charge against any one of that innocent part of Mankind The Instance of Esau is all that looks like an Enemy to Infants but mind it well there is no such matter in it God knew that Esau should not dy an Infant he knew he would be a bad Man and is judged as such Esau is not to be ranked with dying Infants and this Instance failing there is not the Shadow of any Proof that God will damn poor dying Infants But because the Doctor whose Book we are to examine has some Kindness for all dying Infants as I conceive though the Quality of his Subject does sometimes enforce him to drop such Sentences as may seem to deny all Mercy to unbaptized Infants yet he corrects all such Passages by saying they may be saved by uncovenanted Mercy c. A strange Speech it is but there is some Kindness to poor Infants dying without Baptism I shall therefore insist no farther at present upon the pâ—int of Infants Salvation but make my way to the Book itself by premising a few things Our late Assertors of Infant-Baptism seem to me to be ready to yield that Christ has not commanded to baptize Infants yea some of them grant it in totidem verbis yet they think themselves safe because in their Judgment Infant Baptism is not forbidden And with this Apprehension away they go to the Jews for Relief who out of their Talmud Gemara and Maimonides give them an account of some such Vsage among the Israelites And now from Dr. Hammond who has searched much into the Rabinical Doctrine they grow confident that Baptism was a Jewish Ceremony originally though they grant it was but of humane Institution and that the Christian Baptism is but the Copy which is taken from that Original Yea the learned Author of the case of Infant Baptism does tell us boldly That our Saviour being obliged to lay by Circumcision consecrated this Custom of the Jewish Church to be the Sacrament of Initiation into his Church But certainly John's Baptism of Repentance for Remission of Sins which was from Heaven and not of Men was more fit to be established by our Lord Christ for a perpetual Ministery in his Church than such a Jewish Custom Pitty it is that we should yet be contending about infant-Infant-Baptism from this supposed humane Institution of the Jews When our needful Work is to do our Endeavour to prepare our Youth and many aged Persons too for an orderly Admission to that Holy Laver for Remission of Sins and not to blind their Eyes by fabling to them that they were regenerate and born again as soon almost as they came into the World. We have certainly as much need of good Schools to catechise our Youth and to prepare them thereby for the Profession of the most sacred Religion as the ancient Christians had This is the way to have our Posterity to receive the Truth in the Love of it when their Judgments are informed to understand it in the Beauty and Excellency as well as to see the Necessity of it This is the way to have them stand fast under all Revolutions when they have been radicated in the first Principles of Cathechism Heb. 6. 1 2. These Principles of Christianity are plain and easy to be understood and yet God knows there are but a few that have a competent Vnderstanding of them in this Nation And it is but a bad way to promote Christian Knowledg in Principles of Catechism as that of Baptism is such by Stories out of the Talmud or other Jewish Books which if we had them we cannot understand them why then are we sent unto them Is the Holy Scripture less able to make us wise to Salvation than the Talmud Let us take to the good old way and diligently teach our Youth the Rudiments of Religion so shall Goodness and Mercy follow us all the days of our Life and we shall dwell by our Posterity in the House of the Lord for ever One main thing in the Book now under Consideration is the Covenant of Circumcision which the Doctor will have to be a Gospel-Covenant and Circumcision a Gospel-Ordinance Now as all this were true it would come short of proving it our Duty to baptize our Infants For seeing there is a proper time for our Participation of all Gospel-Priviledges so we must learn what time this is not from Circumcision for then the 8th day must precisely be the time but from Christ and his Apostles who are our only infallible Instructors herein But that the Doctor is mistaken in this thing which he makes a Pillar to his Building is I hope sufficiently made manifest Nor shall it be amiss in this place to give you the Judgment of a very learned Jew lately converted and baptized in the City of London bicause he may rationally be thought to understand the Nature of the Covenant of Circumcision being a great Student in all Jewish as well as Christian Theology as any other Man. And this is the account we have from him of this matter in his printed Exposition upon the Acts of the Apostles chap. 2. 40. The Jews saith he who were circumcised in Infancy before Circumcision was abrogated were here baptized by the order of Peter from whence it appears that by Baptism and Circumcision two Covenants altogether differing were to be sealed of which the one was with those who by the Law of Nature were born of the Seed of Abraham the other with those who were spiritually reborn by the Gift of Faith. And whereas one main hinge upon which the Doctors Discourse for Infant-Baptism is supported is the Custom of the Jewish Church and the Custom of the ancient Christian Church the said learned Jew speaks very well to that Plea in these Words The Customs of Churches ought to submit to the Words of Christ not the Words of Christ to be wrested to the Customs of the Church in regard the Words of Christ are the Foundation upon which all Church-Customs are to be built that they may be safe and laudable Whatsoever savours against the Words of Christ savours against the Truth and as Tertullian says what ever savours contrary to Truth is Heresy though it be an ancient Custom It is in the Power of God to pardon those that err out of Simplicity but because we erred once we are not always to go on in our Errors The Doctor divides his Book into a previous Discourse and into the Resolution of five Questions In stating and resolving his Questions he repeats much of the previous Discourse I have endeavoured to take his sence and have set down many of his Words and my Reply to his previous Discourse may serve as a Supplement to my Reply to the Resolution of his Questions because the same Arguments are handled in both What I have added about the Sign of the Cross in Baptism I have collected chiefly from a learned Protestant Writer in a Book intituled A Scholastical Discourse against Symbolizing with Antichrist
the Law and to nail them to his Cross as we have shewed not to establish them in his Church But the Truth is whoever revives them pulls down his Church And it were the false Apostles that would have conformed the Church of Christ to the Platform of the old Jewish Church Acts 15. 5. But the true Apostles withstood them and decreed that the new Church should observe no such things but they establish what the Light of Grace and the positive Law of God had made necessary before to all Mankind Acts 15. 23 to 30. Gen. 9. 4. Thus far were the Apostles from building the Church of Christ with Jewish Materials That as the great Curcellaeus says The Apostle writ that Epistle to let the Gentiles know they were freed from Moses's Law lest by their hearing him read every Sabbath they might think they were bound to obey his Laws And it is strange that the Doctor should now make Christ and his Apostles Anabaptists as he does for he will have them to have been baptised as well as circumcised to initiate them into the Jewish Church and he will have that very Baptism consecrated by Christ instead of Circumcision to initiate into his Church sure he has little reason to write against Anabaptism when he is one of the greatest Asserters of it that ever was but more of this pretended Baptism anon St. Paul above all the rest rejects the old Materials and builds all with new Old things are passed away behold all things are become new 2 Cor. 5. There is verily a disannulling of the Commandment going before for the Weakness and Vnprofitableness thereof Heb. 7. 18. He calls the whole Mass of Jewish Ceremonies Beggarly Elements And is it like that he would build the Gospel-Church with such Materials much less with that supposed Baptism of Jewish Proselytes or of Jews themselves which the Doctor knows was at best but of Mans Institution Let us view the old Jewish Church and the new Gospel-Church in a few Particulars briesly The Members of the Jewish Church were Natural called natural Branches Rom. 11. that is they were the Seed of Abraham according to the Flesh The Members of the Christian Church are spiritual grafted contrary to Nature into the good Olive and born of God. The Circumcision of the Jewish Church was outward in the Flesh made with Hands The Circumcision of the Gospel-Church is that of the Heart in the Spirit made without Hands in putting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ Their Sacrifices were carnal carnal Ordinances Heb. 10. Our Sacrifices are Spiritual 1 Pet. 2. 2 3 4. Their Ministers were chosen of one Family or Tribe and did succeed by natural Descent and were Ministers of the Letter Ours are given by Christ as the Fruit of his Ascension into Heaven and are Ministers of the Spirit Ephes 4. Their two Sacraments served chiefly to seal their Right to the Land of Canaan and that the Messiah should come of the Seed of Abraham according to the Flesh and to commemorate their Deliverance out of Egypt Ours seal Remission of Sins by Faith in the Blood of Jesus and our Inheritance in the Kingdom of Heaven to all Eternity In short Their Services made nothing perfect Heb. 10. Ours present every Man perfect in Christ Jesus Col. 1. 28. But let us come to this pretended Insant-Baptism among the Jews which is so much made use of by the Doctor as if it were the very thing that must give Life to Insant-Baptism in the Christian Church And indeed Dr. Hammond from whom this Doctor seems to borrow much makes the Jewish baptizing of Proselytes the Original and ours but the Copy That our Saviour should thus highly approve of a Jewish Ceremony as to consecrate it to be the initiatory Sacrament into his Church is no way to be believed For he condemned all such Ceremonies of their own devising to be but vain Worship Mat. 15. 9. and will he then establish this their Tradition if indeed they had any such The Baptism of John was that which he established both by his own Submission to it and Divine Testimony concerning it Matth. 3. 15. 21. 25. Nor did John take up his Baptism from the Jews as many Learned Men of the Church of England do teach of late For he was a Prophet immediately sent of God to baptize with Water John 1. 33. And he that says John's Baptism was originally of the Jews as this Doctor and Dr. Hammond do teach denies John to be a Prophet and does dissent herein from many Learned Protestant Writers whose Testimonies I will therefore here bring against them who with one Mouth bear witness that John's Ministry and Baptism was Evangelical and not Ligal Jewish or of his own devising Diodate on John 1. 6. Divine Light being now extinguished the Son of God himself came into the World to light it again by the Gospel whereof John the Baptist was the first Preacher And on Matth. 11. 13. John's Prerogative above the precedent Prophets is they have only foretold and described things to come but he declared the present Salvation and in him began the Evangelical Ministery and the Legal and figurative Ministery ceased This could not be true had he taken his Baptism from the Jewish Church Dr. Willit in his Synopsis John preached the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of Sins which was all one with the Baptism of Peter Act. 2. 38. And it is absurd that Christ the Head and the Church the Members should not have the same Baptism And that John ' s Baptism was not of John ' s devising but of God's Appointment Dr. Fulk on Mat. 3. Dr. Fulk John by his Doctrine and Baptism prepared a way to Christ not to the Baptism of Christ for he preached not his own Baptism but the washing away of Sins by Christ Therefore he also was a Minister of the Baptism of Christ This new Device of founding the Christian Baptism upon Jewish Baptism is dangerous opening a Gap to the Quakers and other Notionists to contemn it as a Legal Ceremony Yet the Doctor boldly tells us That Christ was obliged to lay by Circumcision and consecrated this Ceremony used by the Jews instead of it The Enemies of Christ durst not say as Dr. Hammond and this Doctor does say that the Baptism of John was of Jewish Original They knew such a Speech must deny John to be a Prophet And yet these Learned Men have not Learning enough to consider this We know the Pharisees were very zealous for the Traditions of the Jewish Church but it 's certain they had no Zeal for the Baptism of Repentance for they rejected it against themselves Luke 7. 20. And here this holy Ordinance is expresly called the Counsel of God which shews it was not originally a Rite or Ceremony of humane Institution or Jewish Ceremony But now let us see whether the Doctor may not possibly be mistaken in asserting that the
TRUTH and PEACE OR The Last and most FRIENDLY DEBATE CONCERNING Infant-Baptism Being a brief Answer to a late Book intituled The Case of Infant-Baptism Written by a Doctor of the Church of England In which Answer is shewed I. That the Covenant of Circumcision strictly taken was not the Covenant of Grace for the Salvation of Mankind many being not bound to observe it II. That Circumcision was no Gospel-Ordinance as is affirmed by the Doctor but a part of the Yoke of Bondage III. That the Jews had a Tradition to baptize Infants is either a Fable or destructive to the Christian Baptism if grounded thereon IV. The Doctor 's five comprehensive Questions particularly answered V. From the whole it is made evident that the Restoration of Sacred Baptism in respect of the true Subject and due manner of Administration is the only true method to revive the Ancient Christian Religion in all Nations where it has been corrupted by humane Innovation Whereunto is annexed A brief Discourse of the Sign of the Cross in Baptism and of the use of the Ring and bowing at the Altar in the Solemnization of Marriages By THOMAS GRANTHAM The Custom of baptizing Infants was brought in without the Commandment of Christ Curcelleus Disserta of Orig. Sin n. 56. London Printed for the Author 1689. The PREFACE THAT Prophecy of St. Paul 2 Tim. 4. 4. That Men shall turn away their Ears from the Truth and shall be turned unto Fables had too much of its Verification in the early Times of Christianity and as in other respects so in the case of sacred Baptism both in respect of the Time and Order in which it should be performed 1. From a Fear that Sin committed after Baptism should hardly if at all be remitted many did delay their Duty being desirous to have the full remission of their Sins near their Death This scandalous delay of Baptism proved pernicious to the Church of Christ as well as to the Persons thus neglecting their Duty and seems to have been the occasion of altering the manner of the Administration of Baptism For many of these Delayere being surprised with Sickness and afraid to die without Baptism requested that it might be administred to them in their sick Beds which was endulged to them without any Warrant from Heaven which in such cases should always be enquired for Yet this Custom was so doubtful to them that did allow it that they required such Chinicks that in case they recovered their Sickness they should be had to the River and there be baptized Cyprian Epist ad Magnum 2. Others did as much outrum the Rule of this Duty in preposterous haste even to baptize Infants as soon as born and sometimes before and this Error sprang from this apprehension that God had tied the Solvation of all Flesh to Baptism that even Infants dying without it could not be saved Yea so powerful was this Error that its Assertors did Anathematize all that held the contrary The Council of Afric decreed That all that affirm young Children receive eternal Life albeit they be not by Baptism renewed they are accursed Sure a more unreasonable Decree was never made by Men. Now this Leaven of false Doctrine has so prevailed that scarce any but Infants came to be concerned in obeying Christ in Baptism nor could poor Infants obey him therein for Austin confesses they did not willingly receive Baptism but strove against it with great Crying So that neither Young nor Old in a manner were found in some Ages to put on Christ in Baptism seeing that cannot be done without the free Consent of an Heart enlightened by Faith Gal. 3. 26 27. Acts 2. 40. It is therefore the work and proper business of the Restorers of holy Baptism to do what they possibly may to remove this Stumbling-block out of the way I mean this Doctrine which would damn to Hellish Torments all Infants dying unbaptized Concerning which I have wrote several Treatises and could be content still to be an Advocate for all dying Infants as being through the Grace of God in our Lord Jesus Christ discharged of the condemning Power of Original Sin and having no Actual Sin the Infirmity of their Nature shall not damn them but the Mercy of God shall save them all And were Mens Judgments clear in this Point the Controversy about infant-Infant-Baptism would naturally cease and all Men would see it the only safe way to refer Baptism to the time wherein through Repentance and Faith it might according to the Will of God interess them in the remission of their Sins and in the Priviledges of the Church of the Living God in order to Life eternal I shall therefore once more endeavour to take away this false Covering which is not of God's Spirit I mean the Doctrine of Infant-Damnation by proposing a few things to this Generation as an Introduction to my Reply to the Case of Infant-Baptism And 1. Seeing it cannot enter into the Heart of any Christian I hope that God does create Infants on purpose to damn them and to shew them no Mercy seeing he is very merciful to the chief of Sinners if we can find out a just cause for the damning of them it must be either 1. From themselves from their Parents from the Devil or from Christ's not loving them so as to redeem them from the Fall which they had in Adam But none of these things can be the cause of Infants Damnation 1. They cannot damn themselves by sinful Courses and it is certain our gracious God will damn none who do not first destroy themselves by their Wickedness This is evident by his unwillingness to destroy those who had destroyed themselves Hosea 13. 9. O Israel thou hast destroyed thy self but in me is thy Help How then can it enter into any Christian to think that God should have no pity for innocent Babes who never offended him Is he thus compassionate towards great Sinners and is there no Help in him for poor Infants 2. No Man can damn Infants because if any have power to damn his Infants all Men have it it 's no Man's peculiar Power whether good or bad to do this and if any say all Men have this Power he reflects upon the Goodness of God for giving such power to Men and contradicts the Word of God Jer. 31. Every one shall die for his own Iniquity the Son shall not bear the Iniquity of the Father This is only true in the case of eternal Death for Children even Infants often die for their Fathers Sin a temporal Death as in the old World in Sodom yea and in Jerusalem too Lam. 2. 11. Yet who can think that our just and merciful God should now after their swooning in the Streets cast them into Hellish Torments It was not the Iniquity of the Infants but of the grown Persons which cried for Vengeance 3. The Devil cannot damn Infants because they are out of the Reach of his Temptations They know
Ends of Baptism They have Remission so far as they need it and Eternal Life upon other Terms even the free Mercy of God in Christ Rom. 5. 18. And the good will of God towards them Mat. 18. 14. And if Infants are uncapable of these as they are the Ends of Baptism so they will be uncapable of all other Things which are annexed to Baptism as the Ends of that Ordinance As we will propose two viz. the washing of Regeneration and incorporating into Christ Infants are capable of neither of these as they are the Ends of Baptism For Baptism is but demonstrative or a sign of the New Birth because God will have those that come to be baptized therein to testify that they have and therein symbolically do put off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh which Work had its Effect from the Word and Spirit of God. And 2. to be incorporated with Christ as it is an End of Baptism does necessarily presuppose a being taken out of the Tree that is wild by Nature or out of our degenerate Estate and planted contrary to that Nature by a willing resignation of Soul and Body to Christ in that solemn ministration of Baptism And how incapable Infants are of this all Men must needs see To be short if it could be proved by the Word of God or found true by Experience that Infants are capable of any Good or that the Will of God was wrought by baptizing them I could yield to the Doctor but the Truth is they are capable of none of the Ends of Baptism as God hath annexed them to Baptism and therefore his Argument must come to nothing And how easy were it to turn this Argument against him in the Case of the Lord's Supper but that may be more sitting in another place But the Doctor says p. 28. That Infants are capable of all the Ends of Baptism as Baptism is instituted for a Sign from God towards us to assure us of his gracious Favour and to consign unto us the Benefits of the Covenant of Grace Now if this Doctrine be true then either Baptism is a sure Sign of all these Things to all Infants or to some few of them only The former the Doctor will not allow and yet he cannot but know when Christ said Teach all Nations baptizing them he makes no difference between one Person and another all are equally to be taught and baptized equally upon the same Terms And if the Doctor will have some Infants only to have an Interest in the Benefits of the Covenant of Grace and therefore but some only have right to Baptism which consigns the Covenant of Grace we shall desire him to prove this well and therewithal to let as know how he knows one sort of these Infants from another He says indeed That Infants may be Members of a Church their Childhood notwithstanding as well as of a Family c. But to be of a Family is equally natural to all Infants so that if this Argument prove any thing it proves all Infants Church-Members as much as any Nor saith he does Childhood hinder or incapacitate them for being adopted the Children of God more than the Children of any other Person But God is not like Man to adopt or receive into favour some poor Infants and let all the rest perish without favour We affirm that God has in Mercy taken care of all Infants as we have proved But this does not teach us to do that to some of them which he never commanded and to reject the rest as if God had no Mercy for them These Notions are so partial and so uncertain that no solid Comfort can be taken from them And let my Infant whom I confess I have not baptized but only devoted him to God's Mercy and Protection by Prayer and the Doctor 's Infant whom he has crossed and sprinkled be laid together I am perswaded the Doctor would tremble to say this Infant is an adopted Child of God and in his Favour that Infant is rejected and out of God's Favour And truly I cannot but think such Discourses as these proceed not from the bottom of the Heart but Men please themselves to dream waking of I know not what Favour Almighty God has for their Infants above what he has for others The Doctor 's next way is to make use of Similitudes as thus Should a Prince adopt a Beggar 's Child and incorporate him into the Royal Family and settle a part of his Dominions upon him and to solemnize and confirm all this should cut off a bit of his Flesh or command him to be washed with Water who would count this an insignificant Ceremony or Solemnity or say that the Child was not capable of the Sign when he was capable of the chief thing signified thereby Surely such flourishes as this may soon deceive those that rest upon them For 1. here is no qualification in this Child nor any required of it in this case but every Beggar 's Child is as capable of this Favour as this Child and consequently this makes no more for the Infant of an English Man than of an Indian God may be as kind to the one as to the other 2. Here 's the King's Act of Grace peculiar to this Child and to no other 3. Here 's the King's express Command to cut off a bit of the Child's Flesh or to wash it with Water And thus the whole of the Matter is begg'd but not any proof for Infant Baptism ministred from hence for we grant that the Things here supposed to be done do sufficiently capacitate the Beggar 's Child for the Mercy and Favour of the Prince but then it as much incapacitates other Children to whom the King has extended no such pity and concerning whom he has given no such order for should the Doctor now without any Order from the King fetch all the Beggars Children in the City and Country and pass all these Solemnities upon them that they all may be received into the Royal Family c. I suppose he would have but little thanks for his labour even so to cross sprinkle or dip all the Infants in the World and either all or none have right to it and to adopt them thus to be of the Family of Heaven without Heaven's Authority to make them capable of it and God's Direction in the Business of the Solemnity will not please God. We therefore content our selves to commit our Infants to his Mercy and Protection in the way of humble Prayer for his Blessing and for this we have his own Son our Lord to go before us who thus does suffer little Children to come unto him without rejecting so much as one of them The Doctor 's next Similitude proceeds thus Suppose a Prince should send for an attainted Traitor's Child and say You know the Blood of this Child is attainted by his Father's Treason by Law he has forfeited all right to his Father's Estate My Bowels of
Compassion yearn upon him and here I restore him and before you all wash him with pure Water to signify that he is cleansed and restored to his Birth-right Could any Man say that the Action was insignificant because the Child knew nothing of it Now in this Similitude the Doctor begs almost every thing in question between us As 1. That all that are attainted with Original Sin must be washed with Water as a sign that they are cleansed from it 2. That God vouchsafes the Bowels of Compassion to such Infants only as he intends shall be baptized 3. That he does not require the Party baptized to understand or take notice of any thing but bids the by-standers take notice of these Things And 4. this Similitude supposes that all Rules about Infant Baptism are plainly delivered by our Heavenly King when not one of these things are true But the Doctor does very ill to suppose that to be a true Gospel-Sacrament which wants the inward and spiritual Grace as in this Similitude there is no knowledg or consent on the part of him that is baptized but a meer force is put upon him And yet when the Doctor can shew us what Infants in particular the Bowels of God does yearn towards and his Will that they be cleansed by washing with Water that shall suffice to make them capable of Baptism But before we leave this Similitude let us consider whether the Foundation of it be sound Are Infants indeed such attainted Persons Sure no for whatsoever was their Case considered in sinful Adam yet when through Christ Adam was redeemed that is virtually by the Promise of a Saviour Gen. 3. 15. all Infants who then were all in him had the Attainder taken off as much as from Adam himself John 1. 29. So that this Attainder of Treason against Infants as they proceed from Adam is but a Fancy and to think that he has left Original Sin to be washed away by Baptism from poor innocent Babes is another Fancy and yet these were the Grounds on which Infant Baptism was built at first and many are yet under the dominion of this Mistake We conclude then that through the free Mercy of God in the Gift of Christ the Attainder of Sin which lay against Infants to Condemnation was taken away from the Foundation of the World and that Baptism was not ordained of God to take away Original Sin but for the Remission of Actual Sins upon Repentance and Faith. Nor does it appear in all God's Book that he appointed any Ritual no not Circumcision it self to take away Original Sin and he that shall assert it will be intangled in so many Difficulties as he cannot escape For what then took Original Sin from all Males that died before the eighth Day And what became of all Females and Male Infants throughout the World Did God leave them all under a Malady without any Remedy And though the Doctor insists never so much upon that Apochryphal Story of Infant Baptism among the Jews before the coming of John Baptist yet as himself yields p. 18. it was not of Divine Institution so it is looked upon to be a Fable by the Learned of his own Church who tell us as we have shewed That Rabbi Eliezer denies that there was any such Baptism among the Jews though Rabbi Joshua does affirm it To whom shall I give credit saith that Learned Protestant to Eliezer who asserted what the Scripture confirms that there was no such Baptism among the Jews or to Joshua who affirms what is no where to be found in Scripture I am not concerned in their answer who do prove Infants more capable of Circumcision than of Baptism because it left a Character in their Flesh But I answer whatsoever makes any Person capable of Baptism the revealed Will of God to order it so is the chief us for Example some Infants might be as capable of Circumcision on the 7th day as others on the 8th yet those of 7 days were not at all capable of Circumcision So that for Men to insist upon their Conjectures about Infants Capacity or Incapacity is but to wander in the Dark It must be the Institution of Baptism the Commission for the use of it in all Nations and the Example of Christ and his Apostles and Churches by them constituted that must decide this Question Whether Infants are capable of Baptism CHAP. IV. Answereth the Doctor 's second Question Whether Infants are excluded from Baptism AND here in the first place saith the Doctor I must observe that the Question ought to be proposed in these Terms and not whether Christ hath commanded Infants to be baptized For as a good Author observes of the River Nile we ought not to ask the Reason why Nile overflows so many days about the Summer Solstice But why it doth not overflow all the Year long But by his Favour he is as wife a Man that asks the first Question as he that asks the second And I know but one Answer to be given to both and that is chiefly and before all things It is the Will of God to order it so Now let this be apply'd to the case in hand And the Will of God shall determine who are and who are not to be baptized And let the Doctor here resolve me whether God excluded Infants of 6 or 7 days old from Circumcision when yet there is no negative Law you shall not circumcise them and he will soon answer his own Question For his Answer must be seeing God did not appoint Infants of 7 days old to be circumcised therefore he did not admit them to it and our Answer is the same Christ did not command to baptize Infants therefore he does not admit them to it And it is observed by some learned Men that tho Negative Commands do usually exclude yet it is also true that an Institution of God and an affirmative Command does exclude all that is above or besides that Command and Institution And they bring Levit. 10. 1 2 to justify what they say For Nadab and Abihu came to a dismal end And saith Diodate Though the Command was not given before yet it was a Sin in undertaking the contrary before God's mind was known And so may the Doctor find the same Acceptance in going where he has no Law to direct him though there were no negative to forbid him however we dare not follow him because we fear the Lord who if we add to his Word will reprove both him and us Prov. 30. 6. But here again the Doctor would build his Infant-Baptism upon that Jewish Tradition of baptizing the Infants of Proselytes though he knows they had no Authority from Heaven for it And we have shewed from a learned Author in chap. 2. that it's very probable there was no such thing And it 's very strange that the Doctor or others should suffer themselves to be thus deluded from the Simplicity of the Gospel by the Jews Talmud which
not to chuse them nor refuse them they know not their right hand from the left they know neither Good nor Evil whom the Devil cannot tempt them he cannot damn A learned Protestant tells us God will not damn any Person for that which they 〈◊〉 help This Sentence must needs be as true in the case of Infants as any 〈…〉 World. And indeed the Equity of that merciful Law Deut. 22. 25 26. may suffice to convince any Man that in the Judgment of the Almighty there is no Sin in Infants worthy of Damnation seeing what Sin soever is upon them it was impossible for them to avoid it They therefore shall not be damned for it When Christ puts the Question How can ye escape the Damnation of Hell He speaks to incorrigible Sinners that the Fear of Damnation should not overwhelm weak Persons but never did he speak a Word against poor Infants He never told them they were of the Devil Satan is not the Father of Infants Ergo they are not his Children 4. Christ loved and gave himself for all dying Infants therefore not one of them shall be damned Christ gave himself a Ransom for all He loved and dyed for the chief of Sinners Therefore he loved and died for the poor innocent Babes He bought them that deny him 2 Pet. 2. 1 2. How should he despise the helpless Infant Object If God be so good to all Infants why then is he not so good to let them be baptized I answer God is good to Infants in that he accepts them without Baptism And I appeal to any considering Man whether he was not as good to the Infants of the Righteous before Abraham as he was to the Infants of Abraham and whether God was not as good to an Infant in Israel of 7 days old as to an Infant of 8 days old And whether God be not as good to us in that he accepts us in the use of a very few Ceremonies as he was to Israel accepting them in the use of many Ceremonies And whether if he had pleased to accept of us upon Repentance and Faith without Baptism he had not been as good to us as now that together with Repentance and Faith he does require Baptism The Truth is Baptism is therefore good because it is commanded It is not good in it self no more was Circumcision nor indeed any Ceremony Now Repentance and Faith are good in themselves it 's absolutely necessary that those that sin be humbled for it and forsake it It 's absolutely necessary for the Creature to believe and to depend upon the Creator Now Baptism though it be not good in it self yet Heavens Authority enjoyning it and Divine Mysteries being contained in it and Priviledges conferred by it it is therefore good to those to whom it is appointed But where God requires is not but extends his Goodness without it it is a like Vanity in us to give it where he does not appoint it as it would have been in Abraham to give Circumâ—â—â—â—â—â— to every Male Child as soon as it was born or at 6 or 7 days old 〈◊〉 to his Females also because it was a sign of a great Covenant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to whom it did belong by Appointment And therefore I consider further that as those had no Loss of any Priviledg that was necessary for them in Israel who by the Law were not required to be circumcised as in the case of all Females So neither shall any lose God's Favour for not being baptized when he requires it not The Danger lieth on the other side For had Abraham out of a conceit of making Infants Male of 7 days old and all his Females also Sharers in the Covenant equally with those of 8 days old circumcised them he had hazarded both his own and their Loss of the Covenant In like manner whoever will presumptuously at least baptize any Person whom God does not require to be baptized is so far from bringing him into Covenant that he runs the hazzard of losing his own part in the Covenant Rev. 22. For I testify unto every Man. If any shall add unto these things God shall add to him the Plagues which are written in this Book But 4. All dying Infants are under the Blessing of the Covenant of Grace therefore no dying Infant shall be damned This how strange soever it may seem must be a Truth or else poor dying Infants are the worst of Creatures When therefore we say all dying Infants are in the Covenant of Grace we mean it as God hath vouchsafed to interess them in his Mercy by Christ That as Condemnation came upon them by Adam's Sin so Justification of Life has abounded towards them by the Obedience of Christ and he himself that best knew God's Design concerning them has declared without excepting so much as one of them that to them belongs the Kingdom of Heaven And what then is he that should except them as the manner of some is and in their cruel Judgment send them by Millions to Hell Torments Now either Infants even all of them are thus in or under the Blessing of the Covenant through the Mercy of God or they are not concern'd in any Covenant at all for the Covenant of pure Nature as made with Adam in Innocency concerns not Infants but as the Breach of it is imputed to Mankind but here they are lost The Covenant of Works concerns them not it cannot be said of them the Man that doth these things shall live in them And to say that Infants are under the Blessing of no Covenant is to rank them with the vilest of Men yea which the Devils themselves who are therefore most accursed because there is no Saviour no Mercy for them They are shut up in Chains under Darkness to the Judgment of the great day Now far be it from all Christians to have such Thoughts of God whose tender Mercies are over all his Works The very Devils had a State wherein they might have been happy but presumptuously fell from it Jude v. 6. But poor Babes before they had a being were exposed to Condemnation through the Offence of another Shall these Objects of Pitty perish eternally too without Remedy O God forbid let them be pressed with all the Inconveniences consequent to Original Sin yet either it will not be laid to the charge of Infants so as to be sufficient to condemn them or if it could yet the Mercy and absolute Goodness of God will secure them if he takes them away before they can glorify him with a free Obedience Dr. Taylor 5. No Man is able to prove that any Infant ever was or ever shall be damned to hellish Torments therefore none of them dying such shall be damned We should hold nothing as a Point of Faith but upon clear Proof and especially things of so high a Nature as this is Some Men talk of some Infants as if they were little better than Devils But could never yet bring a just
lest any should stumble at this that the Promise here made Gen. 12. was not confirmed till Abraham was circumcised he is to remember that St. Paul expresly teaches the contrary Gal. 3. 17. as I have shewed And I will add the Judgment of a learned Writer upon the place who writes thus That the Gospel was preached to Abraham and the Covenant of Grace revealed to him we have asserted in such full terms in the Context as none can rationally doubt thereof and moreover in verse 17. we have the time of God's establishing this Covenant with him so exactly noted it was saith the Text 430 Years before the giving of the Law viz. on Mount Sinai now the Law was given in a very little time after the Children of Israel came out of Egypt and from the Beginning of the first Promise to Abraham which was Gen. 12. 3. unto that very Night in which the Children of Israel were brought out of their Egyptian Bondage is the Computation of these Years made as will be evident to him that shall diligently compare the Chronologie of those times with the express Testimony of Moses Exod. 12. 41. And it came to pass at the end of 430 Years even the self-same Day it came to pass that all the Host of the Lord went out of the Land of Egypt From the time of the first Promise to the end of Israel's sojourning in the Land of Egypt was 430 Years though their Abode in Egypt was not near so long And hence saith he we collect that in the Transaction of God with Abraham recorded Gen. 12. he did solemnly confirm his Covenant with him although Moses makes not express mention of the term Covenant until occasion be offered Gen. 15. 18. for the Promise there mentioned the Apostle-asserts to be the Covenant confirmed of God in Christ unto Abraham The Sum of all that has been said is this That the Covenant of Circumcision properly taken is not the Covenant of Grace or a Gospel-Covenant nor the Sign thereof Circumcision a Gospel-Ordinance as the Doctor maintains and affirms that Circumcision did seal to its Subjects the same Grace as Baptism does now which cannot stand with Reason because those who had been circumcised should not then have been baptized for Remission of Sins for if Circumcision did seal that Grace to its Subjects why should it be now conferred in Baptism they came to Baptism not as Righteous but as Sinners The Doctor 's long Paraphrase on Rom. 4. is rather destructive of than advantagious to Infant-Baptism For whilst therein he makes Faith yea such as enables Men to walk in the Steps of Abraham ' s Faith the absolute Condition of the Covenant c. he can never make Infants the Sons and Daughters of Abraham by Faith yet he endeavours to do this by telling us that the Faith and Consent of the Father or the Godfather or Congregation under which he was circumcised was believed of old by the Jews to be imputed to the Child as his own Faith and Consent 1 Maccab. 2. 46. They had very good Ground saith he in Scripture for this their Opinion because the Infidelity and Disobedience of the Parents in wilfully neglecting or despising Circumcision was imputed to the Children And to strengthen this Jewish Doctrine he brings Austin with his accommodat illis Mater Ecclesia aliorum pedes ut veniant aliorum cor ut credunt aliorum Linguam ut fateantur To all which very strange Doctrines we reply By the Doctor 's quoting 1 Maccab. 2. 46. it appears that the Cannonical Books would afford no Relief for these Jewish Fables And he that looks upon the place in Maccabees can find no ground to say that the Jews there did circumcise any Children upon the Faith of Parents or God-fathers for they did not stay for Consent of Parents but circumcised them valiantly or by Force as in the Margin which I take to be a bad Precedent to be brought into the Christian Church tho God knows they have been too forward in such violent Proceedings And no less strange and unsound is his Interpretation of Gen. 17. 14. where he would make the Sin of Parents to be imputed to the uncircumcised Infant In which he is not so well advised as some Papists and contrary to the Doctrine of Learned Protestants who both in this case acquit the Infant both from Sin and Punishment Cajetan tho a Papist speaks well Consentaneum est saith he It is fit that none should be punished but they which had committed the Fault but Infants can commit no Fault therefore the Punishment here design'd doth belong only to the grown Persons for they only are justly punished who only are justly blamed for the omission of Circumcision And Dr. Willit a Protestant speaks to the same sense It is no good reading saith he to say the uncircumcised Manchild but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Male for the Infant of eight Days old is of purpose omitted here though mentioned ver 12. Hence then is inferred that there was no such absolute necessity of Circumcision that Children wanting it should be damned And saith Mr. Diodate This is not to be understood of Children but of those who by reason of their Age were capable of voluntary Rebellion refusing or contemning the use of the Sacrament As for Augustin his Church accommodating Infants with others Feet to come to be baptized and with the Hearts of others to believe and the Tongues of others to confess it shews that in his Judgment Baptism ought not to be given but where 't is sought for and where there is Faith and Confession going before it But that one may do these things for another that is one believe and another to be baptized we will answer it as Jerom did another case Non credimus quia non legimus We cannot find it ought to be so neither in the Old Testament nor in the New and therefore we believe it not And let the Doctor consider whether upon such Presumptions as these he may not allow the Feet Heart and Mouth of others for the Dead that they also may be baptised from 2 Maccab. 12. 43 44. The Truth is should we admit the Dictates of the Doctor in this and many Parts of his Book it cannot be avoided but that many Innovations and Superstitions used by the Papists and others would obtrude upon us In page 6 7. the Doctor tells us That the Gentiles who were born of Gentiles in Abraham ' s House or bought with Mony as Servants were and Blacks are now among us were the spiritual Seed of Abraham and Children of the Covenant And thus also he makes the Medes Persians and Idumeans to be constituted in the Jewish Church by Regeneration as the Church Christian is and calls them the Spiritual Seed of Abraham because they were turned Jews and lived according to the Ceremonies of the Law. Which how uncertain these Dictates are may be seen when we consider that St. Paul
quoting the Text thus In whom also they are circumcised with the Circumcision made without Hands in putting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ Having been buried with him in Baptism Does not the Doctor by this Addition to the Text assert the thing which he would deny or else denies what Paul asserts for St. Paul does make Circumcision a Shadow or Figure of the Circumcision of Christ made without Hands why else does he call the Work of Grace in the Heart by that Name of Circumcision as he also doth Rom. 2. 29 But the Doctor does refer this Circumcision to Baptism having been buried with him in Baptism but then if this be his meaning Circumcision must needs have something in it umbratical of Baptism which yet he denies and therein contradicts Mr. Philpot who affirms even Baptism to be the Circumcision made without Hands The Truth is this Text can never be made serviceable to infant-Infant-Baptism as Mr. Philpot and the Doctor would have it seeing no more are here said to be baptized than had put off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh Nor as we have it Rom. 6. no more are here buried with Christ in Baptism than were dead with him And this alone might serve to shew that God expects not that Infants should be baptized seeing they can neither die to Sin nor rise to Newness of Life and to what purpose they should be buried before they be dead no good reason can be shewed Here we are told again that Circumcision was a real Consignation of the Covenant of Grace every way as real and substantial an Ordinance as Baptism is now It is only called a Seal in the special case of Abraham And if it was every way as real and substantial as Baptism is now to what end were the Circumcised baptized also in the Jewish Church as the Doctor says they were And why does Paul call it a beggarly Element And how could it be the Yoke of Bondage or the Obligation to it and a Seal of the Covenant of Grace too A Seal or Sign of the Covenant of Grace frees Men from the Yoke of Bondage and of this Evangelical Baptism is a real and substantial Consignation where the Subject is qualified for it Had Circumcision been such a real and sustantial Ordinance to consign the Covenant of Grace it would not have ceased if St. Paul's Argument hold Heb. 10. 1 2. But it is abolished as well as other Ceremonies of the Law which is a sign it did not make the Comers thereunto perfect any more than the other Legal Ceremonies Whereas had it consign'd the Covenant of Grace more could not be expected from a ritual to make the Subjects of it perfect And this Perfection have the Ordinances of the Gospel as we have shewed before but here the Ceremonies of the Law failed CHAP. III. Wherein the Doctor 's first Question is answered viz. Whether Infants are capable of Baptism THE Doctor counts it Rashness to deny Infants to be capable of Baptism and saith Nothing can reflect more Dishonour upon the Wisdom of God and the Practice of the Jewish Church And the Sum of what he brings to prove them capable of Baptism is to repeat what he has said before about the Identity of the Covenant of Circumcision and that which is made with us in the Gospel and concludes that because Infants were admitted to Circumcision therefore they are to be admitted to Baptism and affirms that Circumcision was as spiritual an Ordinance as Baptism yea that it was a Gospel-Ordinance If therefore I repeat the same things which I have said before the Reader will I hope hear with that for Answer then I say though we deny not but that the Covenant of Circumcision did comprehend all those Dignities which pertain'd to Abraham for the Greatness of his Faith to be the Father of many Nations yet every Man that reads and considers the Tenor of the Covenant as set down Gen. 17. may easily see these things belonged to none but him and therefore Circumcision could seal the Righteousness of Faith in those peculiar Promises whether we consider the numerousness of his Seed or that Christ should be born of his Seed and so the Nations blessed in his Seed but to Abraham only because none of these Promises were made to any but to him We have also shewed how and in what respects the Covenant of Circumcision could not be the Covenant of Grace because none but Abraham ' s Family was bound to keep it nor damned no nor blamed if they did not enter into it but the case is otherwise with the Gospel for now God commandeth by the Gospel all Men every where to repent and he that believeth not the Gospel when made known to him shall be damned Can it enter into the Doctor 's Heart to think that all the World was now left under Condemnation without Mercy except Abraham and his Family Surely it was not in the Days of Abraham as it was in the Days of Noah as if God had only found Abraham righteous before him in all the Earth No we have proved there were other righteous Men and some superiour to Abraham himself wherefore God's peculiar Kindness to Abraham did not argue that God had rejected and taken the Covenant of Grace from all the World besides but it is certainly a presumptuous way of arguing that because God made Infants of eight days old capable of Circumcision by his Command to circumcise them that therefore we ought to take them to be capable of Baptism tho we have no Command to baptize them and then fly to the Identity of the Covenants to make it good when there is no Identity at all to be found between them But to concess a little Let us now suppose for Argument sake that the Covenant of Circumcision was the Covenant of Grace as the Doctor would have it yet it will not follow that an Interest in the Covenant of Grace does infer an immediate Right always either to Circumcision or Baptism and this the Doctor must grant because Infants of five six or seven days old had an Interest in the Covenant made with Abraham and yet had no right to Circumcision till the eighth day Also the Infants of the other Patriarchs had an Interest in the Covenant of Grace yet had no right to Circumcision at all Nor could they nor the Patriarchs themselves be cut off from the Covenant of Grace tho they were not circumcised And all the Females of Abraham's Family had Interest in the Covenant of Grace but had no right to Circumcision and the reason was God did not appoint them to be circumcised And yet so foolish have some Nations been as to circumcise Females without any command from God and therefore it s less strange that Men now force on their Superstition of Infant Baptism without God's Command also But what if all the Infants in the World be under the Mercy of
the new Covenant as it respects the Abolition of the condemning Power of Original Sin and Gift of eternal Life as I think whatever the Doctor says at some turns yet he will grant me this at least for the substance of it for all that die in Infancy yet he will not say that all Infants in the World in Abraham's time who were Males ought to be circumcised or that all Infants in the World since Christ's time are to be baptized And therefore suppose the Covenant of Grace before in and since the Law to be the same yet it 's clear that an immediate Right to the Mercy of the Covenant in the sense before explained does not infer an immediate right to partake of Ordinances but some other particular Qualifications and God's Direction must give immediate right to participate of them or else we act and do we know not what Let us then calmly consider what were the necessary Qualifications for Circumcision and what are the necessary Qualifications for Baptism and then we shall soon be able to answer this Question Whether Infants are capable of Baptism Infants Qualifications for Circumcision were these They must be the Seed of Abraham according to the Flesh or born in his House or bought with Money or the Children of Proselytes and they must be Males and they must be eight days old else they could not lawfully be circumcised I say it was not all Infants as such that might lawfully be circumcised but Infants under such Circumstances or Qualifications Wherefore in the next place let us consider the indispensible Qualifications for Baptism And here I shall chiefly make use of that Text Col. 2. 11 12. so much insisted on by the Doctor with its parallel place Rom. 6. 1 2 3. From these Texts it plainly appears that Baptism is a mystical Burial and therefore every one of the faln Race of Mankind which are lawfully baptized are buried with Christ in Baptism So then there is an indispensible Necessity that all who are to be thus buried be first dead for it is directly against these Scriptures and against all Reason and Religion to bury any Person before they be dead The Question therefore is what Death is here meant It cannot be a corporal Death for then none but dead Bodies should be baptized which is absurd Nor can it be a Death in Sin for if that did qualify for Baptism then all unregenerate Persons were fit Subjects for Baptism but that also is absurd It must therefore be a Death to Sin and to the Rudiments of the World. And thus does St. Paul himself expound it How shall we that are dead to Sin live any longer therein Rom. 6. 11. Wherefore reckon your selves to be dead indeed unto Sin but alive unto God. Col. 2. 20. Dead with Christ from the Rudiments of the World. This is that Death which is so absolutely necessary to the Baptismal Covenant that the Doctor knows it to be granted by the Church of England that Repentance whereby we forsake Sin which is the same thing which St. Paul calls a Death to Sin is required of all that are to be baptized Another indispensible Qualification is every Subject of Baptism ought first to be a Child of God by Faith in Christ Jesus or to be a new Creature Hence it is said of the whole Church Militant Ye are all the Sons of God by Faith in Christ Jesus for as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ Gal. 3. And as every Member of this Church is said to be buried with Christ in Baptism so they are said therein to be risen with him through Faith. And to this also the Church of England gives Testimony that Faith is required of all that are to be baptized even such Faith as whereby the Promises of God made in that Sacrament are stedfastly to be believed And that it 's necessary the Party baptized be a new Creature they boldly affirm when they have sprinkled the Infant when perhaps fast asleep that he is born of the Spirit c. And that to be born again is a necessary Qualification for Baptism The Word of God is clear Tit. 3. where Baptism is called the Washing of Regeneration And St. Peter calls it the Answer of a good Conscience And unto this Doctrine all the ancient Writers of Christianity agree with full consent And for Brevities sake as also because Augustine is thought to be as eminent as any of the Fathers that were before him and more eminent then any that did succeed him I will content my self with his Testimony who saith Per fidem renascimur in Baptismate by Faith we are born again in Baptism Serm. 53. And again Primo fides Catholica Christiano necessaria est per ipsum renascimur in baptismate Salutem aeternam impetramus first of all the Catholick Faith is necessary for all Christians by the which in Baptism we are born again to obtain eternal Salvation And that Infants have not Faith he testifies in these Words Si illis minati essent ipsum Baptismum 〈◊〉 susciperent cui videmus cos cum magnis stetibus reluctari From these Premises I think we may safely conclude that Infants are not capable of Baptism for what Man with any Truth or Fairness of Discourse is ever able to bring Infants under these Qualifications or to shew that Baptism may lawfully be administred to Persons of whom we can have no Knowledg nor Evidence from themselves that there is any thing of these Prerequisites to Holy Baptism but as far as they are able Augustine being witness they do oppose and withstand it If Infants were illuminate they would gladly receive Baptism which we see them strive against with great crying Now all that Augustine the Church of England or the Doctor can say in this case amounts but to this That Infants do perform this Repentance and Faith by their Godfathers c. which is so poor an Answer so dellitute of Divine Warrant that it is to be lamented that ever wise Men should satisfy themselves with such a Speech as no Man can know to be true but by all Experience is found to be false insomuch that no Man could ever yet I suppose give Thanks to God for that Faith and Repentance which their Godfathers performed for them nor do the Godfathers themselves know that they do the Infant any good in or by any Supply the Infant does receive from them in respect of Repentance or Faith. But p. 24. the Doctor proceeds thus If the relative Nature of Circumcision considered as a Sacrament was the same under the Law that Baptism is under the Gospel it must needs follow that Children under the Gospel are as capable of this supposing no new Command to exclude them as under the Law they were of that But by the Doctor 's favour we do not exclude Children from Baptism but bring them to it as soon as lawfully we can but we must not make more haste
than good speed nor outrun the Rule which God has given to direct us Now these Words Exclude Infants from Baptism are rather scandalous than pertinent Does the Doctor exclude Children from the Lord's Table because he does not bring them to Communion there in their Infancy sure he does what he can to bring them to obey God in that Ordinance with what speed he lawfully may and so do we in the case of Baptism As for the relative Nature of Circumcision though it was no Absurdity to make Infants Members of the Jewish Church by it when God bad them do so yet had any Man taken upon him to have made them Members of the Church in the old World by such a Sign it would have been absurd enough It was no Absurdity for Abraham to offer up his Son Isaac to slay him with his own Hand when God did command it but it would be Absurdity to purpose for us to do so having no such Command and yet we are to sacrifice all that 's dear to us even our own Lives but it must be in such a way as God requireth This talk therefore of the relative Nature of Circumcision is very vain we say did the Lord require us to baptize our Infants and to give them the Communion there could be no Absurdity in either but then he would have diversified the time for Participation of these Ordinances as he did in the case of Circumcision for the 8th day though it was the precise time for the Admission of Infants yet it was no rule at all to the Adulti Shew now that God has required Baptism at a precise day to the younger sort and prefixed no precise day of Age to the elder sort for thus he did in the Circumcision and the Dispute will soon end Circumcision did relate necessarily to all Servants bought with Mony in Abraham's House as Members of his House but the case is not such in Baptism And it was yet never proved that those Persons who were thus circumcised were to be qualified for it by Faith and Repentance but it rather seems to have been done at first in Abraham's House either in Obedience to Abraham's Authority over them as his Bondmen Servants or Child or else by plain force for seeing Abraham circumcised all his that very day they had little time to have Faith and Repentance wrought in them nor is there one word of Abraham's preaching any thing to them But 't is said He took Ismael his Son and circumcised him and all that were born in his House and all that were bought with Mony every Male the self same day Here was bloody Work and Dr. Willit thinks the Number of the Males was so many that Abraham could not circumcise them in one day and that he used the help of others to do it And what Faith and Repentance could be expected from Ishmael at 13 Years of Age especially considering that he was not the Child of Promise nor to have the Covenant established with him And who will say that Abraham or the Jewish Church either had any Commission from God to teach all Nations circumcising them this way he never went but if he bought any of them them he would and did circumcise And where is the new Birth made the Qualification for Circumcision No Man can give an Instance of it But nothing is more common in the case of Baptism surely the plain Truth in short is this Circumcision did relate generally to a carnal Seed and to a Terrestrial Inheritance but Baptism relates only to a spiritual Seed and a Celestial Inheritance And let not the Doctor reflect upon us as he does p. 27. but we pray the Doctor to consider whether God was not as wise and had as great Goodness for and care of Infants and others too from Adam to Abraham as from Abraham till Christ's time And yet the Doctor knows there was no outward sign appointed for initiating Infants as the Doctor speaks and wherein does it appear that God was more gracious to Infants by or through Circumcision than he was to the Infants of the other Patriarchs The Fathers tell us as quoted by learned Protestants that Circumcision did not profit the Soul of the Infant nihil animae Circumcisionem illum profuisse Chrysost Hom. 39. in Gen. And yet the Wisdom of God was great in appointing Circumcision so early seeing it must be the Mark to distinguish the Family of which Christ should be born c. for the pain was more easy to be born in Infancy than when they attained to Manhood Neither is it by any means to be supposed that God by giving this Ceremony to Abraham c. did neglect all the Infants in the World as to the Business of Salvation which I must mention because the Doctor ever and anon is dropping such Passages as may deceive his Reader with such Apprehensions though I am sure the Doctor does believe no such thing He was still the God of the Spirits of all Flesh and all Infants were still his Offspring and never rebelling against him his gracious Nature would not suffer them to perish without Remedy and Remedy they could have none by Circumcision for it was not appointed for them And indeed to conceit our selves that our wise and good God should make either Circumcision or Baptism or any other Ritual necessary to the Salvation of poor dying Infants is a poor low conceit of God and contrary to all Rules which he has given to Men to extend Mercy or Justice For seeing it is not possible for them to have the one or the other but at the Will of others God's ways are so equal that he will never punish them for want of either but the Truth is he required the first but of a few in comparison and the latter not so much as of one Infant whence then is there such a quoil about Infant-Baptism One great Pretence of the Doctor for Infant-Baptism is taken from the ends of Baptism some of which he will have Infants to be capable of and therefore to be baptized This is the sum of what he says in a multitude of Words in several Pages But upon a right Discovery of the ends of Baptism as they are really such his Antecedent will vanish The Ends of Baptism be they what they will are to be considered in such a sense as that ordinarily without Baptism such things cannot be obtained And of these ends Remission of Sins and Eternal Life are the principal Acts 2. 38. Mark 16. 16. Now where ever or upon whomsoever God calls for Obedience in Holy Baptism as the way in which these Ends are by them to be obtained there the Duty of Baptism being refused these Ends are lost as appears in the Case of the Pharisees and Lawyers Luke 7. 29. They rejected the Counsel of God against themselves being not baptized Now I deny that Remission of Sins and Eternal Life are propounded to or in the Case of Infants as the
pass from a State of Nature wherein he was a Child of Wrath to a State of Adoption of Grace wherein he becomes a Child of God p. 64. But is the Doctor sure that Infants are now Children of Wrath that is liable to Condemnation Sure whatever their state was in the first Adam yet they are acquitted from Damnation by the Mercy of God in the second Adam for the Lamb which was slain from the the Foundation of the World has taken away the Sin of the World from innocent Babes so that they are not the Objects of God's Wrath but they are Objects of his Grace and Mercy see Jonah 4. 11. Who would think that so wise a Man should believe that the Adoption of Grace is regulated by Water-Baptism or that it must needs wait on him when he sprinkles an Infant for saith he By that Solemnity they may pass from a State of Nature c. Now we teach and believe thus that the Adoption of Grace goes before Water Baptism And so taught the Apostle Paul Gal. 3. 26 27. We are all the Sons of God by Faith in Christ Jesus And then it follows As many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ But I think the Doctor comes very near the Papists opus operatum in what he here asserts concerning infant-Infant-Baptism His fourth Benefit That Infants have Baptism for a Sign and Seal that their Sins are pardoned and to confer the Right of Inheritance unto everlasting-Life That Baptism washes Infants clean from Original Sin and seals the Pardon of it and the Assurance of God's Mercy unto them and being cleansed by the Washing of Regeneration from the Guilt of that natural Vitiosity which they derived from Adam and which made them obnoxious to the Displeasure of God they become reconcil'd to him and acquire as certain a right to Eternal Life upon their Justification as any Believer in the World. Now had the Doctor proved all this daintily out of the Book of God I should have thought him the finest Man that ever wrote about Infant Baptism but when he puts me off with Origen Irenaeus c. I am displeased and must only take him for a very Bold Man but no certain Oracle However he is pleased to add which was very needful for him in this place That he cannot deny but Infants may be saved without Baptism by the extraordinary and uncovenanted Mercies of God. Well here is some comfort for unbaptized Infants But who can think that the Covenant of Grace should not reach poor Infants in the case of Salvation without Baptism but if any of them that are not baptized be saved it must be by extraordinary and uncovenanted Mercy These are new and strange Doctrines and so let them be The Covenant of Grace was made with whole Adam Gen. 3. 15. And therefore as Infants without their own consent or any act of their own and without any exterior Solemnity contracted the Guilt of Adam's Sin and so are liable to all the Punishment which can with Justice descend upon his Posterity who are personally innocent so Infants shall be restored without any Solemnity or Act of their own or any other Men for them by the SECOND ADAM by the Redemption of Jesus Christ by his Righteousness and Merits applied either immediately or how or when he pleaseth to appoint Dr. Taylor His fifth Benefit That Infants are by Baptism admitted into Covenant and ingrafted into Christ's Body to acquire a present Right to all Promises of the Gospel and particularly unto the Promises of the Spirit which is so ready to assist initiated Persons This the Primitive Christians he durst not say Infants found true by Experience c. He quotes no Scripture for all this but Heb. 6. 4. which how well it agrees to Infants let the Reader consider I am perswaded the Doctor was so sensible of the Unapplicableness of these things to Infants that he durst not name them but Persons all along but seeing he must mean Infants the very recital of his Sayings is the Confutation of them For can he give so much as one Instance of an Infant that received the Holy Spirit upon its being baptized And why then does he presume to speak what neither he nor any Man else can ever prove to be true Nay he tells us in this very page for he is too wise a Man I hope to face out a Fable he confesses that the Holy Ghost cannot be actually conferred ûpon Infants in Baptism by reason of their natural Incapacity And yet being loth to let the Cudgles fall it 's notorious how faintly he goes on in this and the next Page 66 67. at last concludes in a kind of an Angry Huff saying No Person of common Ingenuity who hath any sense of Honour or any tollerable Degree of Conscience within him can without Shame and Horror break these sacred Bands asunder by which he was bound to God in Infancy But good Sir consider we do not spurn against the good Intentions of our Parents in designing us to the Service of God tho we justly disallow the irregular Methods which they fell into in so doing Your Predecessors had their Consecration in Infancy by Spittle Salt Candles Exufflations c. You do not think that they were bound to ratify these Follies when they came to Years And truly so neither can we ratify your Sprinklings Crossings Gossips c. in your Consecrations though so far as you mean well we may not despise but commond and also do now that part of God's Will which our Parents mistake would have prevented A due Regard to Vzzah's case and David's Reformation thereupon obliges us to this But now we are to hear from the Doctor what Profit Infant-Baptism brings to the Church of God. The first he says it prevents those Scandals and shameful Delays of Baptism which otherwise grown Persons would be apt to make c. To this I must needs say If any thing without the Word of God would induce me to baptize Children this Consideration of the Doctor would as soon prevail as any thing for God knows this Duty is shamefully neglected by many whose Duty it is to hasten to it But we must not do Evil that Good may come We may not do what God does not command because Men will not do what he does command And tho it be true that Men will need as many Exhortations to be baptized and perhaps more than to come to the Lord's Supper yet all this must not discourage us nor force us to innovate Methods of our own and leave what God has prescribed If the faithful Minister labour in vain some times yet his Work is with the Lord Isai 49. 4. But I cannot as the Doctor does applaud the Wisdom of those who to prevent Mens Delay of Baptism ran into another Extream by which the Church however she may be more numerous yet by this means the Grace of Baptism is destroyed or made unnecessary to Baptism because
Jews had such a Ceremony as Baptism among them before John Baptist came And in this Enquiry we will prefer a Learned Protestant of the Church of England who writes thus As to their Argument who would have our Baptism to be derived from the Jewish Lotions as there is nothing of certainty in it so it is so far from being grounded on any Authority in Scripture that there are hardly any Footsteps to be found thereof in the Old Testament They deduce the Original of Baptism from the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to wash or cleanse But the Rabbins if I am not deceived use the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies Immersion thereby making it appear that they owe the Notion of the Word to the Greeks or rather to the Christians For what affinity is there between Lotion and Immersion But the thing is so uncertain that it cannot be said of the Rabbins that there were not several among them who differed very much about this matter For in the very place cited by the forementioned Learned Men Rabbi Eliezer expresly contradicts Rabbi Joshua who was the first that I know of who asserted this sort of Baptism among the Jews Now to whom shall I give credit To Eliezer who asserts what the Scripture confirms meaning that Proselytes were not baptized or to Joshua who affirms what is no where to be found in Scripture meaning this pretended Baptism is not to be found in Scripture But the Rabbins upheld Joshua's side and what wonder was it for it made for their business that is for the Honour of the Jewish Religion That the Christians should borrow their Ceremonies how imprudent then is the Author of the Book we are answering to give this Advantage to the Jews against the Christians But when I see Men of great Learning fetching the Foundation of Truth from the Rabbins I cannot but hesitate a little For whence was this Talmud sent to us that we should give so much credit thereto for the Talmud is called a Labyrinth of Errors and the Foundation of Jewish Fables This is then a Fault in the Church of England Doctors to fly hither for Refuge for Infant-Baptism It was brought to Perfection 500 years after Christ This shews the danger of trusting to it it being so lately confirmed Therefore it is unreasonable to rest upon the Testimony of it And that which moves me most Josephus who was also a Jew and contemporary with Rabbi Eliezer who also wrote in particular of the Rites Customs and Acts of the Jews is altogether silent in this matter He knew no baptising of Infants among the Jews So that it is an Argument to me next to a Demonstration that two such eminent Persons both Jews and living at the same time the one should positively deny the other make no mention of Baptism among the Jews Besides if Baptism in the modern sense were in use among the Jews in antient times why did the Pharisees ask John Baptist Why dost thou baptize if thou be not Christ nor Elias nor that Prophet Do they not plainly intimate that Baptism was not in use before and that it was a received Opinion among them that there should be no Baptism till either Christ or Elias or that Prophet came How then there should be so much affinity between Baptism and the Divings of the Jews that the one should be successive to the other by any Right or Pretence is altogether I confess beyond my Faith. It appears from this learned Man's Discourse that there is no Certainty that the Jews had any such Baptizing of Infants or others as the Doctor pretends However God having appointed no such thing in the Jewish Church leaves such a Practice if they had it without any Authority to govern Christians in their Administration of Baptism Nor do we who assert the Ordinance according to the Scripture need to run for Counsel to the Jews Talmud Gemara and Maimonides And indeed it looks too much like going to the Witch of Endur and to Baalzebub the God of Ekron for Knowledg as if there were not sufficient Instruction in the undoubted Word of God how or to whom to dispence the first Ordinance of the Gospel to a poor Convert And it is a sure sign that the Doctor and all that make such a noise about this Rabbinical Learning to justify them in the case of infant Baptism are conscious to themselves that they have no sure Footing in God's Word for it And yet so partial are our Talmudists that they will not follow its Directions for the manner of Baptism which as Dr. Hammond shews is commonly expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Immersion never by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Aspersion or Sprinkling for such as will not be true to the Rules given in the Holy Scripture how should they be true to any other Book One thing I marvel at p. 20. where the Doctor tells his Reader that the Anabaptists endeavour to shift off the force of many good Arguments by saying Circumcision under the Old Testament was a Type of Baptism under the New. For this I take to be a great Mistake of the Doctor I never heard of any whom he calls Annabaptists who hold Circumcision to be a Type of Baptism at all But I have met with divers of the Church of England who have affirmed it to be a Type of Baptism so that all that the Doctor says upon this Mistake about which he spent some Pages is nothing to the purpose For we own no other Antitype of Circumcision but the Circumcision of the Heart called the Circumcision of Christ made without Hands But had he minded well his own Book he might have seen Mr. Philpot asserting the thing which he would charge upon us where he saith The Apostles did attemperate all their doings to the Shadows and Figures of the Old Testament Therefore it is certain they did attemperate Baptism to Circumcision and baptize Children because they were under the Figure of Baptism for the People of Israel passed through the Red-Sea c. Where I think he makes both Circumcision and passing through the Sea to be Shadows and Types of Baptism which is yet more evident because a little before he tells us that Paul calls Baptism the Circumcision made without Hands Which though it be not true seeing all Men know and Mr. Philpot cannot deny but Baptism is made by Hands yet it shews that he looked upon Baptism to be the Antitype of Circumcision But I shall not fight with dead Men otherwise I might shew his Mistake in saying that the Apostles did attemperate all their Doings to the Shadows and Figures of the Old Testament but this we have shewed before to be an unsound Speech The Doctor seems to deal unfairly with Col. 2. 11 12. Circumcision saith he hath nothing in it symbolical of Baptism and denies it to be an umbratical but areal Consignation of the Covenant of Grace