Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 14
SECT. XIV. The Arguments of Mr. Stalham, Mr. Brinsley, Mr. Hall, and a nameless Author, from the Covenant for infant-baptism, are examined.
MR. Stalham in the Conference at Terling page 4. argued thus, They who are included in the substance of the Gospel covenant are not to be excluded from the seal of the Covenant. But infants are included in the substance of the Gospel covenant, and therefore not to be excluded from the seal of the Gospel Covenant.
But in this Argument the Conclusion is not of baptism in particular, and so concludes not what was to be concluded, and sith circumcision according to him was a seal of the Gospel covenant, it might be true of it and so granted. Yet the Major if universal is not true, no not of circumcision. For women and infant-males afore the eigth day were excluded from the seal of the Covenant, though they were included in the substance of the Gospel covenant, s his phrasiology is, nor hath he a word in all the conference to prove his Maor; and for his Minor, setting aside his phrasifying, if this be his meaning; All the infants of believers, or the infants of believers, in as much as they are their children, have the substance of the Gospel-Covenant, that is the promise, Gen. 17.7. as it is a Gospel promise made to them, it is false and contrary to Romans 9.7, 8. nor is there any thing in the conference there brought that proves it.
Mr. John Brinsley of Paedobapt. page 11.32. makes this his first and grand argument for the baptism of infants.
If children of believing parents be within the Covenant, then they may be baptized, But they are within the covenant, Ergo.
The Major he takes as granted, though I deny it as being most false.
The Minor he would prove, 1. From Acts 2.39. where he makes the promise to be of remission of sins, but that belongs only to the penitent believer, and therefore proves not that it belongs to the infant of a believer, without repentance and faith.
2. In that they were in the old Testament in the Covenant. But he himself page 33. saith, All infants of believing parents are in the outward visible covenant. As for the covenant it self, to speak properly and strictly, it depends upon Gods election. Neither doth it belong to any but those who are elected. What juggling then doth he use to tell us that they are in covenant, and that the promise belongeth to them without any difference of elect and non-elect; and p. 11. he saith, To whomsoever the covenant it self belongeth, to them belongeth this seal of the Covenant. And so his Minor must be, but the Covenant it self belongs to infants of believers: and yet to say, the covenant it self, doth not belong to any but those who are elected, but the outward visible covenant to all. But what this outward visible covenant is, he tells us not. I cannot understand any other than Circumcision, for that was the outward visible covenant in the old Testament, and then his Minor asserts infants are in Covenant as they were in covenant in the old Testament, that is, they are to be circumcised. Besides what interfering is there in Paedobaptists? Mr. Stalham saith, they are included in the substance of the Gospel covenant, Mr▪ Brinsley saith, the Covenant it self (and then surely not the substance of the Gospel covenant) belongs not to any but elect, but the outward visible covenant, that is a new nothing, belongs to them all. And thus people are cheated by these Doctors.
3. In that they are federally holy, 1. Cor. 7.14. but of it enough already in the first part of the Review. So much for Mr. Brinsley, one of Mr. Halls Champions.
Let us see what Master Thomas Hall himself in his Font Guarded page 9. argues;
To whomsoever the covenant it self belongs, to them also belongs the seal of the Covenant; But the covenant belongs to Believers and their children: Ergo the seal of the Covenant belongs to them also.
Answ. If Mr. Hall mean in the Minor, that the Covenant it self belongs to all the children of believers, then he contradicts Mr. Brinsley (out of whom he saith in his Epistle to him and Mr. Blake he gathered his weeds) who saith, it belongs only to the Elect, and if he mean it only of the elect, then he can conclude onelyonly concerning the elect; if he mean the outward visible covenant, than it is either circumcision, and then he asserts circumcision to belong still to infants; or he means baptism, and then his Minor and Conclusion is all one, and his Argument a meer inept tautology, unless he mean some other new nothing. And indeed this Argument of Mr. Hall is like the rest concluding of the seal of the covenant indefinitely when he should conclude of baptism, using in the Major and Minor the term [the covenant belongs] but not explaining what covenant, to whom or how it belongs, using children for infants, so that there is nothing but equivocation in his Speeches.
And for his propositions in the sense they are commonly taken, neither Major nor Minor is true, nor is the Major proved though he say it is clear. For though he that hath right to a temporal inheritance hath right likewise to the seal… and deeds that do convey that inheritance to him, yet in Law it is not necessary that there be a sealing to each inheritour by himself. A man may have a deed sealed for him to another as a Feoffee in trust, as is usual in the Case of young Orphans, to one man is conveyed the estate of many. So that besides the frivolousness of this conceit to make the term [seal of the Covenant] of the Essence of baptism, though it be but a metaphor not found in Scripture, and thence, and the use in civil Negotiations, to make a rule for the service of God; yet were this kind of proof allowed, the Major is not true, that to whomsoever the covenant it self belongs to them als… belongs the seal of the Covenant, meaning it in their own persons. For a Feoffee in trust may have the Estates of many conveyed to him, and so the parent by this reason may be baptized for the child. And for the other reason it is also insufficient, Abrahams posterity being in covenant receive the sign of Circumcision the seal of the Covenant, for the seal of the Covenant is as large as the Covenant it self. But neither is it true that the Seal of the Covenant in Abrahams posterity was as large as the Covenant it self, the women being in Covenant and yet not to be sealed in their own persons: nor if it were true doth it prove the Proposition. For if it were so by vertue of a particular command, then it follows not that if it were so then it must be so now without the like command. Nor is the Minor proved from Gen. 17.7, 10, 11. Acts 2.38, 39. For in the one is affirmed only that God will be a God to Abraham and his seed, which is not all one with every believer and his seed; in the other, whatever the promise be and howsoever Peter meant it was to them and their children, yet it is not said to you believers, and to your children as the children of believers, for then he had spoken false they being not then believers, and therefore it proves not that the covenant belongs to Believers and their children. This is enough to shew the vanity of Mr. Halls disputing. For the rest of his Book, he being a gatherer out of others, as he saith, and in most things he should argue, referring us as an Index to their writings, I think it best to rid my hands of him, and to deal with his Authors he points to.
There were sent to me by some friends these two following Arguments in manuscript, as judged by some unanswerable.
The first thus. What privilege the proselyted Gentiles had who joined themselves to Abrahams Family in reference to their infant seed in the Ordinance of Circumcision, the like privilege the Christian Gentiles in the New Testament have in reference to their infant-seed in the Ordinance of baptism. But the Proselyted Gentiles had this privilege, that when they were circumcised their children were circumcised in their infancy. Ergo the Christian Gentiles have the same privilege that their children should be baptized in their infancy.
To which I answer, letting pass the exception to the quaternity of terms, and conceiving [what privilege] is put for [whatsoever privilege universally] without which the argument would be all of particulars, and so the Syllogism naught; I deny the Major, and my reason is, because were it a privilege or not, what was done in the use of circumcision by vertue of an express command, is not to be done in the use of baptism, without the like command. If it were, the Apostles did ill in not baptizing a whole Nation old and young together, and we do ill in keeping away the young ones of believers baptized from the Lords supper, when being circumcised they were not debarred from the Passover. The other argument is in these words.
To whom the outward visible covenant of God manifestly belongs, to them in the daies of the Gospel, the initiating ordinance, viz. baptism belongs. But unto the infant-seed of believers the external visible Covenant of God doth manifestly belong. Ergo to the infant-seed of believers in the daies of the Gospel the initiating Ordinance, viz. baptism belongs.
To which I answer, what outward visible covenant he means, except baptism, I know not. If he speak as Mr. M. speaks, and some others, I have shewed in my Apology sect. 10. that by it is meant the outward administration of the Covenant, which is no other now but baptism. Now if this be the meaning of the Author, the Major contains a trifling tautology, in effect this, They that are to be baptized, are to be baptized, and the Minor and Conclusion being all one, the Minor is to be denied, and the argument hissed out of Schools as a ridiculous foppery.