Our adversaries in this controversy do pitifully and apparently shuffle here, and invent many strange and unintelligible distinctions to be-cloud the light t)f this famous text. What they are, and how they are baffled, the reader will easily discern from what hath already past betwixt my antagonist and me, in p. 108, &c. of my Vind'icicc Leg-is ct Foederis. It is plain that Abraham is the root; the olive-tree, the visible church ; the sap and fatness of the olive, are church-ordinances and covenant-privileges; the Gentile believ- ers, who are Abraham's seed according to promise, are the ingraft- ed branches standing in the place of the natural branches, and with them, or in like manner as they did, partaking of the root and fatness of the olive-tree, that is, as really and amply enjoying all the immunities, benefits, and privileges of the church and cove- nant (among which the initiating sign was one, and a chief one too) as ever the natural bi'anches that were broken off, that is, the Jewish parents and their children, did or might have done. And to deny this, (as before was noted) is to straiten covenant-privileges in their farther progress.
Thesis 6. Suitable hereunto we find, that no sooner was the Christian church constituted, and the believing Gentiles by faith added to it, but the children of such believing parents are declared to be fcederally holy, 1 Cor. vii. 14. and the unbelieving Jews, who were superstition sly fond of circumcision, and prejudiced against baptism as an injurious innovation, are by the aj^ostle per- suaded to submit themselves to it. Acts ii. 38., 39. assuring them tJiat the same ]3rouiise, viz. / will be a God to thce^ atid to thy seed after thee., is now as effectually sealed to them and their children by baptism, as it was in the former age by circumcision : And that the Gentiles, which are yet afar off, whenever God shall call them.
546 VINPICIARUM VIXDEX.
shall equally enjoy the same privilege, both for themselves and for their children also.
We also find a commission given by Christ to the disciples, Mat. xxviii. 19, 20. To disciple all nat'wns, baptizing them, ^c, from which discipleship, infants ought not to be excluded, Acts xv. 10. Yea, we find, that as at the institution of circumcision, Abraham, the father and master of the family, was first circumcised in his own person, and then his whole household. Gen. xvii. 23, 24. an- swerably. as soon as any person by conversion or public profession of faith became a visible child of Abraham, that person was first baj>. tized, and the whole household with him or her. Acts xvi. 15, 33. It is unreasonable to p»ut us upon the proof, that there were infants in those houses ; it being more than probable that in such frequent baptizing of households belonging to believers, there were some in- fants ; but if there were none, it is enough for us to prove from their foederal holiness, 1 Cor. vii. 14. and the extent of God's promises to them, Acts ii. SS^ 39. if there had been never so many infants in those households, they might and ought to have been baptize,d. How the true sense and scope of the two last mentioned scriptures are maintained and vindicated against Mr. Gary's cor- rupt glosses and interpretations, see my Vindicice Leg-is et Foederis^ p. 90, 91. VVe do not lay the stress of infant-baptism upon such strictures as the baptizings of the household's of believers, or Christ's taking up in his arms, and blessing the little ones that were brought to him. These and many other such things found in the history of Christ, and Acts of the apostles, have their use and service to for- tify that doctrine. But if we can produce no example of any be- liever's infant baptized, the merit of the cause lies not in the mat- ter of fact, but covenant-right For our adversaries themselves, if we go to the matter of fact, will be hard put to it to produce us one instance out of the New Testament of any child of a believing Chris- tian whose baptism was deferred, or bv Christ or his apostles or- dered to be deferred, until he attained the years of maturity, and made a personal profession of faith himself
Thesis 7. The change of the token and seal cf the covenantfrom circumcision to baptism, will by no means iifer the change or diver- sity of the covenants, especially when the latter comes into the place, and serves to the same use and end with the former, as it is manifest baptism doth, from Col. ii. 11, 12. a5 hath been, I think, sufficiently argued against Mr. Gary's glosses and exceptions, p. 100, 101. of my Vimlicia Legis et Foederis. The covenant is still the same co- 'venant of grace, though the external initiating sign be changed. For what is the substantial part of the covenant of grace now, but the same it was to Abraham and his seed before ? Is not this our co- vcnunt of grace, Heb. viii. 10. " I will be to them a God, and they
A POStSCRlPt TO Mk. carV. 547
shall be to me " a ]ienple?" And in what words was Abrabanrs covenant expressed, Gen. xvii. 7. " I will establish my covenant " between me and thee, and thy seed after tliee in their generations *' for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy " seed after thee." This makes Abraham's covenant, scaled to him and his seed, as truly and properly the covenant qfgrace^ as that which baptism now seals to believers and their seed. The rash ig- norance of those that affirm, God may become a people's God in the way of special interest, by virtue of the broken and abolished covenant of works, rather deserves sharp reprehension and sad la- mentation, than a confutation ; which, nevertheless out of respect to my friend Mr. Gary, I have given it in its proper place in this rejoinder.
I hope by this time I have made it evident, that the defenders of infant-baptism, as it is established upon God's covenant with Abraham, Gen. xvii. have not so mistaken their ground, as Mr. Gary hath, by his endeavours to carry that covenant as an Adam's covenant of works, through such a multitude of other errors and absurdities, as he draws along with it in his way of reasoning.
K POSTSCRIPT TO MR. GARY.
M. RESOLVED not to disturb my mind with your passionate pi'o- voking language, at least whilst I was busily employed in search- ing for reason and argument (two scarce commodities) amongst heaps of vain and fulsome words : Nor will I now imitate your folly and rudeness, lest I become an offender, whilst I am to act the part of a reprover. When I read your title, A just and sober Reply, and presently fell in among rude insults, silly evasions, and such inarlilicial discourses as follow in your book, I began to challenge you in my thoughts for matching such bad stuff with so fair and lovely a title: But a second thought quickly corrected the former; for I considered, no man living could justly forbid the marriage be- twixt your book and its title, since there is not the least kindred or relation between them.