerequisites of all the Adult that are to be baptized is granted but that they are required of all universally neither is nor can be proved Therefore to pass this and 3. The Sum and Substance of his Third Argument is this As there is no Precept so no Precedent in Scripture that any besides such as professed Faith and Repentance were baptized therefore not Infants but only such ought to be baptized Answ In Answer whereunto I doubt not it hath been fully proved that we have a Precept for infant-Infant-Baptism See my infant-Infant-Baptism from Heaven First Part pag. 114. And besides the other Revelations our Lord Christ hath made of his Will are obliging and equivalent to a Precept And this being granted That because there is no Precedent in Scripture that any Infants were baptized therefore they ought not to be baptized is a non sequitur a Precept is enough without any Precedent But 2. I say We are not altogether without Precedents Thus in all those Housholds that were baptized when yet only the Parents or chief Governors are recorded to have believed 4. His Fourth Argument is this Because Paul who declared the whole Counsel of God to the Churches and Primitive Christian never declared any thing of Infant-Baptism therefore they are not to be baptized Answ I shall not at present enquire how or in what sense Paul is said to have declared the whole Counsel of God Two things I would only say 1. That it is certain so far as the Declarations Paul made of the Counsel of God are recorded in Scripture he did not declare absolutely and universally his whole Counsel This is too evident than to need proof neither is it absurd to say that the Apostle declared much more of the Counsel of God than what is contained in any of his Sermons or Epistles it being contained in other parts of Scripture And for the Pen-men of the Holy Scriptures to have set down the whole of what every Prophet or our Lord Christ or any of his Apostles
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
to all Abraham's Natural Seed mediately descended from him yet none of them could merely as his Natural Seed lay a just Title to the Covenant nor did the Covenant secure to them any part of that Good contained in it Their Parents failing to take hold of the Covenant did forfeit both their own and their Childrens Interest the like is still true under the New Testament 4. In pursuance of the same Design the Terms of the Covenant including both the Stipulations or Promises made on God's part and the Restipulation or Duty required of those with whom it is made And this Stipulation on God's part in the general consists in these two Promises 1. That he would be a God to them And 2. That he would give them the Land of Canaan including and principally intending the Heavenly Inheritance viz. Heaven it self So that whosoever God doth enter this Covenant with as he engages himself to be a God to them so to give them the Land of Canaan either literal Canaan or the Heavenly Inheritance typified thereby And hence these Promises being made both to Abraham and all his Seed in their Generations including both Parents and Children it sufficiently appears that the Good or the Benefits and Blessings accrewing to Infants by their Covenant-Interest are vastly more than meerly Nominal as Mr. Cary will still needs suppose them to be But see my Essay p. 99 to 163. 2. The Restipulation on the part of those with whom this Covenant is entred in the general is that they keep the Covenant so Gen. 17.9 And for a more clear understanding of this and the improvement of it to the End mentioned these four things must be carefully observed 1. That by Keeping the Covenant is firstly intended the Application of the Token Sign or Seal of the Covenant and that as obliging to the performance of the whole of what God requires of those 't is entred with Token here we must not take abstractly in it self but including its Use and End And hence 2. Under this Command To keep the Covenant is required the performance of all that Duty specified in the Covenant according to the Capacity of the Subjects of it 3. That this Command as more generally laid down obligeth all the Subjects of the Covenant universally and answerably as it obligeth Parents so their Seed as it obligeth all them taken into Covenant under the first Testament whether of Abraham's Natural Seed or Proselytes always including Parents and Children so it still obligeth Abraham's Spiritual Seed viz. Believers still including Parents and Children And hence 4. We must necessarily distinguish between this Command as more generally express'd and the Designation of the Token to be kept The Command is absolute and extends to all Abraham's Seed in their Generations and being never repealed must needs extend to Believers under the New Testament and that in their Generations that is both Parents and Children So that tho there hath been an alteration in the Token of the Covenant it was formerly Circumcision but now Baptism yet the Command is the same that still abides in its full force and answerably here we have an express Command for the Baptism of the Infant-Seed of Believers tho not eo nomine as Baptism yet as the Token of the Covenant as take the Command abstractly by it self as we ought to do it did not require Circumcision eo nomine as Circumcision but as the Token of the Covenant God first gives out a Command to keep his Covenant intending though not only yet primarily the Token of it and as so given out it obligeth all Abraham's Seed in their Generations whether those under the first or Believers under the second Testament and then he specifies what should then be the Token of it and that was Circumcision But when our Lord Christ comes in the Flesh he lays aside that Token and intimates another which is Baptism but the Command to keep the Covenant as abstractly taken abides in its force throughout all Ages This indeed our Opposers seem unwilling to understand but let things be seriously and impartially weigh'd and Truth will appear and prevail Lastly In pursuance of this Design the Scriptures must be throughly search'd and whatever is found in them for the further Discovery and assuring us of the Mind and Will of our Lord Christ relating to the Practice under Consideration must be taken in and improved for this End and Purpose The full Mind and Will of our Lord Christ is not held forth in a single Scripture or in any part of the Scriptures but the Revelations of it lie scattered throughout the whole Scriptures and whoever will make a thorow and impartial search they will find much possibly much more than yet hath been brought to light clearly manifesting and assuring us that this is indeed his Mind and Will viz. That the Infant-Seed of Believers as taken into the same Covenant with their Parents should be baptized Those that see meet may peruse what I have written of this import in those small Tracts here referred to And to sum up all in brief If any Man ask me what Warrant I have to baptize the Infant-Seed of Believers they may take it thus 1. I find that that Covenant recorded Gen. 17.7 was a Covenant of Grace the very same Covenant under which the Church and People of God ever since have been and still are This to me is past all rational Contradiction 2. I find that God did establish this Covenant between himself and Abraham and his Seed in their Generations 3. I find that in this Clause Their Generations the Infant-Seed of Abraham's Seed were and are universally included 4. I find that this Covenant as actually conveying a present Interest in and Right to the Good contained in it did only extend to Abraham's immediate Seed whether those naturally descended from him or those who became his Seed by taking hold of the Covenant and answerably that all his mediate Seed held their Interest in the Covenant not as his Natural tho many of them were so but as his Spiritual Seed as having personally taken hold of the Covenant themselves And 5. I find that this Covenant was always entred with Abraham's Seed whether Natural or Spiritual in their Generations including their Infants with the Parents It was so during the First-Testament-Administration and answerably must needs be alike so under the New 6. I find that God did expresly command that both Abraham and his Seed in their Generations should keep this Covenant intending thereby tho more yet firstly that they should observe and apply the Token of it as Parents should have it applied to themselves so that they should take care that it be applied to their Children as Joint-Heirs of the Promises with themselves 7. I find that Baptism is the present Token of the Covenant and consequently is the Token now to be applied by virtue of that Command obliging all Abraham's Seed in their Generations to keep the Covenant
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-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
confusedly jumbled several things together which I suppose he will not find so jumbled together in any Pleader for Infant-Baptism In brief our Argument is this If the Infant-Seed of Believers are in common with their Parents the true and proper Subjects of the Covenant of Grace then they are the true and proper Subjects of the Token of that Covenant which now is Baptism but the former is true therefore the latter Now let us see what our Author has said to this Argument and it may be observed that he doth not at least expresly deny that Covenant to be the Covenant of Grace yea implicitly he grants it so to be wherein he leaves if not the most of those who especially of late have pleaded the same Cause with himself I suppose he hath seen the unsuccessfulness of their Attempts and therefore was not willing perdere oleum in proving what he knew could never be proved But he offers four things to invalidate our Argument 1. He saith and is very positive That this Covenant was not made with Abraham and his Carnal he should have said Natural Seed according to the Flesh But that it was made with him and his Spiritual Seed and such who had the Faith of Abraham And he seems greatly to wonder that all Men should not be convinced by those three Scriptures compared together Gal. 3.16 29.9 Rom. 7.8 that is to see how confidently he expresseth himself pag. 100. one would think the Apostle might be believed in his expounding that Text meaning that in Gen. 17.7 Pag. 106. when he had feigned an Objection that some might make which he thus frameth Say what you will the Promise and Covenant of Grace was to Abraham and his Natural Off-spring He returns this Answer Why Do you not believe the Apostle who tells you the quite contrary So once again after he had cited those fore-mentioned Scriptures he adds Could the Apostle in plainer terms have detected the Error of these Men he means those who say that Covenant was made with Abraham and his See according to the Flesh Strange Confidence But who so blind as they that shut their Eyes But in Reply unto this I shall only say Or Author lies under a double Mistake the former is about what we affirm the latter about the mind and meaning of the Apostle in those places 1. The Mistake he lies under about what we affirm is this he supposes we say that that Covenant was made with Abraham and all his Natural Off-spring whether immediately or mediately descended from him meerly as they were his Natural-Off-spring whereas both my self and many others both formerly and of late do affirm that that Covenant was actually entred only with Abraham and his Natural Seed immediately proceeding from his own Loins and that all his Natural Seed mediately descended from him held their Interest in the Covenant either as his Spiritual Seed or as their Infant-Seed and that Abraham's Natural Seed immediatly descending from his own Loins were taken into this Covenant with Abraham himself is made evident past all rational Contradiction See my infant-Infant-Baptism from Heaven first Part Pag. 2. and so on neither doth the Apostle in any of the places mentioned in the least contradict this 2. Our Author mistakes about the mind and meaning of the Apostle in this Scripture he supposes that he excludes both Abraham's Natural Seed whether immediate or mediate as also the Infant-Seed of all Believers from this Covenant and the Promises of it which never entred into the Thoughts of the Apostle to do As for that in Rom. 9.7 8. see my Infant-Baptism Part 1. Chap. 7. throughout where I have proved that the Apostle is so far from excluding Abraham or any Believer's Natural Seed from this Covenant or any Promises of it that as to Abraham's immediate Natural Seed he necessarily supposes their Interest in it And for Gal. 3.16 29. I shall only say that in case that Covenant was entred with Abraham and his Natural Seed immediately descending from him and all his Spiritual Seed in their Generations including their Infants with them which I have demonstrated that it was the Apostle is so far from excluding them that it 's past all rational Contradiction he doth include them the Promise is made unto Christ that is Christ Mystical as our Author himself acknowledges but the Promise was made to Abraham and his Seed in their Generation including Infants with their Parents therefore will we believe the Apostle Infants with their Parents are included in that term Christ it is Christ Mystical including himself as Head Abraham and his Seed in their Generations that the Covenant was entred with For the Lord to say unto Abraham I will be a God unto thee and unto thy Seed in their Generations is all one as the Apostle Expounds it as to say I will be a God unto Christ so that Abraham and his Seed in their Generations still including himself as Head constituted and make up Mystical Christ Now then those two Mistakes of our Author being rectified his first Consideration vanishes and makes not the least head of Opposition against our Arguments But 2. he puts a Supposition that we could prove all the Children of Believers to be in that Covenant made with Abraham yet our Author thinks it doth not from hence follow that they may be baptized unless we can show the Lord Christ has injoyned them so to be But to this I would say Would he really grant this the main of our Controversy were at an end And will he grant this as will he yield unto Truth he must do then I shall refer him to these three Arguments I have laid down to prove That they not only may but ought to be baptized See my Infant-Baptism Part 1. Ch. 9. Till which Arguments are answered which Mr. Keach may do at his Leisure if he pleases it is utterly superfluous to add any more We shall not deny what he hath said viz. That it 's not enough to say Children are in the Covenant therefore they ought to be baptized yet let me say this would carry a fair probability in it but this I say If our Lord Christ hath assured us that it is his Will that being in Covenant they ought to be baptized as those Arguments fully prove he hath Then that is enough to warrant our Baptizing of them Hence as to our Author's two other Considerations they only designing the Confirmation of this Assertion I shall say nothing especially having touched upon what he saith in them in my Answers to Mr. Grantham and therefore shall come to a Close not finding my self concerned in his Answers to the other Scriture-Proofs and Arguments Pedo-Baptists produce for the baptizing of Infants I shall only further desire both Mr. Keach and those others whose Books I have now considered seriously and impartially to weigh what I have said in Answer to what they affirm concerning Circumcision its being only a Seal unto Abraham of the Righteousness of Faith and not so to any of his Seed in my Infant-Baptism from Heaven Pag. 228 unto 236. and shall only add my hearty Desire our Opponents will truly and impartially weigh what hath been offered unto them and determine as they will answer it at the great Day of Accounts which we all profess our selves Expectants of and in case any of them will return any Answer to what I have written upon this Subject I desire they would do it with what speed conveniently they may My Age now tells me my appearing before our Lord Christ cannot be very far off and I would gladly either be convinced of my Error suppose I have erred Infallibility I pretend not unto which yet at present I am above any suspicion that I have done or may have opportunity to shew them the Insufficiency of the Answers returned by them FINIS ERRATA PAge 23. line 10. read some P. 31. l. 10. after made add must be fixed P. 33. l. 19. read institutes