INfants were diversified by the Covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17. and so still may be by the Will of Christ, all not be­ing the Seed of Abraham.

My Argument, pag. 3. was Ad Hominem, as appears there, and by my Postscript; and saith only, [That Infant-Baptism is not expresly forbid­den, therefore either it is lawful, or else Scripture-Consequences must be admitted,] which is undeni­able. It was occasioned by my being told in a Conference, that there should be express Scri­pture in such a Case; therefore it was not my Mistake. Neither is my Argument answered by saying, as he doth, p. 2. [There is no express Scripture for Infant-Baptism, therefore Infant-Ba­ptism may be omitted.] This is false; for there is no express Scripture for Women's Receiving the Lord's Supper, and divers other things, yet they may not be omitted, because by Scripture-Consequences, rightly deduced, they are requi­red. And hence I can subscribe to every Word which he mentions of that Author of our own, p. 2. and to Tertullian's Rule; I am of the same Mind; there is nothing therein against my Ar­gument, and I can easily withstand any Innova­tion which is not expresly forbidden in Scri­pture; [Page 2] for I think things may be commanded or for­bidden by good Scripture-Consequence: And it was and is my Judgment, that all in the Worship of God must be commanded there, either expresly, or by necessary Consequence.

Thus Mr. Grantham, at his first beginning with me, and frequently after, by a multitude of im­pertinent Words, would make his incautelous Reader believe, that I bring Scriptures for one purpose, which are brought for another. As, p. 4. I bring Act. 8. 3. and 9. 1. to prove that to be a Church-Member is, in Scripture, to be a Disciple; whereas he would have it believed, that I thereby would immediately prove Infants Disciples, p. 4. So the Scriptures by which I prove, p. 5. that the Name [Holy] is given to Father, Son and Spirit, as, 1 Pet. 1. 15. Lev. 19. 2. and 20. 7. Heb. 7. 26, &c. he, p. 5, 6, 7. would make the Reader believe, that I bring them immediately to prove Infants discipled. And the like use he maketh, p. 6, 7. of the Scri­ptures whereby I prove, p. 5. that the Name [Holy] is given to the Church and its Members. So that, either from great Ignorance or Inadver­tency, he may blush that he beats the Air, and abuseth me.

As to my first Argument, That some Infants are discipled so as to have the Name of Trinity upon them.

At last, he denieth my Antecedent; saying, That no Infants are discipled at all, much less so as to have the Name of Father, Son and Spirit upon them.

In Answer, I evidenced it various ways: They are said to be [holy,] and so are discipled: [Page 3] God hath put his Name upon them before their Baptism, though it is solemnly signalized and de­clared after, when they are baptized.

His first Reason, p. 3. from Act. 10. 28. is an­swered in my Book, p. 49, 50, 51. I grant there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile, but those of both who are visibly in Covenant (whe­ther Adult, or Infants) are more clean than o­thers who are out of Covenant; and are a holy People, differenced from others, if not by Qua­litative, yet by Relative Holiness in Church-state, Rom. 11. 16. 1 Pet. 2. 9. as of old, and nothing here against it.

As to his second Reason, I say, Men, by the Word of God, are to be instrumental to bring Men within the Covenant, which extendeth to their Seed; therefore also to make Infants Dis­ciples. Some may be made Disciples without actual teaching, or learning; as we put Chil­dren to School, who at first learn nothing. Learned Spanhemius well observeth, [...], non significat solum docere, sed Discipulos facere, & aequipollet, [...], Joh. 4. 2. Dub. Evang. Par. 3. p. 93. giving Reasons for it.

I do not say, that all who are under Means for Instruction (though Persecutors) are Disci­ples, but all who are in the School of Christ's Church; of which, some are Infants. The In­fant-Seed of Believing Jews were in it (by Co­venant, Gen. 17. and so, when that was spoken, Matth. 28. 19. (not being broken off till after­ward;) and so also the Seed of Believing Gen­tiles.

I proved some Infants to be Disciples, from Act. 15. 10. He denies that every one were Dis­ciples [Page 4] whom they would have circumcised, yet proves it not. But all which the Apostle bla­meth them for imposing Circumcision practical­ly upon, are called by him Disciples, and these were principally Infants, Gen. 17. 10, 11, 12. Will he say, they were not blamed for laying Circumcision upon Infants? His Instance of In­fant-Sprinkling is not parallel, because Infant is not a Genus for all that we would have baptized.

I proved, some Infants had the Name of the Trinity upon them, 1 Cor. 7. 14. they are [holy.] This Holiness he takes for being Legitimate, but answers not what I said against it; nor doth he prove all to be holy that are legitimate.

[Else,] i. e. Say some, If one be not a Belie­ver; or [else,] if the Unbeliever were not san­ctified to or by the Believer, then the Children were unclean, not illegitimate: For where there is no Sanctification of one, to or by the other, but both are Infidels or Unbelievers, yet the Children are legitimate, Heb. 13. 4. are no Ba­stards. The being [holy] then must be by a Se­paration unto God.

There is no Good in Sin, but it becometh of humbling and abasing use to the Soul, and so ac­cidentally is turned by God to Good to it; which I suppose Mr. C. intendeth, by its being sancti­fied to. And this is no new Doctrine, but as old as the Days of Hezekiah, 2 Chron. 32. 25, 26. and Paul, 1 Tim. 1. 13.

And if all Infants be in a visible State of Salva­tion by the Covenant of Grace, as Mr. Grantham saith they are, p. 19. then they have the Name of the Trinity upon them, for the Covenant is a part of his Name, and so they are discipled; and what [Page 5] hinders their being baptized? Doth not Matth. 28. 19 command it?

He thinks then they ought to partake of the Lord's Table. But are they as capable of Self-Examination, and of that Eating and Drinking, and Spiritual Growth, as they are of being washed?

As to my second Argument, from some Infants being visibly or externally in the Covenant made with Abraham:

Obj. He premiseth, that the Covenant of Grace with Abraham was Twenty four Years before Cir­cumcision: Others under it, as Salah,— not so cir­cumcised: And others were, to whom the Covenant of Grace seems to have the least extent, as Ishmael, Esau, Bond-men,—p. 9.

Then if by Covenant, Mr. P. means the Cove­nant of Circumcision and Infants of Christians, or the Covenant of Grace, Gen. 12. he denies the Mi­nor: But if Infants be in a visible State of Salva­tion, yet he denieth the Consequence of the Major, that they are to be baptized, p. 10.

Ans 1. The Covenant of Grace was made and published before Abraham, Gen. 3. 15. and those might have Salvation by it through Christ; as Salah, Arphaxad.—Then the Church was Do­mestical, but no such clear Declaration of the Subjects, and their Church-state and Privilege, in a Community of many Families for publick Worship and Ordinances; no such Sign or To­ken of the Covenant for Infants, till Circumci­sion was granted, Gen. 17. And after that Grant to Abraham, all good Men that could were ob­liged to joyn with him, or his Seed, as the only Church in such Order then in the World, as [Page 6] they would enjoy such Church-Privileges: Wit­ness his Servants which were Professors, v. 13. Gen. 18. 19. and the Proselytes, Exod. 12. 48, 49. Isa. 56. 3, 6.

2. I mean that Covenant which Circumcision was a Token of, Gen. 17. v. 7, to 15.

Indeed, This is the same Covenant, for sub­stance, with that, Gen. 12. but in a new Edition; with a Declaration of the ancient Subjects, and an Enlargement of Privileges, as aforesaid, which expresly extended to the Infant-Seed, Gen. 17. 7, 9, 12 In the same Covenant and Breath, Abra­ham himself, and also his Seed, are commanded to be circumcised; and that as a Token of the Covenant between God and him, v. 9, 10, 11. He and his Seed then were in the same Cove­nant, and Circumcision was of the same use to him and others: And that Covenant was not on­ly for Circumcision and the Land of Canaan, but that (at least visibly) God would be a God to them; and there is a double Assurance thereof, v. 7, 8. and that clearly was a Covenant of Grace, and is still continuing; for it was to him a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, Rom. 4. 11.

It is then his gross Mistake, to think that the Covenant, Gen. 12. is one, and that, Gen. 17. a­nother distinctione. Indeed, the Sign Circum­cision is ceased, but the Covenant is not repeal­ed, as to the Subject of it, Infants: This cannot be proved. 'Tis true, some did forfeit their vi­sible, external Interest in the Covenant, as Ish­mael and Esau; and so may Professors of the Go­spel also, after duly baptized: But they were so in Covenant before, as it had been broken if the Token had been neglected, or not applied, Gen. 17. 14.

[Page 7] 3. At last, he denieth the Consequence of the Ma­jor; which is to say, That though some Infants be visibly or externally in the Covenant which God made with Abraham, yet by the Will of Christ they are not to be baptized.

I am glad to hear Men of this Persuasion con­fess Infants within that Covenant; which indeed they must do, or else shew a Repeal of that Co­venant, as to the Subjects of it, which I think they can never prove. But I am sorry this Man granteth Infants being in that Covenant upon such a corrupt, unscriptural Principle, viz. That all Infants are in a visible State of Salvation by the Covenant of Grace; he must say by the Co­venant with Abraham, if he deny my Major, which is grounded upon that; and it will be impossible for him to prove all Infants in the World to be the Seed of Abraham, that in the very mention­ing of it importing a Limitation.

The ground of his Denial is, p. 10. upon a great Mistake, viz. that the Covenant of Grace must be abstracted from the Covenant of Circumci­sion; whereas that which Circumcision is an­nexed to (as I have proved) is the Covenant of Grace, only in a new Edition. Also he saith, [That never required the Application of any Ceremo­ny to Infants, as a Pledge of it, either before the Law, or as it is now established—in the Gospel.]

All which is false; for Circumcision was such a Pledge and Token of the Covenant, to be ap­plied to Infants, above Four hundred Years be­fore the Law, Gal. 3. 17. and so Baptism under the Gospel, Act. 2. 38, 39. for that is command­ed upon that Ground and Encouragement, that the Promise is to them; and that is there to a [Page 8] double Subject [You Repenters, and your Seed,] and so to Infants, and so they are commanded to be baptized. All that are under the Ground and Encouragement unto the Duty of being baptized, are obliged to the Duty; and some Infants are under that, for the Promise is to them.

Gen. 17. speaketh not expresly of Baptism, but it commandeth the Keeping the Covenant by ap­plying the Token of it, which now is not Cir­cumcision, but Baptism; and so commandeth that even to Infants, seeing they are in the Co­venant, as aforesaid; and there is no Scripture-Warrant to delay the applying that first Token of it after Opportunity is offered. If it were li­mited (as Circumcision was) to the Eighth Day, it might be delayed till then, but now may be applied before. The Females were uncapable, wanting the part, and yet were deemed circum­cised in the Males, for all Israel are called the Circumcision: Which answers his p. 9, 10, 11, 12.

It still runs there in his Head, that all I say is brought forthwith to prove Infant-Baptism; whereas I prove other Mediums in order to it. Thus, p. 8. I mention Heb. 10. 16, 17. only to prove Remission of Sins to be a great Blessing of the Covenant: He, p. 11. dreams that I must mean it of Infants.

So I mention the Second Commandment, as requiring the observing Gospel-Institutions, as Baptism after the alteration of the Sign, as of old it required Circumcision: He fancieth, that I produce it presently to prove Infant-Baptism.

So I, p. 41. mention Matth. 16. 18. Rom. 16. 16, 1 Cor. 12. 27. &c. to prove that the Church is Christ's: He, p. 13. conceiteth, that I would [Page 9] hereby prove Infants visibly Christ's; which I do by other Mediums. And here he talketh that Infants may be saved who were never baptized, which was not there my Business.

I am weary of his Impertinencies, but hope that by serious reading my Book, any judici­ous Person will have enough there to answer him.

Abraham had an Ecclesiastical Seed, even of In­fants, Gen. 17. The Infant-Seed of Jews were broken off with their Parents, from external In­terest in, and Privilege by the Covenant, Rom. 11. unless he can prove the Infants remained in Covenant still.

The Seed of Believers are visibly under the Promise, the Word of Faith, as the Seed of o­thers are not, and so are of the Faith.] I see no­thing to invalidate what I said thereof.

I said, Infants Interest in the Covenant, Gen. 17. is not cut off.

Instead of proving a Repeal, and the Cutting them off, without which, all that he or others say is nothing, he replieth,

Obj. 1. Infants had as good Right to the Covenant of Grace before Circumcision, and have the same Right now, v. 17, 18.

Ans. And what if they had, and have it? That is for me, not against me. But, under favour, Cir­cumcision was a new Privilege, which Infants had not before, Gen. 17.

However, this doth not prove them cut off from any, but the contrary.

Obj. 2. No Person's Right to Circumcision did a­rise out of the Covenant of Grace, but it did only issue from the Command of God, p. 17.

[Page 10] Ans. 1. Here is no Syllable to prove that Infant-Interest in the Covenant, Gen. 17. is cut off: Some Infants certainly had it, and so must still, unless there be a Repeal.

2. The Command is express to all the Seed of A­braham, to keep the Covenant by applying the Token: And Infants are expresly concerned in that Com­mand, Gen. 17. 9, 10, 11, 12. and so all Infants within that Covenant are under that Command still, unless cut off. 'Tis true, the Sign of Circum­cision is changed, but the Covenant is the same, and the Subject of it the same: So that whether the Right ariseth from the Covenant, or from the Command, or both, it matters not; all his Seed, Infants and all in it, by the Command, are to pass under the Sign: And Circumcision then being a Token of the Covenant, the Right to it must arise from the Covenant, although a Command was the Direction for applying the Sign.

Obj. 3. As Circumcision did not give Abraham' s Seed an Interest in the Covenant of Grace, so the A­brogation did not take that Interest from them: He instanceth in the delay of it to Moses his Child, the Omission Forty Years in the Wilderness:—Infants now have no part in the Covenant of Circumcision, yet they lost nothing by it. And then he speaketh of the Typical Covenant of Circumcision being made void, p. 17, 18.

Ans. 1. Who saith that Circumcision did give them Interest in the Covenant of Grace? Rather a being in that Covenant gave Interest in Circum­cision, which was a Token of it. Moses his delay­laying of Circumcision was his Sin, Exod. 4. 24, 25, 26. and had like to have cost him his Life; [Page 11] and Israel's Omission of it was their Sin. And is it no Loss, in Mr. Grantham's Account, to be cut off from External Privileges, unless Men be wholly cut off from the Covenant of Grace, and the Salvation thereof? Is it nothing for God to say, Loami? The Taking away Circumcision was a Mercy, the Lord giving Baptism in lieu of it; but if he had taken away that, and all Church-Privilege, and External Covenant-Interest also, from Infants, which once they had, it must needs be a great Loss, an unspeakable Disadvantage, a sore Judgment.

2. Now he declareth that Covenant which Circum­cision did belong to, void, and distinguished from the Covenant of Grace, and calleth it a Typical Cove­nant: But not one Syllable of Scripture-Evidence for any such thing: We must believe it, if he will, because ipse dixit. Here he should have proved a Repeal of that Covenant with Abra­ham; and not having done this, he hath done no­thing. I believe that the Covenant, Gen. 17. wherein twice God declareth himself a God to the Seed of Abraham, v. 7, 8. the Sign whereof, Circumcision, Abraham received, as a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, Rom. 4. 11. must needs be a Covenant of Grace, no Typical Covenant, nor void; for that Righteousness was not of a Cove­nant only for Canaan, but of Grace, for Eternal Life. And that Abraham received it as a Sign of one Covenant, and his Seed of another, can ne­ver be proved: The contrary is plain, viz. that both had it by the same Command and Cove­nant, Gen. 17. 9, 10, 11.

But now Mr. Grantham, p. 19, 20, &c. findeth a Medium by a new Position, viz.

[Page 12] Posit. That all Infants (as such) are in a Visible State of Salvation by the Covenant of Grace, and so are of the Ʋniversal Church of God, and cannot be put out of that blessed State, till by their voluntary de­parture from God, by chusing sinful Ways, they de­stroy themselves.

Ans. If this were true, one would think that all In­fants, without exception, might be baptized, being so in the Covenant of Grace, and of the Church; for then they are made Disciples, and so are expresly com­manded to be baptized, Matth. 28. 19.

I hope Mr. Barret or some other will examine this Position, I shall not now insist long upon it. If never so many Infants be in a State of Salva­tion, or be saved, this is not against my Principle of Infant Baptism: I would not diminish the number of saved Ones; however, I think this to be a false, unscriptural Position.

Obj. He telleth us of five Demonstrations, p. 20, to 24. but all of them come to one poor Argument from the Covenant of Grace, Gen. 3. 15. which he think­eth was made with all Mankind, with the whole World.

Ans. 1. That all Mankind, or the whole World, is this Seed of the Woman with whom the Covenant of Grace was made, is altogether without Proof; and so all his Demonstrations are wholly groundless. Let him but form an Argument from Gen. 3. 15. that is universal, and any may see it will have a Non sequitur.

The utmost here said is, that a Seed of the Wo­man, or some of her Seed, should be saved; but it is not said, All the Woman's Seed, as such, should be saved. His Position should be his Con­clusion of all his Demonstrations▪ viz. That all Infants (as such) are in a visible State of Salvation [Page 13] by the Covenant of Grace. But such a Conclusion hath no Footing in, no Countenance from this Text, not so much as by Consequence. I think I have better than this for Infant-Baptism; and I might say as well, that all their Seed have the Spirit poured out upon them, and the Word in their Mouth, Isa. 44. 3. and 59. 21.

The truth is, Gen. 3. 15. cometh in as a Threat­ning of Punishment or Severity against the Ser­pent, (as any observing Eye may see,) yet imply­ing a Promise of Mercy, attainable by some sin­ning Men, through Christ, a Seed of the Wo­man. Until Adam did take hold of that Promise by Faith in that Seed, Christ, he remained out of Covenant, as others, Ephes. 2. 8, 12. When A­dam was actually and personally admitted into the Covenant of Grace, yet it was not as a com­mon, publick Person, and Head of that Cove­nant, representing all his Seed, as he was before his Fall a Head of the Covenant of Nature; for then Adam's After-Sins against the Covenant would have been imputed to all his Seed, as his former were, against the Covenant of Works, Rom. 5. 12, &c. v. 20.—

Now every individual Man was personally to be in Covenant; and if he derived external Privilege, it was only to his next or immediate Seed.

Hence, if Adam's Infant-Seed might have out­ward Privilege by being his Posterity, (or any be­fore Abraham,) yet if any of them after rejected the Covenant, (as Cain did,) they cast themselves out of that external Privilege, and their Infant-Seed with them. So in after Generations, Hagar, and Ishmael her Seed were cast out, and Esau and [Page 14] his, the Israelites and theirs, Rom. 11. and those were Strangers to the Covenants, Ephes. 2. 12. See also Psal. 37. 28.

I know not that Adam and Eve (two Persons) made a Church: Let Mr. Grantham prove it. But that Promise laid a Foundation for the E­recting a Visible Church afterward.

If Adam's Family was the Church, (as you say,) and the whole World, or all Mankind that then was (and so his Infant-Seed) were Members of it, yet Cain and his Seed were soon rejected; notwithstanding which, many Persons believing in that Seed, Christ, were so saved in after Ge­nerations, through that Promise. But that all Infants of rejected Cain, Ishmael, or Esau were in a visible State of Salvation, and of the Visible Church, or that all dying in Infancy are certainly saved, appeareth not, Gen. 3. 15. Mr. Grantham asserting, it is Presumption without Proof.

2. That Gen. 3. 15. mentioneth a Seed of the Serpent, which is part of the World, as well as the Seed of the Woman, which the Covenant of Grace extendeth to; and hence this Text which he alledgeth is exclusive of some, and so confu­teth his Demonstration. For if there be in it another opposite Seed, then all Mankind, or the whole World, cannot be comprised in the Seed of the Woman, who are under this Promise. Will he say, the Seed of the Serpent are visibly in a State of Salvation, by the Covenant of Grace: Or that they are no part of the World?

3. Only those are this Seed of the Woman, under this Covenant or Promise, who have Enmity against the Serpent, and such Power over him, as to bruise his Head: And this is exclusive of others.

[Page 15] For that is expresly the Qualification of the Seed of the Woman here intended: Yea, the whole of the Promise which here extendeth un­to any of Mankind is, Gen. 3. 15. I will put Enmity between thee and the Woman, and between thy Seed and her Seed; it shall bruise thy Head; the follow­ing Words concern the Serpent, viz. his bruising his Heel. So then, none else are this Seed of the Woman, or visibly in a State of Salvation, by this Covenant, but such in whom is found that Enmity against the Serpent, so as to conflict with, and prevail against him. Therefore this [Seed of the Woman] can be only Christ, 1 Joh. 3. 8. Heb. 2. 14, 15. and such as believe in him; for, 1 Joh. 5. 4. This is the Victory,—even our Faith. Hence the whole World cannot be here intended.

If whole Mankind, yea, all Infants were that Seed of the Woman, then all Infants have En­mity against the Serpent, and then they are ca­pable of, yea have Love to God, and Faith in him, and so may be baptized.

It is the Covenant which I called the great Charter of Heaven, viz. of the God of Heaven: And as others, by denying Infants Interest there­in, do take from it, so let him take heed of ad­ding to it.