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) ... 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 marriage / by Thomas Grantham.

CHAP. III. Wherein the Doctor's first Question is answered, viz. Whether Infants are capable of Baptism? (Book 3)

THE Doctor counts it Rashness to deny Infants to be capable of Bap∣tism, and saith, Nothing can reflect more Dishonour upon the Wis∣dom 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 re∣pent, 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 righte∣ous 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 re∣jected, 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 Com∣mand 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 Bap∣tism: 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 In∣fants 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 Fa∣mily had Interest in the Covenant of Grace, but had no right to Cir∣cumcision; and the reason was, God did not appoint them to be cir∣cumcised. And yet so foolish have some Nations been as to circum∣cise Females without any command from God, and therefore its 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 be∣fore, 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 Ordi∣nances, but some other particular Qualifications; and God's Directi∣on 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 Bap∣tism, 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 un∣der 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 necessa∣ry 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 emi∣nent 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 Catholi∣ca 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 Fair∣ness

of Discourse is ever able to bring Infants under these Qualifica∣tions, or to shew that Baptism may lawfully be administred to Per∣sons of whom we can have no Knowledg, nor Evidence from them∣selves, 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 per∣formed 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 Bap∣tism, 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 rela∣tive Nature of Circumcision, though it was no Absurdity to make In∣fants 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 ab∣surd 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 Abra∣ham'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 'tis 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, espe∣cially 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 spiri∣tual 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 Bap∣tism (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 consi∣dered 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 ap∣pears in the Case of the Pharisees and Lawyers, Luke 7. 29. They re∣jected the Counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized.

Now I deny that Remission of Sins, and Eternal Life, are pro∣pounded to, or in the Case of Infants, as the 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 un∣capable 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 nei∣ther 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 necessari∣ly presuppose, a being taken out of the Tree that is wild by Nature, or out of our degenerate Estate, and planted contrary to that Na∣ture, by a willing resignation of Soul and Body to Christ, in that so∣lemn 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 ca∣pable of any Good; or▪ that the Will of God was wrought by bap∣tizing 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 dif∣ference 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 Cove∣nant 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 In∣fants; so that if this Argument prove any thing, it proves all Infants Church-Members as much as any. Nor, saith he, does Childhood hin∣der 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 so∣lid 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 In∣fants, 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 requi∣red 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 pecu∣liar 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 extend∣ed 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 So∣lemnity, will not please God. We therefore content our selves to commit our Infants to his Mercy and Protection, in the way of hum∣ble 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 no∣thing of it?

Now in this Similitude, the Doctor begs almost every thing in question between us. As, 1. That all that are attainted with Ori∣ginal Sin, must be washed with Water, as a sign that they are clean∣sed 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 Go∣spel-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 Per∣sons? Sure no; for whatsoever was their Case considered in sinful Adam, yet when through Christ Adam was redeemed (that is, vir∣tually▪ 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 Apochry∣phal Story of Infant Baptism among the Jews, before the coming of John Baptist, yet as himself yields, p. 18. it was not of Divine Institu∣tion▪ 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 Pro∣testant) 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 capa∣ble of Circumcision than of Baptism, because it left a Character in their Flesh. But I answer, whatsoever makes any Person capable of Bap∣tism, the revealed Will of God to order it so is the chief; us for Ex∣ample, 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 capa∣ble of Circumcision. So that for Men to insist upon their Conje∣ctures, 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?