349 IN FAVOUR OF INFANT BAPTISM. and fall. But, 2. It is not baptifm that can save them from wrath and condemnation; a person may be baptized in water, and yet not faved from wrath to come, and still lie under the sentence of condemnation, being notwithstanding that, in the gall of bitterness, and bond of inquity, as the cafe of Simon Magus fhews. Though this writer feems to be of opinion, that baptism is a faving ordinance, and that a perfon cannot be faved without it; and indeed he expressly fays, p. 27. that "in general it is neceffary to falvation;" as if falvation was by it, (which is a popish notion) and there was none without it; but the inftance of the penitent thief, is a proof to the contrary: the text does not fay, be that is baptized Shall be faved, but be that BELIEVETH and is baptized; nor is it any where fuggested, that a perfon dying without baptism shall be damned. It is CHRIST Only, and not baptifm, that faves from wrath and condemnation. 3. Being unbaptized, does not leave without an interest in the covenant of grace, or exclude from the hope of falvation, or the mercy of God, or an intereft in Chrift; persons may have an interest in all these, and yet not be baptized. See the ftrange contradictions men run into when deftitute of truth; one while the covenant of grace is faid to be made with believers, and their feed, as in the next argument, and fo their infants being in it, have a right to baptifm; at another time it is baptifm that puts them into the covenant; and if they are not baptized they are left without intereft in it, and, to the great grief of their parents, under a dreadful fentence of eternal condemnation. But, 4. as the falvation of an infant dying in its infancy is one of the fecret things which belong unto the Lord, a judicious christian parent will leave it with him; and find more relief from his diftrefs, by hoping in the grace and mercy of God through Chrift, and in the virtue and efficacy of his blood and righteoufnefs, which may be applied unto it without baptifm, than he can in baptism; which he may observe, may be administered to a person, and yet be damned. For, 5. baptifm is no feal of the covenant of grace, nor does it give any person an intereft in it, or feal it to them; a perfon may be baptized, and yet have no intereft in the covenant, as Simon Magus and others, and to whom it was never sealed; and on the other hand, a person may be in the covenant of grace, and it may be fealed to him, and he affured of his intereft in it, and not yet be baptized: the blood of Chrift is the feal of the covenant, and the Spirit of Chrift is the fealer of the faint's interest in it. And, after all, 6. if baptifm has fuch virtue in it, as to give an intereft in the covenant of grace, to be a fign and promise of mercy, and of our interest in Christ, and furnish out hope of falvation, and fecure from wrath and condemnation, why should not compaffion be fhewn to the children of unbelievers, who are in the same state and condition by nature? for, I obferve all along, that in this and the following arguments,

See Rom. v. 12, 18.

arguments, baptifm is wholly restrained to the children of believers; upon the whole, the argument from the ftate of infants to their baptifm is impertinent and fruitlefs; fince there is no fuch efficacy in baptifm, to deliver them from it. The second argument is: "The children of believers should be admitted to baptifm, fince as the covenant of works, and the feal of it belonged to Adam "and his children, fo the covenant of grace, and the feal thereof belongs, through Chrift, to believers and their children:" to which it may be replied, 1. That it is indeed true, that the covenant of works belonged to Adam and his pofterity, he being a federal head unto them; but then it does not appear, that that covenant had any feal belonging to it, fince it needed none, nor was it proper it should have any, feeing it was not to continue. And if the tree of life is intended, as I fuppofe it is, whatever that might be a fign of, it was no feal of any thing, nor did it belong to Adam's children, who were never fuffered to partake of it. 2. There is a great difparity between Adam and believers, and the relation they stand in to their respective offspring: Adam stood as a common head and representative to all his pofterity; not fo believers to theirs: they are no common heads unto them, or reprefentatives of them; wherefore though the covenant of works belonged to Adam and his pofterity, it does not follow, that the covenant of grace belongs to believers and their children, they not standing in the fame relation he did. There never were but two covenant-heads, Adam and CHRIST, and between them, and them only, the parallel will run, and in this form; that as the covenant of works belonged to Adam and his feed, fo the covenant of grace belongs to Chrift and his feed. 3. As it does not appear there was any feal belonging to the covenant of works, fo we have feen already, that baptifm is not the feal of the covenant of grace; wherefore this argument in favour of infant-baptifm is weak and frivolous; the reason this author adds to ftrengthen the above argument, is very lamely and improperly expreffed, and impertinently urged; "for we are not to imagine, that there is more efficacy "in the covenant of works, to bring condemnation on the children of the unbe"lieving, through the fall of Adam; than there is virtue in the covenant of grace, through the mediation of the fon of God, the fecond Adam, to bring "falvation to the feed of thofe that believe "." For the covenant of works being broken by the fall of Adam, brought condemnation, not on the children of the unbelieving only, but of believers alfo, even on all his pofterity, to whom he stood a federal head; and fo the covenant of grace, of which Chrift the second Adam is the mediator, brings falvation, not to the feed of those that believe, many of whom never believe, and to whom falvation is never brought, nor they

• See the Introduction to the Baptifm of Infants a reasonable Service, &c. to which this is an answer. Rom. v. 15, 18.

to

to that; but to all Chrift's fpiritual feed and offspring, to whom he stands a federal head; which is the fenfe of the paffages of fcripture referred to, and ferves no ways to strengthen the cause of infant-baptifm.

..

The third argument runs thus. "The feed of believers are to be baptized "into the fame covenant with themselves; feeing infants, while infants, as na"tural parts of their parents, are included in the fame threatenings, which are "denounced against wicked parents, and in the fame promises as are made to godly parents, being branches of one root." Here let it be obferved, 1. that it is pleaded that infants fhould be baptized into the fame covenant with their parents, meaning no doubt the covenant of grace; that is, fhould by baptism be brought into the covenant as it is expreffed in Argument 7th, or elfe I know not what is meant by being baptized into the fame covenant; and yet in the preceding argument it is urged, that the covenant of grace belongs to the infants of believers, that is, they are in it, and therefore are to be baptized: an instance this of the glaring contradiction before obferved. 2. Threatenings indeed are made to wicked parents and their children, partly to fhew the heinousness of their fins, and to deter them from them; and partly to exprefs God's hatred of fin, and his punitive juftice; and alfo to point out original fin and the corruption of nature in infants, and what they must expect when grown up if they follow the examples of their parents, and commit the fame or like fins; but what is all this to infant-baptifm; Why, 3. In like manner promifes are made to godly parents and their children, and feveral paffages are referred to in proof of it; fome of thefe are of a temporal nature, and are defigned to ftir up and encourage good men to the difcharge of their duty, and have no manner of regard to any Ipiritual or religious privilege; and fuch as are of a fpiritual nature, which refpect conversion, fanctification, &c. when these take place on the feed of believers, then, and not till then, do they appear to have any right to Gofpel-ordinances, fuch as baptifm and the Lord's fupper; wherefore the argument from promises to such privileges, before the things promised are beftowed, is of no force.

66

The fourth agunment is much of the fame kind with the foregoing, namely, "There are many examples recorded in fcripture wherein the infants of ungodmen are involved with their parents in heavy judgments; therefore as the "judgment and curfe which belong to the wicked, belong alfo to their feed, "fo the privileges of the faints belong alfo to their offspring, unless they reject "the God of their fathers. The justice and wrath of God, is not more extensive

" to

• Rom. xi. 16. Deut. iv. 37, 40. and xxviii. 1—4. and xxx. 6, 19. Pfal. cii. 28. Prov. xi. 21. and xx. 7. Jer. xxxii. 38, 39. Exod. xx. 5. and xxxiv. 7. Deut. xxviii. 15, 18, 45, 46. Pfal. xxi. 10, and cxix. 9. 10. Ifai. xiv. 20, 21. Jer. xxii. 28. and xxxvi. 31.

"to destroy the offspring of the wicked, than his grace and mercy is to fave "thofe of the faithful; therefore baptifm, the fign of the promifes of God's mercy, is not to be denied to fuch infants." The answer given to the former may fuffice for this: to which may be added, 1. That the inflicting judgments on the children of fome wicked men, is an instance of the fovereign justice of God; and his bestowing privileges on the children of fome good men, is an inftance of his fovereign grace, who punishes whom he will, and has mercy on whom he will for, 2. God does not always proceed in this method; he fometimes bestows the bleffings of his grace on the children of the wicked, and inflicts deferved punishment on the children of good men; the feed of the wicked do not always inherit their curfes, nor the feed of the godly their bleffings; wherefore such dispensations of God can be no rule of conduct to us; and particularly with respect to baptifm. And, 3. Whatsoever privileges belong to the feed of believers, we are very defirous they should enjoy; nor would we deprive them of any; let it be fhewn that baptifm belongs to them as fuch, and we will by no means deny it to them. But, 4. Whereas it is faid that the privileges of faints belong to their offspring, adding this exceptive clause, "unless they reject "the God of their fathers;" it seems most proper, prudent and adviseable, particularly in the cafe before us, to wait and fee whether they will receive or reject, follow or depart from the God of their fathers.

The fifth argument is formed thus: "The children of believers are to be bap"tized now, as thofe of the Jews were circumcifed formerly; for circumcifion "was then the feal of the covenant, as baptifm is now, which Chrift has appoint"ed in lieu thereof. Abraham and his fon Ishmael, and all that were born in "his houfe, were circumcifed the fame day; and God commanded all Ifrael to "bring their children into the covenant with them, to give them the feal of it, "and circumcife them." To all which I reply, 1. that circumcifion was no feal of the covenant of grace; if it was, the covenant of grace from Adam to Abraham was without a feal. It is called a fign in Genefis xvii. the paffage referred to, but not a feal: it is indeed in Romans iv. 11. faid to be a feal of the righteousness of the faith, not to infants, not to Abraham's natural feed, only to himself; affuring him, that he should be the father of many nations, in a spiritual fenfe, and that the righteousness of faith he had, fhould come upon the Gentiles wherefore this mark or fign continued until the gofpel, in which the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, was preached unto the Gentiles, and received by them; to which may be added, that there were many living who were interested in the covenant of grace, when circumcifion was appointed, and yet it was not ordered to them; as it would have been, had it been a feal of

f Numb. xiv.33. 2 Kings v. 27 Joshua vii. 24, 25. Jer. xxii. 28. 8 Gen. xvii. Deut. xxix. 10-12, Col. ii. 11, 12.

of that covenant; and on the other hand, it was enjoined fuch who had no intereft in the covenant of grace, and to whom it could not be a seal of it, as Ishmael, Efau, and others. And, 2. it has been fhewn already, that baptism is no feal of the faid covenant. Nor, 3. is it appointed by Chrift in lieu of circumcifion, nor does it fucceed it; there is no agreement between them in their subjects, ufe, and manner of administration; and what most clearly fhews that baptifm did not come in the room of circumcifion, is, that it was in force and use before circumcifion was abolished; which was not till the death of Chrift; whereas, years before that, multitudes were baptized, and our Lord himself; and therefore it being in force before the other was out of date, cannot with any propriety be faid to fucceed it.

This writer, p. 28. has advanced several things to prove that baptifm came in the room of circumcifion.

ift, He argues from the Lord's fupper being instead of the pafchal lamb, that therefore baptifm must be in the room of circumcifion, which is ceased; or elfe there must be a deficiency. But it does not appear that the Lord's fupper is in the room of the paffover; it followed that indeed, in the inftitution and celebration of it by Chrift, but it was not inftituted by him to answer the like purposes as the paffover; nor are the fame perfons admitted to the one as the other; and befides, was the Lord's fupper in the room of the paffover, it does not follow from thence that baptifm must be in the room of circumcifion: but then it is faid there will be a deficiency; a deficiency of what? all thofe ceremonial rites, the passover and circumcifion, with many others, pointed at Chrift, and have had their fulfilment in him; he is come, and is the body and substance of them; and therefore there can be no deficiency, fince he is in the room of them, and is the fulfilling end of them: nor can any other but he, with any propriety, be faid to come in the room of them. And there can be no deficiency of grace, fince he is full of it, nor of ordinances, for he has appointed as many as he thought fit.

2dly, This author urges, that it is proper there fhould be two facraments under the gospel, as there were two under the law, one for adult perfons, the other for their children, as were the pafchal lamb and circumcifion. But if every thing that was typical of Chrift, as thofe two were, were facraments, it might as well be faid there were two and twenty facraments under the law, as two; and, according to this way of reafoning, there fhould be as many under the gospel. Moreover, of these two, one was not for adult perfons only, and the other for their children; for they were, each of them, both for adult perfons and children too; they that partook of the one had a right to the other; all that were circumcifed might eat of the paffover, and none but they; and if VOL. II. this

Z z