that the Covenant he is received into and of which Baptism is a Sign or Seal neither is nor can be the Covenant of Grace because he had his Faith reckoned to him for Righteousness before his Baptism or while in an unbaptized Condition how absurd would that be So that this Argument is so far from being irresistible that it hath not the least weight in it But to proceed Having removed out of our way these feeble Argumentations whereby these two Authors endeavour to prove That that Covenant Gen. 17.7 is not the Covenant of Grace but the Covenant of Works the direct contrary whereunto I have affirmed whereby the Arguments I have laid down for the Proof of my Assertion may be rendred somewhat doubtful in the Judgments of Persons of weaker Capacities seeing Propositions lying so diametrically opposite the one to the other cannot both be true I doubt not those Arguments laid down by me will be seen in their full force And therefore I shall return to my first Design which is as I have said to direct to the laying a sure Foundation to the Practice of Infant-Baptism in this Covenant established between God and Abraham and his Seed in their Generations 2. The second thing then to be done is to determine the true and proper Subjects of this Covenant The first as I have said is convincingly to prove that it is indeed the Covenant of Grace the very same Covenant under which Believers still are 2. The second thing I now say is to determine the true and proper Subjects of it And that they are and were Abraham and his Seed in their Generations the very words of the Covenant do assure us for so the Covenant runs I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy Seed after thee in their Generations Here let it be observed That it is not said I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy Seed in thy Generations but between the and thee and thy Seed in their Generations to be a God unto thee and thy Seed Now the Question is Who we are to understand by Abraham's Seed and who are intended and included in that Phrase Their Generations For the first I answer That by Abraham's Seed we are undoubtedly to understand all that is Scripture bare that Denomination of his Seed And these are of two sorts 1. His Natural Seed And 2. His Spiritual Seed All those who through their taking hold of and Reception into this Covenant were or are adopted into his Family as the Proselytes under the first Testament and Believers under the New As for Believers under the New Testament whom at present we are only concerned in that they are to be accounted as Abraham's Seed is expresly according to the Letter of the Scripture Rom. 4.16 Gal. 3.29 Now I say this Covenant God promiseth to establish between Himself and Abraham and all his Seed whether Natural or Spiritual Here is no Exception of the one or the other kind of his Seed but the words are absolute I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy Seed after thee in their Generations And when God makes no Exception we ought to make none 2. But who are intended and included in this Clause Their Generations Who are these Generations of Abraham's Seed To that I say they are the natural Infants or natural Seed of Abraham's Seed And that we are to understand the Infant-Seed naturally descending from this Seed of Abraham I have as I hope sufficiently proved formerly and have as yet met with no Contradiction And indeed unless we include the Infant-Seed of Abraham's Seed in that Clause Their Generations there can be no Reason assigned of God's adding it nor can it be interpreted in any other Sense in a Consistency with the Truth and Faithfulness of God in his Covenant But 3. That which is to be done in pursuance of the End mentioned is to settle and establish the true Tenour of this Covenant as here establish'd between God and Abraham and his Seed in their Generations And for this we must observe that this Covenant as here established may be considered two ways 1. As having a more general Respect to all Abraham's Seed 2. As having a peculiar and special Respect to those who heretofore did or yet do stand immediately related to him as his Seed Such were the Children immediately descended from his own Loins as Isaac Ishmael c. and such are his Spiritual Seed viz. Believers they stand in as an immediate Relation to Abraham as his Seed immediately descending from his own Loins did And the Covenant as established with these gives them a present actual Right to and Interest in the Good promised in it And for the more clear understanding the true Tenour of this Covenant these three things must be observed 1. That the Covenant was and is established between God and all these his immediate Seed universally one as well as the other That it was so established between God and Abraham's natural Seed I have fully proved and that it is so established between God and his Spiritual Seed will certainly be readily granted by all that lay claim to this Spiritual Relation unto Abraham 2. That it was and is established between God and every one of these that were or are the Seed of Abraham in their Generations including as I said their Infant-Seed with their Parents between God and whomsoever this Covenant hath been established it always hath been and is established between him and them in their Generations this is according to the express words of the Covenant So that supposing it to be granted as I judg it is pass'd all rational Contradiction proved that in that Clause Their Generations the natural Infants of Abraham's Seed are included it must be granted that all the Infant-Seed of Believers are as such in Covenant with God and answerably have a present Right and Title to the Good promised in it 3. That this Covenant indispensably requires a personal Acceptation of and Closure with it by all between God and whom it hath been or is established As for grown Persons their first Admission into it doth indispensably require it as for Infants whether naturally descended from Abraham or from his Seed such a personal Acceptation of and a Closure with it always hath been and is indispensably required upon their coming to Years of Discretion and thereby they did and do become Abraham's Spiritual Seed and as such convey Covenant-Interest to their Seed And from these three things we may infer these two Colloraries 1. That all Abraham's natural Posterity immediately or mediately descending from him did as grown up to Years of Discretion hold their Interest in the Covenant and Right to the Good promised not as his Natural Seed but as his Spiritual Seed And the like must be said of Believers Seed I mean of such who have their Covenat-Interest continued to them 2. That however the Covenant might have a more general Respect
abstractly by themselves do not make such a full clear and convincing discovery of the Mind of our Lord Christ in this Matter as to set this Practice above all rational Doubts There is undoubtedly much yea very much Weight in them especially when added as a farther Confirmation of what is pleaded from this Covenant and let any Baptists pretend what they will they never have nor will be able to answer some of those Arguments Mr. Baxter hath urged from that 1 Cor. 7.14 But this I was saying in order to a full Establishment of this Practice 't is absolutely necessary that a Foundation be laid where I have laid it viz. in the fore-mentioned Covenant But more particularly that this Foundation may be surely laid as I have done so all others ingaging in the same Cause must do these five things 1. It must be solidly proved that this Covenant is not the Old Covenant which the Apostle tells is done away but that it is the Covenant of Grace that very Covenant under which Believers still are And I fear not falling under the Censure of over-Confidence in the Minds or Judgments of judicious and unbiassed Persons if I say this is fully done already See among others my Answer to Mr. Cox p. 95 to the 139. with the places there referred unto where I have demonstrated these three Positions 1. That God in those Transactions with Abraham recorded Gen. 12. at the beginning did not make or establish the Covenant of Grace with him My meaning is he did not then compleat the Covenant of Grace with him This I grant that God did then begin to deal with Abraham with reference to his establishing his Covenant with him did as it were draw the first Lines of that Covenent he intended afterwards in a more formal express manner to enter with him Hence the Apostle Peter telling the Jews that they were the Children of the Covenant cites one Promise then made to Abraham Acts 3.26 2. That the Covenant recorded in Gen. 17.7 is not the Old Covenant nor had any reference or relation thereunto 3. That that Covenant is the Covenant of Grace the same which Believers are still under And would our Opposers satisfy the World in their Judgments and Practice they ought to return solid and satisfactory Answers to those Arguments pleaded in Confirmation of each of those Positions their Silence wherein renders all their Discourses utterly insignificant in the Judgment of all Men of a competent Understanding Alas can they think a loose Discourse however filled up with Scripture-Quotations can be of any use to such Persons so long as those Arguments remain unanswered And it seems strange to me that Men of any Judgment Gravity or Conscience should recommend to the World any Discourses so excessively defective in that regard in the Management of the Cause they plead It being evinced and demonstrated past all rational Contradiction that this Covenant is not the Old Covenant said to be done away but the Covenant of Grace The most copious Harangue of Words how many Scriptures soever are alledged therein signifieth nothing save only to shew how tenacious Men are of Error and how they will wrest and pervert the Scriptures to confirm themselves and others therein when once embraced by them But it may be some will say There are two Treatises the one of Mr. Grantham's the other of Mr. Philip Cary's wherein there are several irrefragable Arguments to prove the contrary viz. That that Covenant is not the Covenant of Grace To that I answer It is true that there are such Books abroad but so long as those Arguments remain unanswered here is only the opposing of Arguments to Arguments and which are the most valid and demonstrative possibly Men of weaker Capacities are not able to determine to the Satisfaction of their own Consciences Hence such Methods of Procedure serve only to confirm those that are before resolved and puzzle weak consciencious Christians that are sincerely inquiring after Truth I shall only add that the Arguments I have laid down are unanswerable is undoubted to me the sure-footing they have in the Scriptures of Truth assures me of that neither is the Silence of our Adversaries after their so long Presentation to publick View any small Addition to that Assurance I shall now try whether those Arguments laid down by the two fore-mentioned Authors be so or no. To begin first with those laid down by Mr. Grantham he attempts to prove two things 1. That Circumcision was not a Gospel-Ordinance 2. That that Covenant recorded Gen. 17.7 is not a Covenant of Grace For the 1. What he means by a Gospel-Ordinance is to me difficult to determine and therefore I shall only declare what I mean by a Gospel-Ordinance and in brief I mean an Ordinance or Act of Worship instituted in the Covenant of Grace having an immediate and direct Respect thereunto for the Confirmation obtaining or conveying the Good therein promised Now let us see the strength of his Arguments and they are these three 1. That which could profit no Man except he kept the whole Law was no Gospel-Ordinance but Circumcision could profit no Man except he kept the whole Law Ergo c. And he cites Rom. 2.25 for the Proof of his Minor Proposition Before I answer to either part of his Argument I must distinguish of these two Terms Law and Keep Thus by Law may be meant either the Moral Law and that taken in a strict and proper Sense as the Law or Covenant of Works the Sum of which the Holy Ghost reduces to a Do this and live Or 2. That Term Law may intend the whole Revealed Will of God concerning Man's Duty and then under this Term Law we are to include both the Moral Ceremonial and Judicial Law and that in their utmost Extent and Latitude 2. For that Term Keep it may be meant either of a perfect sinless keeping so as the Persons so keeping the Law shall live therein according to that of the Apostle Gal. 3.12 Or 2. It may be meant of a sincere and upright Keeping so as not willingly or wilfully to fail in doing any thing required or doing any thing so bidden Now if Mr. Grantham takes these Terms in the first Sense which in case he doth Law here can only refer to or be understood of the Moral Law and that as a Law of Works seeing God never required of or expected from his People a perfect sinless Obedience to the Ceremonial Law no nor to the Moral Law as the Rule of that Obedience he requires of his People And then I deny the Minor Proposition and say those words of the Apostle prove it not and my Reason is because the Apostle there speaks of the Law as considered under another Notion and of another manner of keeping than is intended by Mr. Grantham But 2. If Mr. Grantham understood these Terms Law and Keeping in the latter Sense then I deny the Major Proposition and affirm on the other
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
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
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-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
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-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